low tech screening - WarmGlass.com

low tech screening

This is the main board for discussing general techniques, tools, and processes for fusing, slumping, and related kiln-forming activities.

Moderators: Tony Smith, Brad Walker

Post Reply
Peter Angel
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:26 am
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia.

low tech screening

Postby Peter Angel » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:59 pm

here's a really neat technique for screening enamels without using a screen frame.

(She's using ceramic overglaze but it should work with glass enamels and perhaps even powder frit).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRL4Qc-MrXU

Any thoughts?

Pete
Peter Angel
http://peterangelart.blogspot.com/

A bigger kiln, A bigger kiln, my kingdom for a bigger kiln.

Vonon
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: low tech screening

Postby Vonon » Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:13 pm

The demo filled me with ideas and I shamelessly went straight to the Martha Stewart site and also Mayco's site. Without a frame to deal with, it would be easier to use just a part of a developed screen (say only 2 or 3 branches of a tree, etc.). BTW, the Mayco product she used is an underglaze. Thanks for the link, Peter.
Vonon

Peter Angel
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:26 am
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia.

Re: low tech screening

Postby Peter Angel » Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:16 pm

Thanks Vonon. Do you think this system would work with Ferro enamels (or similar) plus gum powder or cmc powder?

Pete
Peter Angel
http://peterangelart.blogspot.com/

A bigger kiln, A bigger kiln, my kingdom for a bigger kiln.

Bert Weiss
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
Location: Chatham NH
Contact:

Re: low tech screening

Postby Bert Weiss » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:15 am

Peter Angel wrote:Thanks Vonon. Do you think this system would work with Ferro enamels (or similar) plus gum powder or cmc powder?

Pete
Probably, but I would make it thick with more pigment and less gum. Maybe gum effects an underglaze differently than an overglaze? I have never used CMC as a powder, only as a liquid. Gum arabic works as a powder or liquid. You can use any water miscible medium and any overglaze style colors, including Ferro. The binder is built in to the medium. Thinking about it, I would probably use powdered gum and glycerine to make a screen print paste.

Is there cloth involved in those Martha Stewart stencils? There must be, or your fingers would remove all the color when you wipe them.
Bert

Bert Weiss Art Glass*
http://www.customartglass.com
Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware
Architectural Commissions

Kevin Midgley
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:36 am
Location: Tofino, British Columbia, Canada

Re: low tech screening

Postby Kevin Midgley » Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:18 pm

Riso Print Gocco was a great system but where do you find flash camera bulbs these days at not absurd pricing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gocco and look on Amazon for crazy pricing examples.

More sophisticated and complete kit
http://www.dickblick.com/products/blicks-complete-photofabric-screen-printing-kit/

Basic material to coat screens if you know how to expose and wash them out.
http://www.dickblick.com/products/speedball-diazo-photo-screen-printing-emulsions/
Exposure 10 min with an old fashioned sunlight flood lamp 1 foot above screen. Wear eye protection!
Wash out with pressure washer or thumb on the end of water hose.

Then there is Yudu for exposing screens.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Yudu-Screen-Printing-Machine/13032828
Yudu has had early issues with their light system not working at times but it does work to make screens simply. Only buy a Yudu from a place with a good return policy in case you get a dud. First check your bulbs are good and making connections before making the trip back to where you bought it. The issues should be resolved by now if Walmart is selling them.
You still have to wash out the screens.

Sigh, the print Gocco was so simple and quick. You could make a drawing and create a stencil in literally less than 2 minutes with the flash of a couple of flash bulbs.

Biggest problem is creating light blocking stencils to use with any of the above screen making methods. The better your stencil, the better the result.

Alternatively if you don't want to be creative, use the prepared screens or commercial stencils available for etching.
Brad do you sell any?

Vonon
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: low tech screening

Postby Vonon » Thu Mar 05, 2015 2:20 pm

Peter, I would think the method would work with any of the powdered enamels we usually use. Bert has good ideas on what to use as thickening agents and especially the recommendation to have a high volume of pigment. I do know that ceramic underglazes have a small amount of clay in them and I don't know what contribution that makes to the workability of this process. I have a small ready made silkscreen and some underglaze. I'll run a couple of test pieces comparing with Paradise and post results. At least I'll post pictures if I can figure out why they have been getting rejected here.
Vonon

Morganica
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 6:19 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: low tech screening

Postby Morganica » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:46 pm

Vonon, check the size of your pictures (in kilobytes, not the dimensions or resolution). Usually when my pictures are rejected it's because they are too large. The attachment utility (Upload attachment, below the message box) has a limit of only 400K.

If your image is more than 400K (or, actually, if it's getting much bigger than 390K, sometimes different tools seem to calculate it differently) you should get a red text message above the message board that says your file is too big.

It also must be a web-friendly image format. That means the picture MUST be a JPG, GIF or PNG format (as in "myimage.jpg" or "myimage.png" or "myimage.gif"). If your image is in a different format, such as BMP or PSD, it won't work on the web and will probably be rejected.
Cynthia Morgan
Marketeer, Webbist, Glassist
http://www.morganica.com/bloggery
http://www.cynthiamorgan.com

"I wrote, therefore I was." (me)

Buttercup
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:22 pm
Location: S.E. Queensland Australia

Re: low tech screening

Postby Buttercup » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:31 am

[quote="Vonon"] I do know that ceramic underglazes have a small amount of clay in them and I don't know what contribution that makes to the workability of this process.

Does the 'small amount of clay' cause the same metalling that occurs with silver stain, which also has a clay 'binder'? Jen

Drewcilla
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:10 am

Re: low tech screening

Postby Drewcilla » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:54 pm

A couple of years ago I became interested in screen printing and started with the emulsion exposure method. I had help from the Tony Glander DVDs and also from Ted Bach. Unfortunately, I was successful only about 50% of the time. The most difficult part for me was getting a good exposure; I made sure I had good stencils but I couldn't find consistency with exposure times, whether I used a light set up or sunlight. That was too high a failure rate given the amount of time invested. When Bullseye came out with their video using Mask-Ease for making stencils for screen printing I switched to using that method and I am very satisfied with it. It's true that it is much harder to get fine detail but I've learned to be content with those limitations. I may again one day try the exposure method again.

I had seen the video posted above a few months ago and plan on trying it using the enamels I use but wearing a pair of thin gloves or maybe even a brayer roller. For simple designs, it would be even easier, especially for combining different designs from different stencils.

Bert Weiss
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
Location: Chatham NH
Contact:

Re: low tech screening

Postby Bert Weiss » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:55 pm

Buttercup wrote:
Vonon wrote: I do know that ceramic underglazes have a small amount of clay in them and I don't know what contribution that makes to the workability of this process.

Does the 'small amount of clay' cause the same metalling that occurs with silver stain, which also has a clay 'binder'? Jen

I am not at all familiar with underglazes. I am 99.9% sure there is no clay in onglaze colors. In silver stain, you wipe the clay off after the firing. So, that is totally different. I'm pretty sure the metaling is caused by the silver, not the binders.
Bert



Bert Weiss Art Glass*

http://www.customartglass.com

Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware

Architectural Commissions

Kevin Midgley
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:36 am
Location: Tofino, British Columbia, Canada

Re: low tech screening

Postby Kevin Midgley » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:35 pm

Laser print 2 copies of your image on plastic film to double the image density. One is usually not light blocking enough. Place them together accurately!

Buttercup
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:22 pm
Location: S.E. Queensland Australia

Re: low tech screening

Postby Buttercup » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:11 pm

Duh! Of course. Didn't think that through did I, Bert. The metalling doesn't wash off, just the clay residue.
Does the 'small amount of clay' cause the same metalling that occurs with silver stain, which also has a clay 'binder'? Jen[/quote][/quote]
I am not at all familiar with underglazes. I am 99.9% sure there is no clay in onglaze colors. In silver stain, you wipe the clay off after the firing. So, that is totally different. I'm pretty sure the metaling is caused by the silver, not the binders.[/quote]

Vonon
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: low tech screening

Postby Vonon » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:23 pm

I dug out my (Gare brand) ceramic stuff and discovered they were dried out. I chose an opaque underglaze, scraped a small amount off the chunk and onto a glazed tile where I ground it into a powder. I added a drop of liquid stringer and worked it into a paste which I then smoothed through a part of the screen I had onto clear glass. Came out just like the video. I then did a similar test with Paradise and Fusemaster opaque but added a bit of dry gum arabic as well as a drop of liquid stringer. Looking back, I should not have introduced a second variable (gum arabic) but oh well..... The underglaze went through the screen just fine. The two enamel results were not as good. The screen is extremely fine and that could have made the difference. Samples 1, 2 are underglaze. 3 is Paradise and 4 is Fusemaster. The sample is unfired. I'd say the fault in 3 and 4 is operator error. The gum arabic may have caused drying too fast. I haven't fired the test because home renovation has cut off kiln access.
Attachments
resize trial.jpg
Vonon

Bert Weiss
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
Location: Chatham NH
Contact:

Re: low tech screening

Postby Bert Weiss » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:56 pm

Vonon wrote:I dug out my (Gare brand) ceramic stuff and discovered they were dried out. I chose an opaque underglaze, scraped a small amount off the chunk and onto a glazed tile where I ground it into a powder. I added a drop of liquid stringer and worked it into a paste which I then smoothed through a part of the screen I had onto clear glass. Came out just like the video. I then did a similar test with Paradise and Fusemaster opaque but added a bit of dry gum arabic as well as a drop of liquid stringer. Looking back, I should not have introduced a second variable (gum arabic) but oh well..... The underglaze went through the screen just fine. The two enamel results were not as good. The screen is extremely fine and that could have made the difference. Samples 1, 2 are underglaze. 3 is Paradise and 4 is Fusemaster. The sample is unfired. I'd say the fault in 3 and 4 is operator error. The gum arabic may have caused drying too fast. I haven't fired the test because home renovation has cut off kiln access.

I believe liquid stringer is CMC which is a binder, itself. Too much gum always causes problems.
Bert



Bert Weiss Art Glass*

http://www.customartglass.com

Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware

Architectural Commissions

Peter Angel
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:26 am
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia.

Re: low tech screening

Postby Peter Angel » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:14 am

Thanks Vovon.

I'm surprised the fusemaster enamels wouldn't pass easily through the mesh. I always thought glass enamels were ground extra fine!

Pete
Peter Angel
http://peterangelart.blogspot.com/

A bigger kiln, A bigger kiln, my kingdom for a bigger kiln.

Kate Saunders
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:53 pm

Re: low tech screening

Postby Kate Saunders » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:02 pm

I used one of Martha's stencils with powdered glass and it worked, and there was a lot of detail in it.

Kate Saunders
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:53 pm

Re: low tech screening

Postby Kate Saunders » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:12 pm

Just remembered, I used the stencil to make a wafer. It worked just fine, and I imagine I could have used it in the classic stencil technique also.

Peter Angel
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:26 am
Location: Newtown, Sydney, Australia.

Re: low tech screening

Postby Peter Angel » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:14 am

I bought a martha steward silk screen from ebay to play around with it:

20150322_141307.jpg


I then mixed some black ferro enamel with A14 until it was a little runny and then added a pinch of cmc powder until it became thick like frosting.

I wore a latex glove and pushed the "black frosting" through the screen with my fingers. This is what I got:

20150322_141258.jpg


I will fire it soon and let you know how it goes.

Pete
Peter Angel
http://peterangelart.blogspot.com/

A bigger kiln, A bigger kiln, my kingdom for a bigger kiln.


Post Reply

Return to “Techniques and Tools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests

Warm Glass

2575 Old Glory Road, Suite 700
Suite 700
Clemmons, NC 27012
Phone: (336) 712 8003
Email: wg@warmglass.com