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.

​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 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!).

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.

Pros and Cons of the use of solvent adhesive signwriting vinyl e.g. Oracal 651 to make hand cut screen printing stencils.
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.

Cons

• 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.

Oracal 651 – The basics
As I said in the last post, I am of course not the first to try screenprinting with cut vinyl stencils . But I repeat that my ambition was to go further than simply creating a digital image cut out for me on a Cricut. I was particularly keen to keep the freedom, accumulative simplicity and print qualities of paper stencils; but without the fragility and transient nature of that technique, in order to create multi layered ‘fine art’ images.
But a credit should go here to two people in the USA who have done a lot of dissemination of the basics of this technique well before me. First, to Melanie Cervantes of DignidadRebelde.com who was herself initially inspired by the online  commercial instructional programmes of Jennifer Sanderson of Pigskins and Pigtails.com. Melanie has used it to great effect and was good enough to point me in the direction of this Oracal 651 material. Thanks both!

As always, by the time I come to write up my trials, I’ve already got ideas and plans to improve on it. So, rest assured this post is far from a definitive guide. Read this and look at the others I mention above and have a go yourself! Because one of the reasons I began all this was primarily to develop a basic fine art screenprint technique requiring no special equipment, no solvents etc and suitable for anyone to use in a basic or home studio.

Oracal 615 is a product designed for digital cut out graphics - which can be applied on a ‘permanent’ basis to objects, walls, windows etc. Widely adopted too by ‘crafters’, it tends to only be available in this country in 12” rolls or small sheets. There is a huge range of colours and (I’ve just discovered!) it comes in both gloss and matt finish. I also see there are cheaper versions available, and I’ve bought some matte and a couple of rolls of cheaper stuff to try in due course.
The big difference between these products and the stencil material I tried in my first attempts is that this direct vinyl is tough! And most importantly, has a waterproof adhesive – designed to be weatherproof. So once adhered to the screen mesh as a stencil, it can, with some care, be actually cleaned out and re used. However, once no longer needed, it actually peels off the mesh very easily for reclaiming the screen - leaving no serious residue at all and requiring only a table top cleaning and degreasing. No serious chemicals or pressure washer required!
​
So here’s a record of a print edition I made with my first attempt at using it.

​The 651 has a thick paper backing sheet and even the white coloured one is itself quite dense. So tracing an image on to it even using a lightbox is a little difficult. I tried two ways of making a guide line to cut to. First was conventional carbon paper – much the same as I would on a lino block. The problem with this is the weatherproof surface of the vinyl; the carbon image rubs away very easily when cutting out. So for the later stencils I just used soft pencil on the reverse of the tracing and a ballpoint pen on the other side to put down the lines. Sharpie pens etc work very well, but with these simple spontaneous shapes I found I didn’t need to go over the image again. I will try carbon paper on the matt version when I get it.

​

​I have a good deal of experience of hand cutting stencils and rubylith type films for screen printing, so I found cutting the film straightforward with a decent 10a scalpel blade and very little pressure. But you may need to practice on some scrap pieces first to make you you only cut through the top layer of vinyl and leave the backing intact. For fine narrow angles, it is OK to ‘overshoot’ the cuts a little to leave a clean corner. The open areas then simply peel away – a process known by crafters as ‘weeding’.

​The next step is to attach your cut stencil to specially made vinyl transfer film or ‘tape’. This is widely available. I used the clear unbacked professional stuff, which is much cheaper than buying the paper backed type from crafter suppliers. One of these very smooth edged little plastic squeegees is a must. I had one anyway, but they are also easily available. The stencil is placed face down on the sticky face of the transfer film and on a smooth firm surface, using the squeegee and medium pressure, carefully work out from the centre of the stencil until all the parts – particularly any small ‘island’ pieces – of your stencil are attached to a sheet of transfer film.

​Then carefully peel away the stencil’s backing paper, check all the smaller pieces remain exactly in position on the transfer film. This will leave your stencil (and hopefully all its constituent parts) sticky side up and ready to attach to underside of the screen mesh.

​Carefully position the stencil exactly where you want it in relation to the the fixed screen and the position your image will be on your paper will be when printed or to any previously printed areas.

​Then slowly lower the screen on to the adhesive of the stencil, press and smooth out first with your hand; ensuring there are no creases or bubbles, then adhere the stencil with the squeegee, pressing firmly but evenly on the printing side of the screen mesh, again from the centre outwards. A smooth pad of several clean sheets of newsprint will help to safely but thoroughly really press the stencil to the underside of the screen, again concentrating on the smaller details. Press quite firmly, but do not use anything with a sharp hard edge or you will risk slashing your mesh!

​Then lift the screen and peel off the transfer film, checking again that all parts of the stencil are attached to the mesh.

We then come to the only part of my particular process as described here that I am at all concerned about, but which ironically is also one of the things I like about it.
I use water-based inks to print on reasonably heavyweight (300gsm) paper. And I like to use amalgamations of transparent layers, which overlap. The problem with this is, after 3 or 4 layers, larger flat areas can ‘cockle’ or wrinkle the paper. A generally satisfactory solution to this has been to use very fine meshes (normally 140T or 320+ US) which of course, deposits a thinner ink layer.

This vinyl stencil material is quite thick compared to most screen stencils and the pioneers of its use were initially printing on coarser meshes, and on to fabric, where a thick stencil is an advantage. But I found on these very fine meshes, considerable pressure from a soft sharp print squeegee is required to get the ink down through the mesh in fine detail areas. I’m a reasonably strong chap, but it took some effort, a slightly lowered squeegee angle and often a second pull and to get areas like the tips of the claws in this image to print. Experienced users of ‘one arm’ units on professional hand benches would manage better perhaps (I took mine off years ago). Smaller images and smoother shapes would of course make the hand printing effort easier. But my aim in sharing this process was to enable anyone to make screen prints with the simplest of equipment. I will need to see how people get on with their own efforts, inks and meshes.

​However, what these thicker stencils and transparent inks do, at the same time, is give me an effect I really like; where the slightly heavier deposit of ink along the edges of the image area give a delicate darker edge to the shape; and thus to a certain extent, relieves the absolute ‘deadness’ of a flat screenprinted shape; which is one of the things I feel can give some fine art screen prints a less interesting textural quality compared to other printmaking methods.

My printing process


So the first layer of this print went down fine and the screen was washed out on the press with a sponge, clean water and paper wipes in my usual way. As I had finished with this stencil, as an experiment, I rubbed the underside with a cleaning cloth to dry it. Not surprisingly, the edges of some areas began to peel. So not a good idea to do anything from underneath if the screen is intended for re use!

​And, as expected, on this very fine mesh, it was really easy to remove the used stencil, with just a little careful finger nail work on the smaller pieces.

​

For the second and third colour stencil on this print I also used a simple reduction process, using an ordinary paper stencil.

​

​And printed in the same manner as the first colour layer; again with a colour/tone blend, on the whole edition. 

​Then a simple cut out area in a sheet of freezer paper (most thin paper works OK but freezer paper is semi water resistant) of the area I wished to print again, was laid on a registered test proof; with some small tabs of tape sticky side up on the edges. 

​A test proof was then printed;  the adhesive quality of the wet ink ink itself attaching the paper stencil to the mesh (hopefully still in perfect register!) for all the rest of the edition to receive the third colour.

​Once the stencil was peeled off the mesh and the screen thoroughly washed clean, I de-greased the mesh with totally safe Rubbing/Isoproply Alcohol. Another tip gratefully received from Melanie Cervantes!

For the planned fourth colour – I was getting to the final  details now – I realised I was running out of vinyl large enough to cover the whole area in one piece. I found that simply taping smaller pieces together, in position, before going ahead with the transfer, works fine. However, I was so wrapped up in working this out that I made the most basic of rookie mistakes….and forgot to reverse the tracing before I cut it out! My excuse is that, of course, normally, hand cut stencils or red film positives are cut out the same way round as they will print.

But I won’t do that again!

​So a re- cut fourth, and then a final fifth stencil completed the print. I have to say I am completely delighted with both the finished piece and the process itself. I will do more. The next plan will be to combine this simple screen print stencil process with linocut; again thinking that it will be possible to ‘hand colour’ lino prints which can of course also be produced in the most basic of circumstances – perhaps using a craft press!




​
'Nuthatch' 45 x 38 cm Edition of 12 on 300gsm Somerset.

A follow up post on the use of vinyl masking stencils

As a number of issues arose from my first attempt at using vinyl masking films as screen print stencils, I decided to continue with the experiments. But before I describe the efforts, let me make a couple of points:
 
I know I am not the first by a long way to try this. However I am not interested in simply creating a digital image, having it mechanically cut out for me on a Cricut and then printing it!
That might be good for printing professional looking T-shirts at home, but I am a printmaker and my ambitions lie in creating original images not achievable by other means and which develop progressively in their making. That sounds a bit elitist I know but I'm sure you understand what I mean.
Also, I know there are many serious ‘fine art’ printmakers who do not have easy access to screen stencil making and reclaiming facilities, but could make use of a simple clean method of making quick basic screenprint images or even just overprints on linocuts for example.

Anyway, I thought that some of the problems I had with my first attempts were possibly solvable by using a different product to the Oramask 813.
Some people have tried films like Oracal 651 vinyl. However, that is I think not a stencil film as such, but designed for actual image application. I've not handled any of it.
Nor have I actually tried Oramask 810. I believe this is more flexible - for stencilling on curved surfaces. So I didn't choose that first as I thought it might distort. If I was desperate to use this stencil method more, I might try some.

 I also realised during these efforts that in fact the real key to all of this is actually the use of transfer tape.

The ability this gives to accurately lift all bits of a cut vinyl sheet from its backing and transfer it to whatever surface is really what sets this method apart from other similar methods like paper stencils.

​So I went ahead and tried traditional Frisket film again; which does kind of work in simple areas. It is too transparent and nowhere near adhesive enough to stand up to transfer or repeated printing.

I also bought some cheaper grey 'Ultra Mask' stencil film; mainly because it was thinner than Oramask. It had largely the same problems as the Frisket unfortunately.

So as I still had a roll of the blue Oramask – it was back to that!

 813 is easy to cut - but a right bugger to keep flat off the tight roll it comes in and then prevent it getting warm under the hand and detaching itself from the backing paper. Also the thick backing paper means a good light box is needed to hand cut to a tracing outline drawing, which is what I was doing. In fact sometimes I used a very fine Sharpie to draw on the film surface too; which worked fine. So perhaps a more flexible film like the 810 would be easier to handle?
 
One key requirement I set was that after use, the stencil should come away relatively easily and cleanly and not leave a residue. Generally this is satisfyingly true. Certainly no visible residue that would cause actual printing problems. But even with a good double wash with water and a little detergent after printing and peeling the stencil off the mesh, I think the ink and stencil together do leave a 'greasiness' - that by the 4th and 5th stencil on the same bit of screen was causing a lack of adhesion compared to a fresh chemically cleaned screen.

​If I was asked about durability I would say that I feel confident that once I'd got a good stencil well attached to a clean degreased screen, I could probably print hundreds of copies with no problems. That said, the adhesive is water based and I might be over confident there. In terms of storage for further use, I suspect that if left on a screen they might dry out and come unstuck but I have no experience of that myself.

Some other things learnt from this second little edition were:
Smaller off cuts of film can be peeled from their backing and re applied to a larger sheet of backing paper saved from previous use to print separate small ‘spot’ areas of the image.

One can use more usual temporary blocking methods such as paper stencils on the underside of the screen and pieces of Sellotape on the upper side in very successful conjunction with the Oramask stencil.

The most useful, indeed vital, tool in the process is the cheap plastic squeegee/applicator used to rub down the adhesive layers!

Firstly to make sure the transfer tape is clean and flat; and then to really very firmly press the stencil adhesive to the mesh - particularly the small ‘islands’. I found too that if the ink is washed out and the screen and stencil dried (cold air fan only!) a further re- rubbing down is necessary before another use.

I think I’m going to leave it there for now. Lots still to learn I’m sure. But one of the biggest rewards personally has been the way this method of making images has insisted I work freely and in a non detailed, simple and direct way. I need that sometimes!

In further pursuit of possible ‘table top printmaking’ techniques: using vinyl stencil film to make hand cut screenprint stencils
 
Although I personally have all the kit to make and use any kind of screenprint stencil, many people will not have the ability to wash out and reclaim screens. Simple paper stencils are ok but fragile and almost impossible to accurately leave ‘islands’ of stencil, surrounded by open areas.
I saw this product - Oramask 813; made really for Cricut type digital machine vinyl cutters, to make paint stencils; and wondered if I could hand cut a stencil and effectively adhere it to a screen….print and wash out ink as normal, without destroying the stencil. Then when finished, simply peel off the stencil without recourse to chemicals and pressure washing? My research didn’t turn up anyone else trying this as a multi-layer paper printmaking technique, but I don’t suppose I’m the first?
So here’s a record of my first attempt and initial thoughts and reactions. Note too - all printing was done on one of my simple homemade screenprint tables (a piece of reclaimed kitchen unit and some cheap, but best quality, hinge clamps).

​The film is 3 mil/thou thickness and comes on a tight roll with a fairly thick backing sheet. Which brings me right away to the only real problems I encountered:
3 mil is actually very thick for a screen print stencil. Using my usual fine (140 T) mesh which I prefer with water based inks to minimise paper cockling, it needed two squeegee pulls at high pressure to get all of the ink through finer lines and points.
Also, with transparent ink – which for me is likely to be usual with multiple layers  – a dark outline at the edge of the shape appears, from the ‘wall’ of the stencil itself. I personally like this effect as it brings more life to screen printing -  which can have quite a flat uniform and rather ‘dead’ quality.
Secondly, the adhesive of the film obviously and quite rightly does not hold it to its backing paper all that well. Unrolling a useable piece and keeping it flat is quite is quite tricky. The film tends to release in places where one doesn’t want it to; especially with the warmth of handling during tracing and cutting etc. I found that these were also then the areas that did not adhere quite so well to the mesh and began to come off during printing and clean up.

​This thick backing paper also means that tracing from a working drawing in the normal way with hand cut stencils requires a light box (or window) behind it. I did however find that a fine Sharpie pen can be used to draw on the film first without detriment.
I have a lot of experience at cutting stencil film, from my days of using toxic, smelly solvent inks, so I used my usual 10a scalpel to cut the stencil and a point pick to ‘weed’. There are other knives, even swivelling ones available but they do need to be sharp and fine pointed. The trick is not to cut into the backing sheet but only and cleanly through the film. Practice first!
​
Now I know that some people will use Cricut type machines to accurately duplicate a digital image as a stencil. Well, it’s a big debate that there is no time to argue here, but personally I prefer images that are ‘drawn’ with the tool in hand in much the same way as I do with linocuts. However I do make photo film screen stencils too – so one day I may have a go!

Once the stencil is cut and weeded the method then is really very simple.


A piece of vinyl transfer tape (lots available from craft suppliers) a little smaller than the stencil, is peeled from its backing and smoothly laid directly on to the face (cut side) of the stencil and smoothed down with some sort of small smooth soft edged squeegee. I had one of these already but one could be fashioned from soft plastic - or they’re a couple of quid from craft suppliers.

The backing is then peeled from the stencil and, with its sticky side up, positioned under the screen. In fact, I got where I was using the same part of the screen and positioning the stencil in register on a print, before lowering the screen to attach it in the correct position.
 
Once tacked on to the underside of the mesh, I put a flat pad of a few sheets of clean newsprint under it and using the small squeegee, carefully avoiding damaging the screen mesh, but with pressure, really rubbed all parts of the stencil to attach it to the mesh. The transfer tape is then peeled away, leaving the open stencil and making sure all the small ‘island’ pieces remain in place. Then a careful final rub down.

​
The screen can then be prepared and set up just like any other stencil.



However, when it comes to actually printing, as previously noted the thickness of the stencil will probably mean some adaption of squeegee technique, angle and pressure; especially if the stencil image has thin lines or sharp angles.

​

​The adhesive of this Oramask 813 is water based and I expected problems using water-based screen inks. It is possible that very long runs might cause some detaching of the stencil. But with normal art printmaking edition sizes I’m sure it will be very durable.


I also tend to wash up my screens after printing without removing them from the press. Again, I thought this might destroy the stencil. In fact, it was not until the fifth use of the same area of the screen that some areas of that stencil began to problematically detach during printing and cleaning.

​I put this down simply to the fact that these very fine meshes do not have much ‘tooth’ for the adhesive; and that after four printings and cleanings with just plain water and a sponge, that area of the screen had a microscopic ‘greasy’ film left from the acrylic inks and stencils. If I had used a freshly degreased screen area, there would have been better adhesion.

After printing, to reclaim the screen, the stencil itself just peels off the mesh. Small areas may tear, but simpler stencils come off in one piece and could well be used again!


​A second wash with clean water removes any ink residue and the screen is effectively ‘clean’ again.

​ However, I personally would use something (as eco friendly as you like) to really clean and degrease the mesh before further use.

Conclusions: As a first experiment for me, I was delighted. I have even already sold most of the small edition that came from it! There are other similar products around which I intend to try out and like all techniques in printmaking, continued practice will bring about improvements and solutions to problems.
Of course, at the end of the day, this technique has big limitations and is really only suitable for appropriate images. Simple flat shapes will not suit everyone. But with some thought and the use of overprinting of layers, I’m sure results can be exciting and dynamic.
It may well also be useful to overprint other images such as linocuts instead of laborious and potentially inconsistent hand colouring. So in combination with say a craft press, and using a simple home made screen table, this method is capable of producing full editions of high quality prints ….in anyone’s kitchen!

I don't post much on here these days, but following on from my previous post, a few people are interested in the details of how I now set up to print lino on the Big Shot Pro craft press. So here we go....
But before you read on, as always, please accept that this is my way of doing things - that suits me. There are as many ways to make a print as there are printmakers!
​Also, as I've said many times - don't forget that any press is really just a gap between two hard things. It is the nut that operates it that will control its effectiveness!

1. The Big Shot Pro is The Daddy of all the craft presses. Not so handy and portable as most, but large, strong and capable of every range of pressure; through delicate relief and all intaglio methods, to deep embossing.

It has a 32 cm/12.5" width and a huge (but fixed of course) 28 mm roller gap. The top roller also has a machine textured surface to help prevent slippage. Like all these presses, sold principally for 'crafting' work it comes with ​a set of short plates and 'beds'. These are too short to be much use to me, so I make up print beds of various lengths from suitably rigid boards of MDF, surfaced chipboard etc.

I usually make my lino prints using Marmoleum, mounted on to 6 mm MDF. I make a tight fitting surrounding 'chase' from more 6mm MDF 

I like the Ternes Burton pins and tabs registration system, particularly on these small presses, that can grip and move  un fixed sheets of dry paper. The MDF is covered with wipe clean vinyl tape; and a flip over paper mask made to keep non printing areas clean. Note also the small piece of paper placed under the block in a specific area of the image as 'make ready' extra packing for one area I thought was printing a little light on the first proofs.

So then with a piece of the same thickness paper I intend to print on, plus my preferred 'soft' packing or blanket (smooth coated felt table top protector, felt side down) I have the basics of my 'sandwich': base board, 6mm MDF, lino, paper and packing.
Note too that with mounted lino and a tight fitted chase or even unmounted lino and just side supports, the only raised element is the lino surface to be inked. This stops the rollers 'bumping' into a sudden edge and shifting paper and block.

As this press has no pressure adjustment, print pressure can only be controlled by (often very small) adjustments of the 'sandwich'. It is important to understand too that as a rule, all 'hard' sandwich ingredients should go under the lino and 'soft' packing and paper on top. Some people like a firm packing. like card, on top of the paper. I generally print on 300 gsm satin finish Somerset paper and I like the combination of thinnish ink layers from the micro textured surface and fine carving detail of the lino; plus the very very slight embossed quality one thin blanket layer gives me. If I want solid thick flat layers of colour, I'll use screen print.

I know the roller gap measures approximately 28-30 mm, so I then build up my sandwich with sheets of board and card to that, again rather approximate, thickness.

My next step is always then to run the sandwich through the press using a  scrap piece of the exact same paper, but with no ink.
I am looking for two things: One, that I can feel just a slight resistance as the sandwich is gripped and feeds itself through the press. And two, the surface of the paper has a slight but even deboss mark from the un-inked block.
Those factors are fairly subjective however and each and every block, inking and paper combination may well require subtlety different pressure adjustments. Personally as my Marmoleum is quite thin, I usually tweak these pressures by the addition of sheets of paper underneath the mounted lino.

The next stage of set up is to decide on inking methodology. For me this is just as crucial to the operation as the pressure. I am often shocked when I see people attempting to get consistent high quality prints by just dipping a hard cheap plastic roller at random into a big dollop of ink, then rolling it out as thick as treacle and attempting to control inking amount on the block itself!

I am a stickler for consistency. If someone buys one of a signed and numbered edition of mine, I want them to be confident that every one of the edition is as identical to the rest as any original individually made print can be.
​It seems obvious, but the amount of ink on the slab will directly affect the amount of ink on the roller; which will, in turn, directly affect the appearance of the print. Unless you are using thick layers of completely opaque ink (and even then finer details and edges of areas will quickly smear and fill in if there is too much ink) any variation in the amount of ink applied to the roller and thence to the block will change the tone of the print. 

So I will almost always require a good quality softish roller (25 - 30 shore) which will apply the ink more evenly and with less effort. I will decide on the amount of ink I want on the slab for each inking (and therefore as I said, how much I want to put down on the print) by practice proofs - which must be on some of the actual paper I will be using for the edition; and by looking feeling and listening to the very slight hiss of the roller. I will then, using a knife, add only the amount of ink required from my main ink pile to the slab. This will be every other print or sometimes each one. 

I will then apply the ink in the same way each time and check every print against the first perfect one (the BAT if you like) to see I am not inadvertently gradually increasing or decreasing the ink amount.

I can't believe that its been a year (and a very strange one too!) since I last wrote something on here.
It’s also been all of four years now since I discovered that ‘craft’ presses could be used successfully for printmaking. A Facebook group I set up – ‘Craft Press Printmakers’ now has over 4000 active members and people all over the world are making terrific work using these small presses.

The original press I used – The XCut Xpress - is now in short supply and seems likely to disappear. It was very portable and had the very useful pressure adjustment, but had size and strength limitations.
Another  major manufacturer of craft presses – Sizzix, currently make the daddy of all craft presses – the Big Shot Pro. When I saw them on offer (worryingly, sometimes a precursor to being discontinued!) I couldn’t resist getting one and having a go. I had no doubt it would print OK – once I had worked out how to build a suitably alterable ‘sandwich’ to control pressure variation requirements. This is the first non adjustable craft press I have tried, but I am assuming the principles would apply to other similar ones.

What follows are just some notes on my first set up. As always I stress that this is what worked for me – and for this particular combination of image, inking and paper. People often ask for a list or recipe for a specific set of sandwich layers for presses with no pressure adjustment. There simply isn’t one that fits all. Indeed, as I continue to work on the demo block I’m using for this set up, I will, no doubt, have to subtly alter the pressure for the different stages.
The Pro is big and heavy; 20 kg/44 lbs and over 60 cm/2ft long. However it can take a bed of 32 cm/12.5” wide (by as long as you want to make one!) It seems to be made with really solid metal parts and the gearing is fast and smooth. It comes with a nicely made selection of shims and pads along with its metal tray; all designed for its principal purpose of die cutting. I didn’t really bother to try any of these as they are too short for my printing plans. However, the black soft pad that is provided would be good for smaller lino/relief blocks if you didn’t want to use a conventional blanket or  top ‘pusher’ layer and the metal tray would support set type in a chase.
​
The first thing I did was to measure the roller gap. It is 28mm/1.1” (also room enough to take ‘type high’ material - 23.3mm/.918”) This enabled me to make some rough calculations as to what I would need in terms of my sandwich ‘ingredients’.

Initially I am setting up for lino printing (I will test intaglio etc later) specifically using my usual Marmoleum glued to 6mm MDF - which comes to about 8mm in thickness. I knew I wanted a good firm bed – of a length to enable normal proportioned prints plus room to lock the block in place and register paper.  I have a collection of boards from old kitchen units etc made of melamine faced chipboard. So I made two beds – one 16mm and one 19mm thick.
I also cut some 3mm hardboard/Masonite sheets to size; plus some 1.5mm mountboard and 2mm backing board  from my framing materials. Two 3 – 4 mm felts (cheap off eBay) and a piece of (even cheaper) table top protector made up a suitable collection to give me any permutation of basic thicknesses -  up to the 28mm; plus some sheets of paper under the block itself as final fine adjustments or ‘make ready’, if required according to the image and inking requirements.

Stay at Home – Stay Sharp!
A while ago I wrote a piece about my favourite Pfeil gouges - and in that I said:
“Most important of all, your tools must be sharp and kept sharp. A quality gouge will not only take a good edge, but with practice, can be quickly ‘stropped’ to retain it.”
It is possible to send your tools away and have them professionally re sharpened, but really It is best to learn to keep them in full working order at all times. Little and often is the key and a quick check and strop before each carving session should be part of your creative preparation ritual.
It may be, with heavy regular use and lots of sharpening, that they will eventually need to be re-ground. Again though, with some thought, practise and the right kit, it is possible to also do this yourself. Here though, will deal with the day to day sharpening and maintenance of your all important tools. You simply cannot control the quality of a relief cut image with blunt blades!
The other thing to remember is that a blunt gouge is actually more dangerous than a sharp one. Having to put extra pressure into your cuts is what leads to slips and the hand steadying the block against that pressure is more likely to be in the way!
So why not use some of the extra time many of us have at the moment and practise sharpening and maintaining your gouges? As always – I must stress this is my approach to the job. Others will do things differently – but will end up with the same result!
So what is a correctly sharpened gouge? First, very obviously - the edge doing the cutting should have a ‘zero radius’ – a perfect sharp angle where the two sides of the tool’s cutting edge meet. Consistency of angles are what the whole process of efficient sharpening is about.
The second objective is to have this sharp cutting edge meeting the print surface in an effective and comfortable way. If the sharpened edge has too steep an angle, the gouge will have to be held at an awkward height in the hand to work; and will either dig in too readily or skid on the surface. Too shallow an angle, and the edge will be difficult to get sharp in the first place and will also tend to slip out of the cut.
If you look at a brand new professional gouge – such as the Pfeils we have been talking about, you will see that there are actually two angles at the cutting edge: The ‘grinding’ angle – which is quite shallow – around 15 - 20°. Then if you look closer you will see that the actual cutting edge is a little steeper – 25 - 30°, on the outside edge; and – importantly - it meets a flat, smooth surface on the inside of the gouge. The meeting of the inside and outside edges is regular and even - and of course sharp, with absolutely no visible ‘radius’ catching the light on the cutting edge whatsoever.

It is that 25 - 30° edge that we want to keep sharp and even. With regular maintenance – consisting of frequent ‘stropping’ and occasional light re-sharpening with a very fine stone or similar (and before the tool actually becomes too blunt to use) there should be no need to worry for a long time about major re sharpening or even re-grinding.
Over the years I have acquired all sorts of bits of sharpening equipment, but there are really just a few key items that you will need to keep that razor sharp edge on your quality gouges

​A fine grit sharpening stone with a decent flat surface. A  brief word about sharpening stones. The abrasive grade of stone etc is measured in ‘grit’ numbers: the higher the grit number - the finer the surface. The very finest stones are naturally mined and often called ‘Arkansas’ stone. There are many man made sharpening stones where the grit size is controlled. Some stones work best with just a little oil; others – usually the synthetic ones - are called ‘water stones’ and are designed to be soaked in water before use. ​I tend to use a light oil on all my stones.
Do not get confused by the term ‘whet’ stone though. To whet (note the ‘h’) simply means to sharpen; and although water or oil as a lubricant is always a good idea, it doesn’t necessarily mean the stone has to be soaking wet.
For small tools you do not generally need a big expanse of flat surface. But with the smaller softer stones, after repeated use in the same spot, it is possible to wear a depression in the stone. This is not too much of a problem for U gouges – but of course, not so good for the flat edges of V gouges.

1. One or two ‘slip’ stones with either or both V and U edge profiles

As stated earlier, the inside face of a gouge is kept flat and not sharpened at an angle. And the sharpening of the other, angled, face of the cutting edge will raise what is known as a burr The slip stone is used to carefully remove the burr along the flat of the inside – thus giving us our ‘zero radius’ edge.

It is important that the profile of the slip – particularly for the different sizes of U gouges – fits the curve or angle of the gouge. For the very small U gouges, I tend to use some very fine grade ‘emery cloth’ (at least 300 grit), rolled to fit.
It is of course possible to combine your flat surface and slip stone in one. Jacksons supply a cleverly designed Japanese synthetic waterstone with good flat (if quite soft) surface, that also has V and U edges graduated to fit different gouge profiles. I have modified mine further by shaping the stone to even smaller V and U profiles at either end.
I do also particularly like my little Arkansas stones; one of which has a small V edge profile, but is just big enough to use on the flat side too. I also have a very hard vintage stone I inherited from a wood engraver.

’Stropping’ equipment. It is remarkable how beneficial (and in the long run - time saving) it is to have your strop to hand and to give your gouges an occasional little ‘whizz up’ as you work.
The idea of stropping is simply to maintain and refine your already efficiently sharpened edge; by polishing off the microscopic scratches and unevenness left by even the finest of stones and keeping our zero profile cutting edge super sharp. It also slightly ‘rounds off’ the difference between the grinding and sharpening angles – giving a smooth profile to the underside of the gouge.
The equipment required  consists of a piece of unpolished leather and some soft wood shaped into suitable V and U profiles; plus polishing compound or cream. You can make your own by fixing a piece of leather to a board and cutting matching grooves or profiles in a piece of close grained softish wood.
However, one of the most useful and common items for this job is the ‘Flexcut Slip Strop’; which has all you need in one neat and handy pack.

So – let’s get on and do some sharpening!
Here's a video which will hopefully make everything clear.
Keep Safe!

This is the bulk of the blog post commissioned by Jacksons Art Supplies in London - hence the links to their website.

Through an understandable reservation about spending too much on something new, or perhaps attending a group workshop, most people begin lino cutting with cheap, often poor quality tools. And one of the most common things I hear is “I love lino printing and I’d like some better tools, but they are so expensive! – and I don’t know which ones to get”
But to put it in perspective; in terms of value for money, even the very best gouges cost less than a cheap meal and a drink, but they will, with care, outlive you! Sell a few of your (much improved) prints and you’ll quickly pay for a small set of four or five beautiful tools that will soon begin to feel like old friends and will repay your investment over and over again. Not to mention the pleasure of using a tool that actually works for you!

So what do we lino carvers need from our tools?In most situations, all we need to do is leave a nice raised flat surface that will take the ink and print it cleanly on to our paper (or fabric). This means that, especially in the detail of most images and if correctly inked, the shallowest of cuts is all you need. Fine ‘positive’ printing lines and other ‘isolated’  marks will need to be carved so they do not crumble and break off. Some areas will need to be removed altogether and slightly larger gouges will speed up that work. And with experience, a small range of tools will make a wide variety of marks, simply by varying the angle and depth of cut. With practice – lino gouges will make images that have qualities unobtainable with any other media.
 
Most important of all, your tools must be sharp and kept sharp. A quality gouge will not only take a good edge, but with practice, can be quickly ‘stropped’ to retain it. Such tools can also be sent away and professionally re sharpened if required.
So what are the very best gouges? And which ones should you give up your meal and drink for? Well, of course, like everything in printmaking, everyone quite rightly has their own preferences. Also, in time, you will accumulate all sorts of extra little tools and personal methods of working. I have all sorts of gouges in my collection, but the only ones I use when working seriously on a nice newly prepped bit of real lino block are my favourite set of five Pfeil gouges (plus the occasional use of a standard small craft knife or scalpel).
 
Pfeil (German for Arrow) are a Swiss company who make a huge range of woodcarving tools. Each tool is made from easily re sharpened chrome vanadium steel, and the mushroom shaped palm-handles (for me – by far the most comfortable and manoeuvrable type) are made of hardwood. From their vast range of tools, their smaller ones have proved ideal for carving lino; but their number coding system requires a training in code breaking! Thankfully Jackson’s have selected those most popular with printmakers. However, when considering which ones to buy, do look very carefully at the various boxed set selections, which sometimes contain tools the printmaker may not actually need. I recommend buying individual tools and building your own set.

The fine V 12/1cuts an accurate visible line using one side or the other of the V. It also cuts a sloping ‘shoulder’ to the lino which helps prevent crumbling.
​
1. Small V – 12/1 
First is the workhorse; the small V – coded 12/1. I use this one more than all the others put together. In fact I have two. One is sharpened at the original angle as supplied. The other I have ground and sharpened to a slightly steeper angle, which enables me to use a personal technique on textures for fur and feather etc.
The pictures illustrating this post show the use of ordinary grey ‘artists’ lino rather than my preferred’ slightly firmer’ ‘Marmoleum’ flooring lino. I thought it better to show what most people would be dealing with. I personally cannot stand any of the plastic ‘alternative’ lino products and many of the points I make here about the subtleties of different tools become irrelevant when using plastics – which do not allow the accurate ‘break and flick’ technique of traditional (bio-degradable!) lino.
The 12/1 is not only used to make a wide variety of fine marks, textures and detail, it is used to outline basic forms and areas that will print clear of the background; from large solid flat shapes, to those requiring accuracy – like text. The fine V first cuts an accurate visible line; using one side or the other of the V to accurately follow the guideline. It also cuts a sloping ‘shoulder’ to the lino; which helps prevent crumbling of things like thin fine ‘positive’ lines.
People are often tempted by the slightly bigger V tools available. Don’t be. You are not carving a wood sculpture, so the depth of cut is irrelevant once the surface is removed, and the angle of the V on the bigger ones is pretty much the same as the 12/1  – so there is no real advantage. I have a couple that sit unused in my tool box.

The 11/3 medium U removes plenty of lino to speed the work, but is small enough to follow up the accurate outlining of the 12/1
2. Medium U – 11/3
The next favourite tool I use tends to be the 11/3; a medium U gouge. It removes plenty of lino to speed the work, but is small enough to follow up the accurate outlining of the 12/1: again using one edge or the other of the U. Do beware though. With a sharp 11/3 it is all too easy to get carried away and find you have whizzed through an area that was meant to remain!

​

The 5/8 flat U is a useful tool for cleaning up all those non printing areas that run the risk of catching ink and printing background ‘chatter’.

4. Small U – 11/1
The 11/1 – a small U I find invaluable for those small ‘interior’ curves; where I spin the block slightly at the same time as pushing the tool itself. It gives a nice clean detail curve without the risk of a broken, crumbled edge you can get when using a V tool on a tight bend. Again, it also opens up a few more textural options of circular dots and various ‘flick’ marks.
And lastly...
​
5. ‘Flat’ U -5/8
Finally a 5/8 flat U is a useful tool for cleaning up all those non printing areas that run the risk of catching ink and printing the irritating background ‘chatter’. These gouge marks can be used to good effect in certain prints, but generally I like to both cleanly flatten the area with the 5/8 and also use a paper mask.
So there we are. A simple set of five Pfeil gouges; currently available for just over £90. Not all that much when with care they will last for many years. And once you begin to realise that your gouges are as much a drawing implement as a pen or pencil; and you find yourself reaching instinctively for the right one for which ever part of your image you are working , you will know that any limitations are yours – not theirs!

​It all began with a tidy up of the ‘ten a penny’ drawer: the place I stick bits of ideas and reference and half plans. It was a very productive session. From the depths came a set of film positives I’d made some five years ago –  four tonal separations from a digitally created image of a raven; a time when I was working in a slightly different style.

I’ve recently improved my facility for making photo screen stencils. So I thought, rather than waste these, I’ll make a couple of screens and have a play. Absolutely no plan other than a vague notion of making a print of a ‘black’ bird without using ‘black’ ink; simply by overprinting layers of colour (basic trichromatics)
​
The other little exploration I’ve been working on lately was trying out some amazing 650 gsm Somerset paper I was offered by Lawrences – actually at the same price as my usual 300gsm, which I love. I tried some deep embossing with lino of it on a wee print (‘Early April’) which was very successful; and I will (one day!) get round to trying it with very deep etched intaglio.

However, there is one thing that  the lighter 300gsm doesn’t do too well; and that is taking several layers of large flat areas of water based screen ink. It does tend to ‘cockle’. Just a little, and with some prints, especially those I like to ‘float mount’ that is fine. But, I thought, this 650 is the stuff to try!

​So away I went …. First with some early blended layers of transparent primary colour. (Permaprint Premium in my own cocktail of clear base; 140T mesh)


Usually with my work, I at least have a clear ambition, if not an exact plan, as to where to go. This time (although I am no painter) it felt like just laying down some underpainting on a basic composition and allowing the image to build.


Fairly quickly, two thoughts occurred. One: The image needs strengthening. Two: Iridescence!

​The iridescence was largely a matter of the straightforward control of the many colours and directions of the blends.



I knew if I kept adding layers of colour, eventually I might get a ‘black’ bird that wasn’t black. ​

But how was I to bring some more definition and strength to the image?
One option was to create some more hand drawn photo positives and keep the whole thing as a screen print. I decided though that a lino block was the answer.

The surface textures of tacky ink on this slightly rough paper and the versatility of inking with several rollers over a three stage reduction would surely give me a bonus of colours as well as graphic definition. I’ll be honest though. It also sounded like good fun!

Because 15+ sheets were already printed with six or more layers, I did have to re-register the paper to match the lino image and make sure that the Ternes Burton pin and tab system matched the already used conventional ‘lay edge’ corner used to screen print.

​On a print this size, through the etching press, the pins and tabs on the leading edge not only accurately register each sheet, but help to prevent paper shift under pressure.

As long as my tracing down on to the block had put the basics all pretty much in the right place, I wasn’t too worried if the digital screenprint textures of the feathers matched my hand carved lino ones. In fact I knew they wouldn’t, and hoped that would add further textural/colour layers to the image.

So, again much like building up a painting, I began to put down thin blended layers of Caligo Safewash; reduced 50 to 80% , and carefully applied to the required areas as consistently as possible using small rollers.
​
This took three stage reductions of the block; and although it sounds long winded and laborious, by now I was ‘in the zone’ and working almost instinctively. I also carefully ‘touch dried’ each layer with a dusting and wiping with cornflour; so by the time I’d carved the next stage – usually the same day – I could get on and print. The layers of ink were very thin and the pressure was kept low, because the slightly textured paper was giving me some really fascinating ‘iridescence’ textures.
​
Also whilst printing the lino stages, I put some thought to how I might include some words that had formed in my head whilst reading again many of the mythologies and references to Ravens. Having also recently replaced my way out of date bits of gold size materials and bought some new transfer 23ct gold leaf, it was clear that this strong image would carry the application of gold to add the words and frame the composition. It would also add another experiment to this most experimental of prints. So a simple film positive was made in preparation; using photoshop elements and a slightly altered, but appropriately named ‘Beowulf’ typeface.

​Although very pleased with the results so far I decided to add another two or three layers of transparent screen inks to the image; this time just hand painting stencils as I normally do.


The idea being to just tint some areas and ‘bring up the contrast’ of the whole thing.




​
And eventually I was pleased that had more than met a target that I didn’t even know was going to be the target when I started!

​I mixed Handover’s acrylic gold size, which is too runny in consistency to screenprint, with about 10% by volume of Lascaux screenprinting paste; plus a touch of yellow ink to colour the mix.
The chemical/molecular reaction of the three was quite extraordinary. A paint/ink scientist could probably tell me what was going on, but very quickly it first split; and then like a mayonnaise rescued by beating, gradually thickened to a gelatinous texture.
I thought this was actually too thick, so added some more size. This just seemed to set the jelly even more!
I suspected though, that as it loosened up with stirring, this thixotropic property might be just right for screen printing: Under the pressure of the squeegee through the mesh it would be fluid, but stay nicely ‘plump’ on the absorbent paper to receive the gold leaf.

Printing as normal through a 120 mesh I tried a quick test on scrap pieces of the Somerset paper. I tried single, double and treble pulls, just to see if a slightly thicker deposit made a difference to the required ‘tack’. It didn’t really. The gold leaf sticks to anything! Including any areas of printing ink on the image itself that are not completely dry! But I thought a double pull would just make sure there was no patchiness.

​By now I was down to about a dozen perfect and consistent prints on the best paper, plus proof sheets and slight colour discrepancy ones.


​
So, feeling confident, I printed the full poem on four perfect prints, let the size/ink dry for about two hours and set to with the task of applying the expensive leaf.



A firm press with a finger and a firm but careful removal of the excess with a soft large watercolour brush, followed by a burnish with a soft cloth is all that is needed.

I have discussed before the business of the so called ‘happy accident’ in printmaking.
I dislike the phrase because it implies that the artist had no control whatsoever.

For me, the only really interesting original prints are those with qualities not obtainable by other media.
​But I’m sure that virtually every creative original printmaker, even those with supreme control of their techniques, gets huge pleasure from those moments when you rely on the block, plate or screen and its ink to give what IT decides it will.

So although unplanned at the start, this image was certainly not a happy accident - but a series of controlled surprises!

Song of the Raven
​
I am not black
But light stolen and broken

I am not lost
But outside the ark

I am not alone
But a twin to memory

I am not old
But life taken in battle

I am not ghost
But a connector of spirits

I am not bird
But  man’s fear of power

​This is really just a quick description of the printing process of my latest effort: ‘Habitat’. It is of a small bird called the Aquatic Warbler and is for a book about the 67 species of UK birds that currently make up the ‘Red Data’ list of conservation concern. There is a background story to its commission. But more on this and the book later.
As you see it is a linocut and screenprint combination; edition of 20 plus one Artist's Proof on 300 gsm Somerset paper; 30 x 40 cm.

​Although I sometimes do a complete finished compositional drawing in preparation for a new piece, the initial drawing for this was the simplest of sketched lines. I had looked at, photographed and also researched lots of pictures of reed and sedge beds – particularly those online references which showed the specific bird in its natural habitat. I don’t like to simply trace a photo, even if it is my own. In this case, the stems are entirely made up. And for the bird I used different bits of heads, backs and legs and just put them together using photoshop until the shape and size looked right, then a simple line guide was all I needed.
​

​A key tracing of the sketch was the reversed and transferred to a prepared lino block using carbon paper.

​And the carving begins; removing all the areas of the planned image that will either be white paper or receive screen printed colour later. It is now that the drawing starts; with pencil on the red stained surface and then with the gouges themselves.

​The first tone/colour – a transparent yellow/beige applied to all 20 plus 5 or 6 spares of 300 gsm Somerset paper. I’m using Ternes Burton pins and tabs on the etching press.

​Successive reductions of the printing surface are then printed - in exact registration - top of each other, on every sheet in turn. The ink (Caligo Safewash) is gradually darkening tones of transparent (i.e. not using white pigment) reedy/birdy colours.

​Until the final dark brown gives me the key construction and format image of the print; all in register, all identical, on all the sheets plus spares.

And so to the second stage - using a different printing method - screen print.
​​A spare proof is placed under the screen, in register, using the same TB tabs and the first of several hand painted stencils is traced on to and then painted directly on to the mesh with blocking fluid.

​The first background colour stencil is printed - a blend of blue (sky) and green (reed bed).

​These screen stencils are also used in a reduction method.

And a separate one is traced and painted for each element.

Including a set of separate smaller stencils for the bird and a sponged stencil in a transparent blue to add the all important shadow detail.

All the prints are then carefully check for consistency and the edition signed and stamped.
​Number one has now gone to the publisher and will appear in the planned book and be sold in a fundraising 'blind' auction. I wonder who'll end up with it?