Keep Paddling (the river keeps moving)

working through frustration, to emerge on the other side...

The photopolymer graveur process has become frustrating. I don't know whether I've become more demanding, with a more finely tuned eye for detail, or I'm just hitting some sort of sophomore jinx with a new process. Perhaps some things are not working right this week. I'm encouraged by some of things I've learned while making mistakes, but frustrated that the final result is not right. The photopolymer graveur process is still new to me, but screen printing is not. I've made three attempts at one image with a screen today, with poor results.

I have three options.
1. Should I give up completely?
2. Should I take a long break and come back to the problems later?
3. Should I keep pushing forward, finding a way to turn anger and frustration into determintation?

I am a fan of option #3. It is one that I naturally follow, and a belief that my experience on whitewater (and other outdoor activities) has reinforced. The river will not stop moving. I will make mistakes along the way, but I need to forget them immediately after they happen and keep moving forward.



I'm inspired by some of the students in my studio classes. Their frustrated learning curve is palpable, particularly when I hear them let out a big sigh, drop their shoulders, and look away from their drawing. What has encouraged me so much, lately, is the frequency with which the return to their work, trusting the process of looking/drawing/looking/drawing/etc. Their faith in the process, and belief that they will make progress, moves me forward in my own work, and give me faith that I, too, will make progress.

Beginners mind...
_______________________________________________________________________
update (Oct. 15)

made some progress with the photo gravure



solved the contact problem, mostly...
I admit that I was not as clean as I should have been, so the three pieces of dust tented the transparency enough to lighten up the right side, BUT everything else is looking pretty good, so at least the work flow is good now.

downside is that I still can't make a screen for anything....
I've done so many of these that I can't figure out what I am doing wrong.
It will wait for the weekend. I need a break for now.

_________________________________________________________________________

update #3:
I have not liked the overall image, and did not trust how much information would be lost with the gravure process, so I decided to do alot of burning and dodging in photoshop. This was all done while clicking the preview filter on and off to predict results.
After a while I decided, since nothing was working perfectly and this was becoming an experimental piece anyway, to push the burn and dodge to extremes, betting on anything above 80% and below 20% blowing out to pure black or white.


My guesses were about half correct. I pushed it a bit too far, and the image is awkward. But, the extreme example is a good way to learn, and I will keep this one for future reference.
________________________________________________________________________

update #4:
This is a good image. Adjustments in Photoshop improved the image. I am learning how the preview curve actually relates to the final product. The transparency/positive was good. The only problem with this plate was a lack of good contact in the lower right corner. I'll clean the glass on the exposure unit and the print frame before plate #5.


_________________________________________________________________________

update #5:
This is the final image.
Contact with the frame was good.
I dried the transparency with a hair dryer to make sure it did not contain any moisture.
I had taken the advice of a friend and sprayed the back of my positive/transparency with matte medium to eliminate Newton's Rings. The same person discovered why baby powder was useful in this process. Brush it on the plate, then brush it off. The super thin residual film of talc will create just enough space for gas and water vapor to escape during exposure. Talc is fine enough to not act like dust and create exposure issues. I imagine that using baby powder would make my results even more predictable.



I will edition this plate.
The next step is to figure out which tone paper, and what color ink I will use for the edition.
_________________________________________________________________________

Here are the plates in order, for easier comparison.











http://artandwater.blogspot.com/2010/06/photopolymer-graveur-curves-preview-in.html

http://artandwater.blogspot.com/2010/04/solarplate-etching.html

http://artandwater.blogspot.com/2010/04/photo-polymer-gravure.html

http://artandwater.blogspot.com/2010/05/plate-decisions-and-editioning.html

http://artandwater.blogspot.com/2010/05/photopolymer-aquatint-grayscale-test.html

http://artandwater.blogspot.com/2010/05/variety-in-three-editions.html

http://artandwater.blogspot.com/2010/05/better-look.html

Exposure choices and adjustments for Gravure printing (photo sensitive polymer)

I'm exploring exposure options, and can see the merits of multiple versions, but I might be too close to the process right now to make a judgement on the final image. So, which one do you prefer? Why?


1



2



3



4



5

adjustment curves as preview for Photopolymer Graveur

this is just the beginning (because I am just beginning)...
below is the original digital image collage, converted to grayscale, but otherwise untouched/unadjusted

photopolymer graveur (aquatint, "safe" etching, whatever you call it) will drop out values above 80% and below 20%. In other words at those points the value will go right to black or white. So, the grayscale really only runs between the two, in the middle ground, and is not subtle at all towards the end of the scale. (I have been told this is mostly true for the original Photo Graveur, and had to be addressed. Difference in this process is that most of the adjustment is on the computer and not the development process)

I have seen a couple of curves claiming to solve this issue, but they (in my opinion) only work at the cost of some variety in the middle of the scale. I suspect this is because they are trying to bring up values that are not there.

The best thing I have discovered (to date) is the simple idea of getting a reliable preview. No matter how much you adjust your image, it is difficult to guess how much information will be lost. So, when you think you are ready to go, I'd suggest adding on more adjustment layer, and moving the sliders over from 0 to 20, and from 100 to 80. Check out the results...
below is the adjusted image: it is the first (above) image, with the curves adjusted at 20 and 80 as a way for me to preview my results from the polymer plate.


below is the actual printed image from a KM73 photopolymer plate.
There is a bit of information loss in the scan, but this is a pretty representation of what it looks like.


To clarify:

Top image is the original, and the one I printed on a high quality transparency (Pictorico), and used to expose the KM73 photopolymer plate.

Middle image is the top image, with an adjustment layer (Curves) over it, sliders moved from 0 to 20 and from 100 to 80 to get a preview of how the image will look from the KM73 plate, knowing that information is lost above 80 and below 20. It is only a way to get a sort of soft proof, to make sure I am on the right track.
No matter how I adjust the image before printing to the transparency, I want to do this preview before printing to see if it will be satisfactory.
BE SURE TO UNDO THIS STEP BEFORE YOU PRINT!!! It is a preview technique only.

Bottom image is printed from the KM73 polymergraveur plate onto Rives BFK white paper with Graphic Chemical Vine Black etching ink.

For those who have yet to discover this process (or have only just heard of it), here is a nice overview by someone else
http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/photogravure/photo-polymer-gravure-the-whys

Aquatint Test on Polymer Photo Intaglio plates

Wanting to see the difference between thin plates (from Takach Press the KM Photopolymer plate is .017" thick) and medium thickness plates (from Boxcar Press the KM 73 Photopolymer plate is .030" thick ), thinking that the thicker plates might have a more forgiving and fuller grayscale range.
Also wanted to see how much darker a shorter exposure would be.
Here are all the images in order of printing. (number and info is below each image)


image #3 from KM photopolymer plate from Takach Press
10' stocastic screen aquatint exposure and 10' image exposure



image #5 from KM photopolymer plate from Takach Press
10' stocastic screen aquatint exposure and 8' image exposure



image #7 from KM photopolymer plate from Takach Press
10' stocastic screen aquatint exposure and 6' image exposure



image #9 from KM73 photopolymer plate from Boxcar Press
10' stocastic screen aquatint exposure and 10' image exposure



image #11 from KM73 photopolymer plate from Boxcar Press
10' stocastic screen aquatint exposure and 8' image exposure




image #13 from KM73 photopolymer plate from Boxcar Press
10' stocastic screen aquatint exposure and 6' image exposure




image #15 from KM73 photopolymer plate from Boxcar Press
10' stocastic screen aquatint exposure and 5' image exposure