Image transfers with Fuji instant films?

[HerrBremerhaven]

Why not just use wax medium, encaustic, or matte medium to adhere the emulsion to the paper? I have used matte medium for adhering prints to some of my oil paintings, and it works great. This goes on somewhat white looking, but dries clear.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[ann]

never crossed my mind, but it is something else to test.

what is matte medium?

[HerrBremerhaven]

Matte Medium is an Acrylic Polymer for use with Acrylic paints. If you use it individually, you can get a clear finish. The other way to use it is to mix it in varying amounts with Acrylic paint, which will change the natural gloss result of Acrylics to a more matte finish. The brand I use is called Speedball, which is made by Hunt, and usually available at artist's supply stores like Dick Blick. Liquitex is another brand that sells a similar product.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Pbpix]

Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again.
Have any of you received the Polaroid petition thing in Email yet? I did the other day.

Today... I received an E-mail today from Steve Pfaff the president of Daylab concerning the Polaroid film and who if anyone would have a desire to take it over:
I'll pass this on to you all for gen update info.
Here's the context of his letter to me:

"Peter,
Like any company, I do not think Fuji is prepared to do anything new
unless it is financially viable for them. They can do nothing for intregral
films such as 600 and Sx-70 since they currently manufacture their own
intregral film that is not compatible with Polaroid.


With peel apart film it is another story. Fuji currently makes 3x4 and 4x5
pack films that can be used in place of Polaroid. There is a small rumor
that they might make 4x5 sheet film, 8x10 sheet film and 20x24 sheet film.
These rumors are just rumors from third parties, but it might be possible.
This would not be a big investment on the part of Fuji, but it would be
based on Fuji film, not Polaroid.


Fuji could create a more artistic film similar to 669. They would have to
change the ISO and the backing. Again, they will only do this if the
numbers are there. I do not think Fuji has to license anything since it
would only be a change to their existing product.


When I have suggested this to Fuji their response is how big is the
market? It would be very persuasive if we could somehow have as many users
as possible project how much 669 they will purchase per year. If this
turns out to be as big a number as I think it is, it could make the
difference in convincing Fuji.


Give it some thought on how we could come up with these projections.


Best Regards,


Steve"

[Alex Hawley]

Thanks for the interesting update Peter. I have not received nor read anything about the Polaroid petition, save knowing that it exists. I'm by nature very skeptical of those things having any positive effect. However, if the numbers are up in the several thousand range, and if those numbers would provide some sort of evidence as to the market potential, I may be willing to sign it. But, even given several thousand signatures, I highly doubt that would represent a sufficient market for a film company to consider as being viable.

[davidamosphotography]

Yes the Fuji stuff is really sucky for image lifts. Polaroid rocks with it's gel like material. But sadly Polaroid are no longer producing film as we know.

[Pbpix]

Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again...
www.pbpix.com
http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fu/fuji_transfer.htm

Today I was testing various receptor papers.

GOOD NEWS testing..

I tried a DRY Fuji transfer onto Arches 90# hot press paper and only got a big green-black blotch as expected.

.. however when I tried a dry transfer onto Reives BFK (white) the image was fine as long as I used rather heavy rolling pressure.

I also tried wetting agents too and discovered that Witch Hazel (TM Dickinsons) for some reason...seems to be a great agent allowing successful transfers to almost any paper I tried!!

So I tried the Arches 90# hot press again ...but this time I dampened it with Witch Hazel and the transfer came out just fine!

I still feel that the Arches 88 dry transfers are about the best I can get although I also find that Border & Riley's #234-Paris paper is very good too.

I tried BFK both wet with witch hazel and dry too and that works good either way.
My wet tests with Stone Henge were fine too... but my wet test with Fabriano and Lanaquarelle seemed a bit muddy.

I tried some rubbing alcohol too but that didn't work for me.

I have no clue about why Witch Hazel does the trick so nicely but at least it DOES work.. not only to help in emulsion to paper contact... but it seems to eliminate whatever chemical it is in some papers that causes that big green-black blotch. ( water will cause it too).. but I've never tried distilled water.

I'm sure it has something to do with PH or the like... but whatever I am.. I am certainly no chemist...lol

Wouldn't it be great to get some direct feed back assistance from the chemical lab guys at Fuji who actually make this stuff and know what's going on?
That would sure help to eliminate all this "poke and hope" experimentation!

All my tests today were done using a new Daylab Copy System Pro
http://daylab.com/
Flat image copier.
My exposure settings were at +4 and I either used NO color filters or I used a Cyan+magenta filter if there was too much yellow.

I should also note here for those who notice that my images seem contrasty...lol
....that these flat 4x6" color prints that I was making transfers from ...are extremely contrasty to start with .....because these color prints are NOT the original images but in fact they themselves are copies of my actual original 35mm color transparencies that I duped to color negative film and had these prints made from those negs...lol

So by the very nature of all that duping ... especially in non-lab conditions causes dark contrasty prints.


Anyway... here are the results of all my tests... ENJOY and learn.
.. Then get out there and EXPERIMENT!



Peter G. Balazsy
www.pbpix.com
http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fu/fuji_transfer.htm

[Sino]

Peter,

I actually love the contrast of the prints, it suits the transfers nicely. Thanks for sharing all the info.

-Sino.

[Pbpix]

Hi All :
Peter Balazsy here again:
http://www.pbpix.com
http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fu/fuji_transfer.htm

Experiment - experiment

I tried more DRY transfers tonight onto both Arches 88 as usual but comparing it as well to Lanaquarelle hot press paper.

I still prefer the Arches 88... however I did get pretty good results with Lana paper too.... but I used a hard rubber Brayer with very hard rolling pressure. The extra pressure seems to be needed to assure that the emulsion will get down into the "surface texture" or "tooth".

Wet transfers usually help eliminate that problem however I noticed that even using Witch Hazel as a wetting agent it seems to darken the colors a tad with a slightly muddier look. This is why I wanted to test DRY transfers on these other papers.

I also decided to try a few other little techniques.

I used Krylon matte finish spay on a piece of Lana paper... and while it was still damp .... I transferred onto it.

The result was quite good and the emulsion seemed to get down into the tooth better because the paper was softer and wetter.
I also sprayed the Krylon matte finish over the transfer later and it didn't really improve or change anything to speak of.

So I decided that simply VERY hard pressure with a hard rubber roller on Lanaquarelle paper works well ....as long as you really press hard.

I also tried to over-coat all my test images tonight with a semi-gloss spray Lacquer.

I used DEFT brand Clear Wood Finish Semi-Gloss spray. It dries in a couple of minuets to a nice hard finish where the emulsion is.

This DEFT brand spray lacquer is available in most hardware stores or wherever paint is sold.
But ....I guess any other brand will do.

I really liked the creamy looking wax-like feel to the image area after the Lacquer dries. It really gives it a special "extra" feeling.

The edges around my images are from colored pencil or watercolors or both.

Here's the test images:

[David A. Goldfarb]

Originally Posted by Pbpix

I have no clue about why Witch Hazel does the trick so nicely but at least it DOES work.. not only to help in emulsion to paper contact... but it seems to eliminate whatever chemical it is in some papers that causes that big green-black blotch. ( water will cause it too).. but I've never tried distilled water.

Witch hazel is the active ingredient in most over the counter preparations for the other kind of 'roids, so there may be a natural affinity there.

That is curious. I'm wondering if the astringent effect of the witch hazel causes the gelatin in the emulsion to "grab" the fibers in the paper and makes it stick better. The pH of witch hazel is about 3.0-5.0, so that is probably relevant as well.

Thanks for sharing your results. Not everyone is so generous with this sort of information.