I think that's me done with this technique now! But the exercise was well worthwhile and although there are clear limitations, I still think this could be a useful technique when screen print facilities are at an absolute minimum.
This final print was supposed to be a very simple two colour print, combining vinyl stencil in tight register with a linocut image. As I began to draw up the planned water surface effects I realised I would need to push the method of using this material to its limits; especially the aim of making a stencil that could be easily washed clean and re used, but also was easy to strip from the screen to reclaim it.
This final print was supposed to be a very simple two colour print, combining vinyl stencil in tight register with a linocut image. As I began to draw up the planned water surface effects I realised I would need to push the method of using this material to its limits; especially the aim of making a stencil that could be easily washed clean and re used, but also was easy to strip from the screen to reclaim it.
I began with the drawing and carving of a floating otter. I knew this would need to be simple, almost a silhouette in fact, so this was fairly quickly done. A second element of this series of experiments in ‘kitchen table’ printmaking is the use of a ‘craft press’ in this case my trusty Sizzix Big Shot Pro (see earlier posts on this). So I set up the lino block as normal and, through the use of tracings, positioned the otter in the correct place on the paper to receive the screen printed element later.
Then (after several attempts!) I arrived at a ‘key’ outline tracing which I hoped would work as the water’s light reflecting areas. I laid this tracing over the lino block and used carbon paper to transfer the relevant areas to the lino surface. I then cut away the block in what would be clear areas i.e. the white of the paper in the final print. All of the sheets of paper were then printed in a dark sepia, and in accurate register using the Ternes Burton pins and tabs as usual.
The key tracing was then transferred to a sheet of Oracal 651 matt finish (in reverse of course) again using carbon paper. And I began the deceptively tricky business of cutting and ‘weeding’ the stencil.
The key tracing was then transferred to a sheet of Oracal 651 matt finish (in reverse of course) again using carbon paper. And I began the deceptively tricky business of cutting and ‘weeding’ the stencil.
The very fine nature of some of the shapes I knew would be a challenge to both cut and then adhere to the screen effectively, let alone when trying to print them! The first moment of truth coming when the transfer tape was removed. But all was well and the stencil was ready to print.
Again sticking to my self-imposed brief of making a print with ‘kitchen’ facilities, I used a screen press made from simple hinges fixed to a piece of reclaimed melamine laminated board (a kitchen cupboard in fact!).
Again sticking to my self-imposed brief of making a print with ‘kitchen’ facilities, I used a screen press made from simple hinges fixed to a piece of reclaimed melamine laminated board (a kitchen cupboard in fact!).
Judging the appropriate transparency and tones of the water took two attempts. So that was the first challenge. Could I wash out and dry the stencil to re print without it detaching?. Indeed I could! And of course, cleaning the stencil off completely was easily done in situ.
However it was here that I again met the most significant limitation of this method.
I have mentioned before the problem of the actual physical thickness of this vinyl material when used as a stencil. Because of the need to print with fine meshes (120 – 140T, to keep the quantity of water based ink going on to paper to a minimum) the physical squeegee pressure and angle required to get a clean print requires both considerable strength and experience. This stencil, with its narrow lines and sharp angles, pushed the possibilities to the limit and I had to reject 4 of the 15 sheets I began with. On coarser meshes (e.g. for fabric printing) or with simpler, more rounded shapes, it would not be a problem.
But I did end up with a nice little edition of 10: 'Floating'; Linocut and screenprint; 50 x 25 cm.
However it was here that I again met the most significant limitation of this method.
I have mentioned before the problem of the actual physical thickness of this vinyl material when used as a stencil. Because of the need to print with fine meshes (120 – 140T, to keep the quantity of water based ink going on to paper to a minimum) the physical squeegee pressure and angle required to get a clean print requires both considerable strength and experience. This stencil, with its narrow lines and sharp angles, pushed the possibilities to the limit and I had to reject 4 of the 15 sheets I began with. On coarser meshes (e.g. for fabric printing) or with simpler, more rounded shapes, it would not be a problem.
But I did end up with a nice little edition of 10: 'Floating'; Linocut and screenprint; 50 x 25 cm.
Pros and Cons of the use of solvent adhesive signwriting vinyl e.g. Oracal 651 to make hand cut screen printing stencils.
Pros
Pros
- Makes accurate clean stencils that are easily attached to mesh.
- Solvent adhesive resists water based inks and careful washing out.
- Peels from (especially when damp) mesh extremely easily to reclaim screen which can be washed with detergent and degreased with rubbing alcohol ready for a new stencil.
- Range of imagery/shapes limited to what can be traced and hand cut with a knife
- High squeegee pressure required to empty mesh completely of ink along edges and in small and narrow open areas.
- Screens must be entirely free of greasy/inky residues for firm attachment of smaller and thinner areas of stencils
- Careful cleaning of left over ink from print side of the screen only required to avoid accidental removal.