Couture: Jack

I got a coarser screen (32TW) than what I’ve been using until now (43TW).  I’m using “supercover” paints, which is thicker than what professional printers use.  When printing on dark fabrics, they often lay down a white paint layer underneath the real colour, so they can use a less opaque paint.

But you need better equipment than I have to do stuff like that.  I have basically a cutting board on a floor.  So no registered prints.

For this attempt, I’m using a panel from a page of Jack Survives (first printing, Raw Books) by the wonderful Jerry Moriarty:

DSC01719Hm.  Did I flip the transparency correctly before exposing?

DSC01720I did! Nice!

But, once again, I’m not getting full paint coverage at the edges:

DSC01721See the semi-circular smudge-like thing at the edge there? Here’s what it looks like on the screen:

DSC01723

There’s a round “bubble” going on there.  (Not the shadow at the bottom, but near the stem of the voice bubble.) So something is happening during the washing/drying process.  Am I not washing down the screen enough, so that water bubbles are forming while drying?  That contain particulates from the emulsion?  Is the screen not dry enough before exposure?

Anybody know what this might be a symptom of?  I’m using Speedball Diazo photo emulsion, and I’m washing the screens down with cold water.  I tried using warmer water (like Speedball’s web page says), but that made large parts of the screen just wash away…

 

Couture: Hanawalt

New gear time: I got an emulsion coating trough:

DSC01712

It’s a lot easier to apply the emulsion evenly with the trough than trying to use a squeegee, although I got a bit messy at first.

But look at that dapper gentleman by Lisa Hanawalt, who made the funniest comic book of 2013. Just look at him!

DSC01710I’m printing it in reverse — that is, I’m printing the white background, and using the black fabric for the lines.  It always makes my brain all hurty trying to figure out whether to print the transparencies in reverse or not.  “I’m printing on a dark fabric, so I’m printing the light bits, so what’s dark should be transparent, since that’s where the paint is going through, so on the screen what’s black should be, right, I think I’ll go shopping for new shirts instead”.

But this one got the right way around on the first try.

Something weird happened when printing, though:

The linework looks good, but the edged are all smudged.  Either I didn’t press hard enough, or some emulsion leaked into the printing area…  Hm…  perhaps I didn’t hose the scum off the back of the screen sufficiently?

Gah.  So I could either start from scratch…  or I could apply masking tape.

DSC01714And print with silver ink!

DSC01716Better, but it’s still not perfect.  I may not be pressing down the squeegee hard enough.  Should I do one final attempt?  Red on grey:

DSC01718

Now there’s too much ink! Oh, well.

Perfection is overrated anyway.

 

Couture: Printer Complications

After finishing that Tilda Swinton Project yesterday, I didn’t have anything to do today, so I could either do something useful…  Or I could start screen-printing again.

So I went out and bought some new photo-sensitive emulsion, and some new inks, and off we go.

Just to get started, I printed this duo-tone George Herriman “x” from Krazy Kat:

DSC01704I used some old red ink, and I think it may have become a bit too thick.  I should get some thinner…

Then onto printing something a new design.  But *gasp*!  What’s happening!

DSC01705That doesn’t look right.  After experimenting a bit, I remembered that if I print with Cups with “-o fitplot” or “-o fit-to-page”, and the image has more pixels than the printer has, then everything goes all wonky.  My Epson Stylus Photo R3000 does 5760×1440, apparently.

Cups is supposed to rescale the images to fit the width/height of the printer, and it works well if the image is smaller than the resolution of the printer.  But scaling down just doesn’t work.

So I wrote this tiny shell script to rescale stuff before printing.

I think this really is a bug in Cups or something, but look how pretty:

DSC01706

(That’s a Jimbo image by Gary Panter, by the way.)

The Tilda Swinton Project Redux

This spring I decided to see all films that Tilda Swinton had appeared in. It was a somewhat random decision, but I felt that I hadn’t seen her in any bad films ever, so perhaps she had exceptional taste?

IMG_0574 IMG_0571

And perhaps that would lead me to see films I otherwise wouldn’t have seen?

I think her taste level turns out to be pretty good. Not all the films she’s been in are great (some are horribly awful, like Vanilla Sky and The Beach), but I can (sort of) see how they might seem like interesting films. At least at the script level.

Even participating in trainwrecks like Trainwreck is understandable: We all thought a film written by by Amy Schumer would be great. We just didn’t realise that Judd Apatow would be directing it.

IMG_0575 IMG_0579

So here’s the conclusion: All her films are interesting. Most of them
are good. And some are amazing.

I mean. A. Maaaaazing. The Last of England, Orlando, Adaptation, The Limits of Control, Burn After Reading, Moonrise Kingdom, Only Lovers Left Alive

The ratio of great films to duds is pretty exceptional.  So…  success!

TSP2015: Trainwreck

Trainwreck. Judd Apatow. 2015.

The Amy Schumer show is funny.  This film isn’t.

I haven’t seen any of the other Judd Apatow films.  My impression is that they are going for cringe humour, but this one just isn’t that cringe-worthy.  Instead it’s just slow.

It’s like a very, very, very long partially improvised HBO sitcom.

Me am disappoint.

And perhaps my hatred of Bill Hader is showing here, but this is how the die rolled:

This post is part of The Tilda Swinton Project.