Home > Analog Workflow Forums (100% Analog/Traditional) > Equipment > Instant Cameras, Backs and Film > Image transfers with Fuji instant films?

Image transfers with Fuji instant films?

  1. Hey guys and gals,

    Since Polaroid is no longer going to produce their instant films, I was wondering if some of you have experimented with the Fuji instant films. It just so happens that I began gaining some interest in image transfers (not emulsion lifts) after Polaroids announcement!

    I'm not planning on using the Daylab copy equipment. I just plan on making an exposure with my Land camera, let it develop for 15-25 seconds, and then smacking down the emulsion on a piece of water color paper.

    Has anyone tried with with the Fuji instant films? How were you results? Any tips for a noobie? Thanks!

    Jason
     
  2. Good link. So the key bits seem to be--

    Transfer to dry paper.

    Peel in the dark (a very small amount of light for positioning the neg is okay), but the lights can come on once the neg is on the receptor sheet.

    Roll hard with a brayer for 30-60 sec. before peeling.

    He describes using a small night light at the other end of the room for positioning the neg, but I'd probably experiment a bit with the various safelights I have to see if one works better than others.

    As I recall, I tried it a couple of times and indeed, all I got was a green blob of not much, because I peeled in the light.
     
  3. Maybe that's the key. It's counterintuitive based upon working with Polaroid transfers.
     
  4. Any acid content in the paper will slow down any transfer. The paper should be either neutral or alkaline. Also, aluminum sizing agents will stop the transfer cold. This is true of Polaroid or Fuji products.

    PE
     
  5. Can you translate into English please :D

    What's a "brayer"

    Ian
     
  6. A brayer is just a roller. Any crafts store has one for you. It's like a rolling pin with a smooth but firm rubber surface.

    I never got good image transfers with the Fuji stuff. Even when I did it in the dark, with or without warmth or moisture. Maybe I didn't brayer it firmly enough. I did easily get remarkably (to me) sturdy emulsion transfers by simply boiling the print. I mean, you can really tug on and deform the fp100c emulsion and dry it and glue it down. Fun for the whole family.
     
  7. You know David, that was the same result I was getting. I never thought to try Fuji Instant in the dark. Sounds weird, but I am interested in giving it a try. I have recently read about boiling Fuji Instant prints, though I have not tried it yet.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography
     
  8. That's what we called them in elementary school.
     
  9. what did you use to glue the lifts down? and, did the "glue" show?

    i found the film lifted easily but wouldn't stick to anything.
     
  10. Wow, I didn't expect so many responses so soon!

    Why would light affect the image transfer? I've peeled my Polaroids (667 and 669) in broad daylight without any issues. Is there a difference in the chemistry? If I start using Fuji's instant films with my Land camera, will have to peel each "polaroid" in the dark as well?

    Thanks,

    Jason

    Edit: BTW, do most people make image transfers from 35mm to the instant film? I'm planning on doing this directly from my Land camera, but it seems like most people are first making the image with a 35mm negative onto an instant film, THEN making the image transfer.

    Also, has anyone tried an image transfer with 667 film? I just bought a few packs so I'd like to try it, but I don't want to waste too many polaroids by experimenting :X
     
  11. No, you don't have to peel normal Fuji instant prints in the dark, because normally you would peel them after they are developed. Apparently, you have to peel them in the dark for transfers, because the development is not yet completed.

    I just shoot transfers with a Polaroid back on a medium or large format camera. I don't use a Daylab, but I know gr82bart uses a Daylab for making transfers from slides.
     
  12. I've always made transfers from in-camera shots until now. Just got a PolaPrinter which transfers 35mm slides to 8x10 and I'm going to try it today.

    There must something different about Fuji's process that makes their film far more light sensitive during development than Polaroid's is/was. This could be a real breakthrough to sustain the art form if it works.
     
  13. I can see why I would want to make transfers from my slides, but I really can't justify spending the money on the hardware (especially now because polaroids are becoming extinct!).

    I'll have to try this with Fuji's instant film. If it turns out well, I just may invest in one of the Daylab systems.
     
  14. i have used both daylabs of all sizes and in camera shots as well. just depends .
     
  15. I'm sure the Daylab systems will turn up by the dozen on e-bay for pennies.

    I'm glad to hear that the the Fuji material can be worked with.
     
  16. If you have a 4x5" camera and a packfilm back for the Fuji instant material, you could dupe slides with it with a copy stand or a tripod with a lateral arm and a light box.
     
  17. Good idea Renato! I'll be checking eBay from time to time, but once word gets out that the Fuji instant films work, people may not want to part with their Daylab systems :smile:

    Jason
     
  18. OK, I posted the link in reply #2 and just so I can prove it does work, I did it.

    And not only did it work, it worked in spite of my bending some of the rules he set forth.

    I just grabbed a piece of paper of the scrap pile, I know it is hot pressed and I'm pretty sure it was Canson but right now I couldn't tell you which. And I'm quite sure it has at least some sizing. Second I didn't use a hard rubber brayer. The one I had on had I would call medium soft. The pack film camera on had with Fuji FP100C in it was my "Frankenroid" pinhole so I just set some LF lenses on the table and guessed at an exposure, turns out 10 minutes was probably to little.

    Quickly, the light/dark banding that would otherwise be considered a "bad pull" isn't. It is the water color paper rippling a bit and my craptacular scanner lid wasn't heavy enough. Also, the tonal range is better in the print than the scan (same ole' song and dance, I know). However, the large "snowstorm" in the middle isn't an artifact. It is bits of emulsion that didn't transfer. Brayer only run in one direction and possibly the work surface wasn't smooth enough. Or brayer too soft, too little pressure, too fast peel, you know the drill with transfers. Any number of things can go wrong.

    But son of a gun if it didn't work!
     
  19. Hi Ann. Sorry, just saw your question.

    What I do with the glue is just use it to fix the very extreme corners of the emulsion. Now, the emulsion was previously sprayed with this krylon UV stuff which kinda hardens / protects it a bit. As it's drying I push the corners down a bit. Then I just tack the edges to paper with ordinary glue, I forget what kind, but something straight from a crafts store.

    Ann, as I recall from previous discussion on this, you are interested in gluing it flat. There I am afraid that I can't help you. My own interest is quite different: I like that the emulsions sits some distance off the paper and thus gives a 3D / shadow effect. I don't want bubbles at all, what I want is for it too sit off from the paper and only contact it in a few spots. My feeling is that this is something I can do with the Fuji stuff because the emulsion is somewhat more durable, whereas the lifted polaroid emulsions were too fragile.

    See, that was the issue that I never got past; I will be interested if you find the solution. I simply never solved that problem. I tried all different kinds of brayering (hard or soft, long or short), different papers, more or less moisture on the paper or heat on the fp100c. Please... if you solve it, share your trick!

    Renato, I have been enlarging 35mm slides to 4x5" fp100c, I like it a lot.
     
  20. i am not interested in gluing it flat, or rather i would rather not have to do that, but i would like it to dry flat as does the polariod. can't have everything, so it seems these days.

    the best thing will be to go buy a couple of packs of fuji and see what i can come with.


    rw,
    did you peel the film in light, or dimmed conditons.
     
  21. Okay, maybe I can help you after all.

    I placed the wet lifted emulsion on glossy inkjet paper. I let it dry on that. It dries quite flat and then lifts off well after it's dry. Not as flat as pola but close.

    Now, after lifting it off, I felt the creative need to deform the emulsion. Ripple it and stretch it and so forth. You may not feel that need!
     
  22. Hello all:
    Peter Balazsy Here: www.pbpix.com

    I'm the fellow who pioneered and developed the Fuji FP100c image-transfer technique back in 1992.

    I'm glad to see that you are all anxious to try it and glad to get the technique that I've been releasing and posting lately on Flickr.com and elsewhere.

    Here are a few of my Fuji transfers to show you results and variations.

    Feel free to contact me if you need any help.
    Good luck.

    Peter G. Balazsy
    Peter@pbpix.com
    www.pbpix.com
    973-790-7960
     
  23. ok, where in this site do you discuss how you got the "lifts" to stick to paper?

    I am not interested in doing transfer, just the lift. The film lifts easily but when it dries, it just floats away from the surface.
     
  24. I'm actually going to use Fuji and my Daylab for this round of the postcard exchange. Let's see how it goes ....

    The "In the dark" thing is the real big change from the Polaroid transfer process. Means I have to move from the kitchen to the bathroom!

    Regards, Art.
     
  25. I would just start a new thread Ann. I think Winger (Bethe) has tried this before. I did too and I used superglue. Works fine.

    Regards, Art.
     
  26. All my transfers are done from slides using a Daylab.

    Regards, Art.
     
  27. Hi all:
    Peter Balazsy here again.
    www.pbpix.com (973-790-7960) Peter@pbpix.com

    I was in touch today with Mr. Steve Pfaff the President of Daylab
    ( www.daylab.com) and he asked me if I had any "emulsion-lift" success using the new Fuji FP-100c film because many customers have been asking him about it and worried about if it can be accomplished or not.
    So I tried a test tonight and met with relative success right away.
    I feel that the effect is not exactly the same as with the Polaroid emulsion because the layer is thicker and stiffer and not as delicate or as diaphanous.
    It seemed to stick well to the glass but the dry edges where wrinkled seemed to curl up.

    I guess that one way to try to address this ....when using glass ....is to mount the image against a nice color backing paper with the glass reversed so the right side of the image faces down against the backing paper and back of the image shows up through the glass and then the effect of the manipulated, wrinkling is still evident but the entire work is protected behind the glass.

    Another idea is to place another glass flat against the front side of the image to hold entire area flat.

    If you are not wrinkling for artistic feel perhaps a spray adhesive might work.. I'm sure someone will invent a better technique as soon as we all experiment a little more.
    Here's tonight's results:
     
  28. My Polaroid stock is dwindling, so this is encouraging. My thanks to everyone taking the time to experiment with the Fuji material and for sharing the results on forums like this one.
     
  29. so peter, you are placing the lift against glass, have you tried other surfaces?
     
  30. No Ann I have not tried any other surfaces yet. That one I posted was just my 1st test experiment with Fuji lifts last night.

    I noticed however that when I boiled it and slid off the "emulsion" there was a goopy clear gelatinous mass left on the surface of the original backing paper.

    ( I think Polaroid used clay)
    ...but this stuff swelled up from the hot water like clear Cream of Wheat ....lol
    I guess it's a bonding agent...used to adhere the top plastic-emulsion-layer to the backing paper.
    So whatever that stuff is ( maybe like Knox Gelatin?) it could be used to help the lifted emulsion stick to the new receptor?... maybe?

    I imagine if the lifted emulsion was placed smooth and flat onto a new receptor.. and kept smooth... then maybe a spray adhesive would work well... But since most artists like to wrinkle the "lift"... one needs to have a nice slippery receptor surface on which to slide the lift around a bit.
    So in that case maybe a wetter goopier adherent would work better. So maybe something like Knox Gelatin?
    So maybe if we can find a wet bonding agent that dries shortly after wrinkling the "lift" would work.

    I've never used Knox Gelatin per se.. but maybe it ...or something like that would be a good inert bonding agent.

    Peter G. Balazsy
    Peter@pbpix.com
    www.pbpix.com
    973-790-7960
     
  31. Hi Folks:

    I got word today from some kind folks at Polaroid that things in the film manufacturing facility in Mass. are drawing to an END real soon up there.

    They make the larger peel-apart sizes up there in that plant but the 3x4" type 669 film is made in the Mexico plant and that too is closing soon.
    The last batches of 8x10" type 809 are finished- (done already!!) with with Dec-2008 expiration dates (I think).
    The large 20x24" stuff will expire in late 2009.
    The last batch of 3x4" type 669 film being made now will have the March 2009 expiration date. That's it... no more gone forever!

    I asked if there was any possible chance or even a warm rumor that another film maker may be in negotiations to take over the manufacturing of this film.. and I was told that ... (it is quite doubtful.. maybe that could happen.).. but it looks very dim because everything is already getting ready to shut down and there's no time for it to happen.

    Peter G. Balazsy
    Peter@pbpix.com
    www.pbpix.com
    973-790-7960
     
  32. For those making transfers, the information in this post is rather technical but might be of aid here.

    Firstoff, the dyes must remain in an alkaline environment to be mobile and diffuse.

    Second, the pod is very alkaline, and the image production must be shut down to prevent imaging problems. Therefore, the reciever (the white sheet to which the image is transferred) must contain a mordant which is a chemical that attracts or binds to the dye. It also must contain a mild acid to adjust the pH after the transfer takes place.

    The donor sheet, where the image comes from and which contains the silver halide, must stay alkaline long enough to release an image worth of dye and no more or less. It must then shut down quickly. So, there is usually a timing layer and an acid layer that work together to allow this to happen. Usually, the timing layer is some sort of polymer that breaks down in alkali, and the acid layer is a polymeric acid. These may be coated alone or in gelatin if they are compatible.

    Once development is complete, the integrity of the donor is unimportant and it can fall apart, but the reciever sheet has more mechanical strength to resist destructive forces. Now, IDK how Fuji and Polaroid construct their peel apart materials, but there are so many ways to do the same thing it would be unprofitable to try and guess. The thing to remember that the image keeps forming and moving to the white sheet with alkali and stops when acid is applied or acid is released.

    I hope this information is of use.

    PE
     
  33. thanks ron,

    when i tested the fuji for lifts, it easily came apart from the backing ; which was terrific.

    i placed it on a piece of damp watercolor paper and all appeared fine until the next day when i went back to the lab and the emulsion was just lying there no longer attached to the paper. It is very strong and i kept it around to show my students what the emulsion without the backing looked like.

    I need to get busy and test some various methods of "glueing" it down, but right now i haven't had the time as my class schedule is pretty full, but i haven't forgotten about testing in the near future.
     
  34. sadly i had not thought of the 20x24 users out there.
    however i think this thread is very encouraging and i think even though a door is closing another is opening,i am sure we would all like polaroid to be around forever but sometimes forced changes bring about new or even better things.we will miss polaroid but i will buy the heck out of fuji just so they keep making it.
     
  35. Ann;

    You can glue it down by coating the paper with 10% gelatin in water with surfactant and then putting the transfer on top of the dried gelatin layer. This will form a good bond. Gentle pressing or rolling will probably help, but be careful.

    For an even stronger bond, use either some chrome alum or glyoxal in water (10% solution) at the rate of 5 ml / 100 ml of 10% gelatin. That should really glue things down. :D

    PE
     
  36. thanks again, ron. i will get some gelatin and some surfactant. I am going to assume you mean just Knox pure gelatin? Do you have any ideas where to find the surfactant?

    i may have some chrome alum at the lab and will check went i go in next week as that may be easier than hunting around for the surfactant.
     
  37. Will Foto-Flo work as the surfactant?
     
  38. Ann, you could use Photo Flo at 0.5 ml / 100 ml of gelatin 10%, or you could use any of the 'Tween' products. The Formulary sells them.

    Using a brush, you may not need the surfactant, but it depends on the paper. You can reduce gel content to as low as 5% without harm, but reduce the hardener and surfactant as well.

    IDK about Knox gelatin. Read the label and if it has other ingredients in it, don't use it.

    PE
     
  39. photo flo crossed my mind. and i have that and tween so that is not an issue.

    i am going to assume i would coat the paper as one would any hand coating process, either with a brush or a glass rod.

    when i go grocery shopping i will check out teh Knox gelatin.
     
  40. 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
     
  41. never crossed my mind, but it is something else to test.

    what is matte medium?
     
  42. 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
     
  43. 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"
     
  44. 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.
     
  45. 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.
     
  46. 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!

    [​IMG]

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

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

    -Sino.
     
  48. 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:
    [​IMG]
     
  49. 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.
     
  50. DAvid Goldfarb said:

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

    You're welcome. I have no reservations sharing. I can't really "give" anything too much away I feel.. because my "art" and it's value is in the image.. not necessarily the technique...y'know?

    I have always felt that: "An electric saw does not a carpenter make!"...lol
    Right?
     
  51. Thanks for the info Peter.

    One question for clarification: Are you doing your Fuji transfers in the dark, and if so, any thoughts on safelights or dim room lighting?
     
  52. I work in a dimly lit room:
    As far as a safe-light..I really can't say specifically because I haven't tried a "safe light" per se.

    All I ever do is simply make sure that no bright direct light strikes the film after peel-apart ....during those few seconds it takes to place the negative face down onto the receptor sheet.

    I leave a lamp on in the adjoining room and a small light on the other side of the room. Just enough light to see what I'm doing.

    First I place my receptor sheet on the glass surface in front of me on my work table.

    I have a desk lamp positioned right above my work area and I switch it off just before I pull the white tab through the rollers.

    In the darkened room..I just allow my eyes to adjust to the dim light and check that I can see the sweep second hand clearly on my watch and that I can see properly to position the negative on the receptor sheet.

    Then I pull the white tab and then the black tab and glance at my watch to start the 20 second timing.
    When 15 seconds goes by I then quickly get prepared to position the negative over the receptor sheet. At the 20 second point I quickly pull off the un-used positive and place the negative face down on the receptor sheet and smooth it flat quickly with my free hand to insure that it is down flat and no light will leak under it..

    ... At that point I can NOW turn the light on over my work area and procede to roll with the brayer roller.

    My desk lamp is positioned right above ( 6-10 inches or so) the film to help keep it at a good temperature for developing properly.

    It's really all rather easy.
    No big deal ...the light only really needs to be out for only a few moments during the time the peel-apart occurs.
    .... just before placing the film down on the receptor paper.. that's all.

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

    I thought I'd try to pass along some more interesting helpful hints about making creative/artistic Fuji transfers.

    I have usually recommended using Arches-88 as a receptor paper because it does give you good repeatable results.. (albeit on the yellow side it seems)

    Today I did a dry transfer onto RIVES "Heavyweight" watercolor & printmaking paper. http://www.pearlpaint.com/shop~parentID~6893~categoryID~6889.htm

    The transferred image was a bit pale and thin or washed out.... but I contribute that (lack of density) mostly to the fact that I was copying from a color ink-jet print instead of copying from a good, rich-colored, regular silver halide color photo.

    Anyway my point here today is that I decided to experiment with water-color painting over the transferred image (much as I used to be able to do with Polaroid transfers) using just some simple 99 cent kid's watercolors and it seemed to work well.

    In my experiments with watercolors in the past ( using Arches88) I couldn't use watercolors because just the clear water itself seemed to effect or dilute the transfer and even if it didn't effect the transfer colors the watercolors would swell-up the paper. Because the paper is acting like a sponge and does not allow one to brush on in any reasonable way.

    However, using the Rieves "Heavyweight" paper today, it took the watercolors quite well.

    I was afraid the water might dilute the FUJI dyes ...but that didn't seem to be the case.

    I didn't want to "paint" over the image so much as I just wanted to sort-of tint the image using very thin watery "translucent-like" colors.

    My goal was to allow much of the definition of the photo to still appear through the watercolors and NOT to have the opaqueness of the watercolor paint obliterate most or any serious amount of the detail beneath it.


    [​IMG]
     
  54. I blatantly just did a dry transfer of a "used" fuji whatever negative (after I peeled it from the original at the correct time) in the light onto my english test. It has color shift, probably due to the time difference, possibly due to fogging, I doubt it though. I took the negative and placed it down and rubbed it with my knuckles for about 20 seconds to reveal an image. I was completely unaware it was that easy. I will be having much more fun in the future :-D.
     
  55. scratches on Fuji transfers?

    I could use some advice. I purchased a DayLab pro a few months ago and have now used it twice. I'm finally getting the hang of working with Fuji film in the semi-darkness, and haven't had any problems with solarization yet, but I am having emulsion problems. Some of my transfers come out with long scratch-like marks on them. They are always the same direction, which makes me worried that something is wrong with the roller. For instance, if the image is horizontal, the scratches would be running from the top to bottom (IE vertically) within the image

    I'm always quite careful when I pull out the film, so it's very hard to try to identify what could be making this happen. It's about 50-50, which is maddening, as it really wastes the film. I'm using Arches 88 paper.
    Any thoughts? Thank you!!!!
     
  56. You might want to examine the metal rollers in the film back holder.
    Try cleaning them thoroughly with a small brush and some warm water.

    Good luck,
    Peter Balazsy