(1 to 100 of 108 replies)

fuji transfers?

*superfurry* PRO 10:44pm, 13 February 2008
anyone worked with fuji peel apart for transfers and emulsion lifts? do you have to do transfers in the dark?
(1 to 100 of 108 replies)
gliesh PRO 11 years ago
Some one told me you can't do transfers with the Fuji film, not sure how true this is though......
Blacknoise 11 years ago
ive heard that it works, but as you said, it needs to be in complete darkness.

Perhaps some one can elaborate?
*superfurry* PRO 11 years ago
does it need to be darkroom-type darkness or will subdued do? i have enough trouble getting the 'neg' onto the paper neatly as it is, trying to do it under the bedclothes (my darkroom for film-loading etc. purposes) sounds like a recipe for disaster...
Kat White 11 years ago
Oh I hope you can do image transfers!
queermountainman 11 years ago
Once the negative has been developed, why would darkness be necessary for the transfer?
el_katana 11 years ago
Hahaha good point queermountainman!! XD
Computer Science Geek PRO 11 years ago
I've tried it. It doesn't work at all. The Polaroid stuff is preferred.
amuderick PRO 11 years ago
QMM, I have noticed that FP-100C negatives will turn completely black under strong light...even after the complete development time. I'll leave you to figure out the chemistry there but I'm guessing that is a part of the problem.
Blacknoise 11 years ago
as far as i can remember, the last FP-100C i shot, then neg went black pretty quick after i peeled.
queermountainman 11 years ago
@amuderick... I stand corrected. I've only used Fuji once -- it was in a camera I'd bought -- and I didn't notice.

In thinking about the chemistry, it makes me wonder why the unexposed silver halide in a Polaroid negative doesn't darken.
J@mes Gordon PRO 11 years ago
Fuji FP-100b negatives go black as soom as peeled, but the FP-3000b doesn't and can be used the same way as polaroid 667. By this I mean the Goop shot. Why doesn't someone try a transfer if they have some FP-100c ?
rampant observation [deleted] 11 years ago
goop and transfers aren't the same thing. can you also do transfers with fp-3000b?
The Other Pete PRO 11 years ago
As I understand it, you can do emulsion lifts with B&W pack films (Polaroid or Fuji), but image transfers don't work nearly as well. Something about the chemistry for B&W not really transferring well to another surface. I haven't tried transfers myself, so it's all second-hand info.
buradori 11 years ago
i've tried tranfers with several types of B&W polaroid film without success. 669 and 690 work well.

as others have stated, i heard fujii 100c works, but must be performed in the darkroom. i know it doesn't work without a darkroom, because i tried without success.
-pea- PRO Posted 11 years ago. Edited by -pea- (member) 11 years ago
I've done transfers with the colour Fuji, but it has to be done in the dark - just doesnt work in daylight, but its not a problem if you are organised! Oh and you keep the paper dry - don't wet it at all.
However, it doesnt lift - I tried and got a sheet of plastic which although it had an image on, wouldnt stick to anything - you'd have to glue it down, which defeats the object a bit..

(sorry if I've got the picture insertion wrong!)
rampant observation [deleted] 11 years ago
how dark does it have to be? total darkness or is a little light ok?
-pea- PRO 11 years ago
a little light would be fine - not the same darkness as you would need for dealing with a film to be developed, or printing.
neekatnite 11 years ago
Like Pea was saying, doing a lift with Fuji is difficult. Even with long soaking and high heat, it is very stiff and tears rather than coming up as one piece. It's possible to get it off but, again, won't really stick to anything else...

It seems the transfer, like the lift, is tough because of a thinner, harder emulsion on Fuji film...
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
Hi all this is ...Peter Balazsy here.

I was the first one to pioneer and develop the Fiji image-transfer process back in 1992 or so.

I too was quite disappointed to hear of the Polaroid news.
Maybe (hopefully) another company will buy the rights to continue making that film,.

I'll be glad to try to help you all to learn the Fuji image technique that I developed and use. (FP-100c)

I was the first ever to get successful Fuji transfer technique back in about 1992 or so... but now...I have recently decided to share my secrets of how to achieve repeatable positive results. Most people who tried it only ever got a dark green or black blotch!

The big secret is that the room must be dark ...but only when you actually peel the sandwich apart to place the negative down on the new receptor sheet.
Also use NO WATER... dry transfer only!... otherwise you'll get a big green-black patch of nuttin!

You can first do a test of making a good normally developed fully developed Fuji copy print of your 35mm slide.

As soon as you feel you have those settings adjusted to produce a good copy... then you can start the transfer process.

I use soft absorbent receptor paper like Arches 88 printmaking paper or any other similar ...really smooth ....soft ...paper that doesn't have any sizing in it as most watercolor papers do.

First I expose the 35mm slide (using the Dalab enlarger www.Daylab.com) to the Fuji film ( Fp-100c) and after I pull the sandwich through the rollers I darken the room... then I wait 19-20 seconds after pulling it through the rollers and peel the positive sheet off and place the negative side face down onto the receptor paper and then start rolling it quite hard with a hard rubber brayer roller ( the lights are back on now after the negative is face down and away from any light)

You need to roll quite hard to get the emulsion down fully in contact against the receptor paper. ... because unlike Polaroid's gooey gelatin the emulsion on the Fuji film is very thin and fine.

I roll it hard for about 30 or 60 seconds...then peel up to expose a nice image.
but... if you were to lift a corner and expose it to room lights too soon
... ( say after only 10 seconds or so) ...you will "light strike" the image with a greenish solarizing glow...

Sometimes I purposely do this for artistic effects... but don't fiddle with that until you have a controlled good image technique going first.
You can see some samples here:

Here are some sample images in Fuji of mine:
Here both are Fuji:

Here the right is Fuji:

Here the right image is Fuji:

I'll repeat some steps detail again here:
As far a darkness goes.. I work at night and use a desk lamp above my work.. other than that I have only the glow of my computer monitor on the far side of the room to keep me from stumbling.

But remember... you only need the darkness for a few moments.. as soon as you pull the sandwich through the rollers ....you start to time for 19 seconds ( ok ok maybe 20...lol) .... then no light...just while you peel off the positive side and lay the negative side down on the receptor sheet.

So I keep my room dark except for a desk lamp directly over my work area. I switch it off while peeling off the positive... and as I lay the negative in position face down on the receptor sheet and press it down...
Then I can switch the lamp back on and start rolling.

So you only need a small amount of background light to help you position the negative onto the receptor sheet.for those few moments.

( on the far side of the room...try a little night light ... or such)

You should be able to find the Arches 88 print-making paper in any art supply or you can contact Pearl Paint in NYC.
You can get it down there at Pearl Paint art supply on 308 Canal street. 212-431-7932
....or call them and order by phone.

I think ... no...I know... Canson paper co. also makes some good (no sizing) printmaking paper too. Ask your art supply store to show you some samples... just stress to them... "no sizing."

The sizing is normally good for water color artists because it seals the paper and makes it less absorbent... but for the Fuji transfer it is not good. You want a more absorbent paper and the print-making papers are most absorbent.

But after you set up your repeatable parameters using Arches 88.... and you know for certain you can create very repeatable results... then you can start to experiment and branch out to other paper for fun to see what you can get.

Remember if you really need it you can call me or Email
if you get stuck.
.. I'm here in north jersey ... 973-790-7960

Peter Balazsy
J@mes Gordon PRO 11 years ago
Thanks for the info Peter, I will definitely be giving this a go.
queermountainman 11 years ago
Just to clarify... Because you develop the picture for only 20 seconds, you'll get an underdeveloped print. So making a transfer means sacrificing the print for the negative?
QM - correct. If you allow the print to fully develop, you lose the transfer potential in the "neg".
Peter - nice work. Thank you for sharing this info. Would you mind my copying and pasting to my forums for my community to enjoy? If so, perhaps you would consider joining and adding your thoughts the related forum.


CE Nelson
anniebee PRO 11 years ago
Wow, thank you so much Peter! That was very generous of you. I'm looking forward to trying your Fuji-transfer-method out soon :)
max.veenhuyzen 11 years ago
thanks for sharing Peter! very generous of you!
pbpix 11 years ago
You're all welcome guys.. ( I like to see your results when you are done)
Sure Nelson you can re-print it .. please just add my "by-line credit" for me and maybe a link?
Where are your forums?
sef13 11 years ago
I need to try this, I just got a pack of fuji film for my polaroid 450.
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again.

I have been in touch with a lot of new users lately asking for help with Fuji-type image transfers.
The recent feedback I got was that their results were extremely yellow.
But I think that may be because the transfer was NOT made onto Arches 88 paper... or the enlarger light source does not have color balancing filter where needed.

In any case I ran a few new tests again tonight to simulate the problems and using a Daylab flat-print "copy-system" printer that does not employ filtration.

I sent an email update note out tonight with attached results to those people who were concerned ... but I though it might also benefit those here that are experimenting also.
So I've attached a copy of all that text here below if you wish to peruse it.:
---Testing INFO---
"To those of you guys out there that said you were getting rather overly yellowish prints using the Fuji FP 100-c so I decided to make a few tests here tonight to see what or if I can help a bit.

I believe that Norma is using the Daylab "copy-system" flat color print copier and I think that Neil is using a Daylab jr Slide copier.... which allows for color filtration.

I have both here. I had forgotten that the Daylab flat image "copy-system" doesn't have any way to add color filters.

I have always made my previous transfers that are shown on my web page:
using the Daylab enlarger with bellows and color filters.

So tonight I tried to see how things work using the Daylab flat "copy system" printer.

I also realized that I didn't have any fresh Fuji FP-100c film here... but I did have plenty of the OLD Polaroid type 689 Pro-Vivid which is in fact the same as FP100-c
That's what Polaroid was marketing here in the USA by agreement with Fuji back in the 90s.

Well all I had here was some of that type 689 dated 1998-02 ...yikes...lol
... but it was in my fridge... so I figured it had a better chance to be good.
Anyway I tried it and it seemed to work just fine.

Can you believe ten year old instant film still perfect???

Also because I couldn't easily find my stash of Arches 88 paper at first.. I tried a transfer onto Fabriano hot press paper ... but that test-transfer came out almost all orange-ish yellow looking.

So when I finally I found my good ARCHES-88 paper I saw that the images came out more typically normal as I was used to.

** NOTE**.. So for those who are finding the transfers TOO yellow ....make sure the receptor paper isn't contributing to the problem.

I have attached a link to a picture here showing 3 stages of my results tonight.
(my scanner has not made every shade or subtle tone perfect here but it's close enough to show what the differences are)
Link to Test:

I just took any old color print I had around here with some multi-colors and flesh tones...and then I set the "copy-system" exposure to -3 (minus three) and viola!
.. I got an great, fully developed (90 secs) color copy exactly as I expected right on the 1st try.

Then using that same exposure setting I made another print and peeled it apart at 20 seconds in the dark.
Rolled it out onto Arches 88 paper...for 20-30 seconds real hard using a hard rubber Brayer roller... and the transfer was perfect in every way with just a slight reddish yellow hue.
Now...If I were using my other Daylab slide-printer unit I could have added some cyan and/or magenta filtering to balance out that Yellow bias.

Hope this helps.
Let me know how you are all making out.

Peter G. Balazsy
rise3high PRO 11 years ago
marvellous works, peter.
terrific uses of fuji film!
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again.

My latest tests done again today March 8th, 2008 seem to indicate that perhaps there is something in the receptor paper that is contributing to a yellow cast in the Fuji image transfer..

For my current tests I have been using Daylab's flat image "copy system"
( this device allows you to copy from any flat 4x6" image to either Fuji (FP100c) or Polaroid (669) instant film
It does not employ color balancing filters.

I am also using ( refrigerated ten-year old) Polaroid's version of the Fuji FP100c film (Polaroid Type 689 ProVivid... no longer sold by Polaroid)

In my tests I can repeatably create fully developed (90 second) well balanced color dupes of any image original, however when I am making a Fuji image-transfer onto Archess 88 paper I get a bit of a yellowish cast that seems strong as soon as I first peel the negative up off the receptor sheet... but it reduces a bit after a few moments after the print dries and "settles in".

I have made a small temporary testing modification to the Daylab copier. Inside the flat glass section is a flash head that aims into the chamber below the glass where the mirror sits. I have simply cut out a couple of colored gels ... one in cyan and another in magenta and using a piece of Scotch tape to hold the filters, I lifted up the glass and reached in the box and positioned the "filters" such that they hang in front of the flash head.
I had to adjust this several times to make things better. I only now use small pieces that don't even totally cover the flash. I've also had to increase the exposure time a notch or two to compensate.

I'm not totally satisfied that the gels I used are the perfect solution though because I just picked a couple that were not too dark-looking and seemed to be approximately "cyan" and "magenta" in color.

The experiment only serves to prove to me that, in fact, I can reduce the yellow cast by adding filtration.

However if I leave the filter in place and try to print a "NORMAL" non transfer full 90 second color dupe image... the filters will block the balanced light and the copy is very much on the dark reddish-blue side.

So if one wants a "good" normal print the filter should NOT be used at all.

So this test simply draws me to the conclusion that since I CAN get a good-color, NORMAL print under normal usage... and the Yellow only seems to be present when printing a transfer onto Arches 88 paper ...
It would appear, on first glance, that something about the paper is contributing to the problem. I'm guessing that perhaps it is the PH of the paper.

However since it can be "filtered out" by modifying the intermediate image in the copier with filters... I don't feel it is an insurmountable problem

In fact ....since ...in all of MY many years of making MY Fuji-transfer art it was always done using the Daylab "slide-copier" that does actually employ color filters... and therefore I was always able to balance the image colors for any desired result..

So by my using the Daylab unit with color filters all the time I, for the most part never thought to consider that the receptor paper itself might have been contributing to a color cast..

Perhaps now as you all out there begin to experiment some more ...you may find yet another, better suitable receptor paper to use.

Peter Balazsy
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
Hello Folks.
Peter Balazsy here again.

March 10th 2008
Today I was continuing testing with the Daylab copy-system. Flat image film copier.
( I should note that my unit does NOT have color filters but the later PRO-model does)

My testes below are done primarily to show differences in color filtration while transferring onto Arches 88 paper.

I have been using Polaroid type 689 film aka FujiFP100c.

I have two ten year old lots here:
One lot I kept in the refrigerator, the other big lot ( a full 60 pack lot) was just kept in a cool/dry basement area.

The refrigerated film works perfectly I feel... and the other seems a bit marginal here and there.
So keep this in mind as you look at test results.

While doing these tests I also started to run out of Arches 88 paper and decided to try to print a few images on a paper I've never used before.
That paper is Borden & Riley #234 PARIS paper. It is available in a 9x12" pad for about $7.

The PARIS paper does require some very hard roller pressure to get the gel-emulsion down into the surface texture. But surprisingly it makes a very nice print.
This first set shows that paper used compared to Arches 88:


The next two sets are all on Arches 88 paper


I hope these test images help you all in your experiments with this new Fuji medium.

Peter Balazsy
The Other Pete PRO 11 years ago
I think ... no...I know... Canson paper co. also makes some good (no sizing) printmaking paper too. Ask your art supply store to show you some samples... just stress to them... "no sizing."

Just because I'm a paper fanatic, I thought I'd chip in here. I used to do a lot of transfers back in the day (though not Polaroid transfers) and these papers all worked. They're all 100% cotton fiber and have no surface sizing (all paper has at least a little sizing to hold it together, but it's the surface sizing on water color paper that makes it useless for transfers):

BFK Rives
Arches Cover

Of all these papers, only Stonhenge even comes near the smooth surface of Arches 88 (which is a silkscreen paper and therefore extremely smooth). The others have much more surface texture, which might be a benefit to some.

One other thing we used to do back in the day is buy hot pressed watercolor paper and then soak it to get the surface sizing out of it. The hot pressed paper is incredibly smooth and soaking it a little while usually took enough of the surface sizing off to make it acceptable for the kinds of transfers I was doing.

Again, I've never used any of these papers for Polaroid transfers, but they have worked very well with other transfer techniques, so I thought people might like the info.
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
I have used Rievs BFK as one of my favorite papers ever for Polaroid transfers. It is the easiest paper for beginners to use because it provides the most repeatably predictable results... both wet and dry transfers.

Stonehenge is another great paper for Polaroid transfer but it is difficult to get to work well for transfers because it is so loaded up with sizing that it is very hard surfaced, though smooth, but the sizing often resists the Polaroid dyes in spots causing difficult image results. But when I learned to start washing out all the sizing by soaking it in warm water first then squeegee-ing it or rolling it out with a hard brayer on the glass table top...like a wringer ....to make it dry or damp... THEN yes... what a super wonderful paper for Polaroid.

The gooey dyes will then soak deep into the paper fibers ( even appearing on the back). Then when the paper dries it makes a most unusually tough surfaced image and quite beautiful. Different in that the image is impressed deep into the paper!.!

Stonehenge has many beautiful shades like "fawn" and "beige" etc.

Newsprint paper for drawing:
Although it is NOT archival quality ...I have also had some exciting and really wonderful results doing dry Polaroid transfers onto ordinary "newsprint" paper.
Morilla "coronado" or similar such Newsprint sketch pad paper.
I think it's because the paper has a lot of wood pulp in it or such that it looks so unique and "rich-looking" with a dry Polaroid transfer.

Maybe that's why Polaroid transfers onto wood itself also look so good too. I have done wet or damp Polaroid transfers onto pine and regular 2x4s as well as small wooden (bass wood curio boxes ) found in craft stores.

Bass wood can be found in flat thin strips in the craft store or art stores usually.

As far as Fuji transfers though... the papers I've had good success with have been soft with NO sizing like Arches 88 and Canson's various print-making papers.
However I was really quite surprised yesterday to get such nice results with the Borden &Riley PARIS paper.

The other item of concern while transferring Fuji film is possibly the PH of the paper that may be adding to the color cast problem.

Peter Balazsy
The Other Pete PRO 11 years ago
Hmmm...pH levels would be a fun little wrinkle. Real archival paper is actually made slightly alkaline to compensate for acid absorption over time (aka. "buffered"). If the pH balance does make a difference to the final image, you could find just as much weirdness coming from the really good paper as from the really bad.

Either way – I'll bet it would be a lot of fun finding out. I just ordered some 690 yesterday and I've been meaning to get some Fuji100C, so maybe I'll try it myself and see what happens.
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
Hi folks:
Peter Balazsy here again.
www.pbpix.com (973-790-7960) Peter@pbpix.com

I was in touch today with Mr. Steve Pfaff the President of Daylab
( www.daylab.com) and he asked me if I had any "emulsion-lift" success using the new Fuji FP-100c film because many customers have been asking him about it and worried about if it can be accomplished or not.
So I tried a test tonight and met with relative success right away.
I feel that the effect is not exactly the same as with the Polaroid emulsion because the layer is thicker and stiffer and not as delicate or as diaphanous.
It seemed to stick well to the glass but the dry edges where wrinkled seemed to curl up.

I guess that one way to try to address this ....when using glass ....is to mount the image against a nice color backing paper with the glass reversed so the right side of the image faces down against the backing paper and back of the image shows up through the glass and then the effect of the manipulated, wrinkling is still evident but the entire work is protected behind the glass.

Another idea is to place another glass flat against the front side of the image to hold entire area flat.

If you are not wrinkling for artistic feel perhaps a spray adhesive might work.. I'm sure someone will invent a better technique as soon as we all experiment a little more.
Here's tonight's results:
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
This may be of help about "lifts" and sticking to new surfaces.

Folks are trying to find a good way to get the Fuji "lifts" to adhere to new recptor materials.

When I made that "lift" last night as shown posted above...
I noticed that when I boiled it and slid off the "emulsion" there was a goopy clear gelatinous mass left on the surface of the original backing paper.

( I think Polaroid used a type of CLAY between the backing paper and the top emulsion layer)

...but this clear goopy Fuji gelatin stuff swelled up from the hot water like clear Cream of Wheat ....lol

I guess it's a bonding agent...used to adhere the top plastic-emulsion-layer to the backing paper.
So whatever that stuff is ( maybe like Knox Gelatin?) it could be used to help the lifted emulsion stick to the new receptor?... maybe?

I imagine if the lifted emulsion was placed smooth and flat onto a new receptor.. and kept smooth... then maybe a spray adhesive would work well... But since most artists like to wrinkle the "lift"... one needs to have a nice slippery receptor surface on which to slide the lift around a bit.
So in that case maybe a wetter goopier adherent would work better. So maybe something like Knox Gelatin?
So maybe if we can find a wet bonding agent that dries shortly after wrinkling the "lift" would work.

I've never used Knox Gelatin per se.. but maybe it ...or something like that would be a good inert bonding agent.

Peter G. Balazsy
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
Hi Folks:

I got word today from some kind folks at Polaroid that things in the film manufacturing facility in Mass. are drawing to an END real soon up there.

They make the larger peel-apart sizes up there in that plant but the 3x4 inch size type 669 film is made in the Mexico plant ....and that too is closing soon.
The last batches of 8x10" type 809 are done already with with Dec-2008 exp. dates (I think).
The large 20x24" stuff will expire in late 2009.
The last batch of 3x4" type 669 film being made now will have the March 2009 expiration date. That's it... no more gone forever!

I asked if there was any possible chance or even a warm rumor that another film maker may be in negotiations to take over the manufacturing of this film.. and I was told that ... (it is quite doubtful.. maybe that could happen.).. but it looks very dim because everything is already getting ready to shut down and there's no time for it to happen.

Peter G. Balazsy
Option8 PRO Posted 11 years ago. Edited by Option8 (admin) 11 years ago
where does the equipment go!?

and where is the integral film produced? when does that machine turn off for good?
davebias PRO 11 years ago
great question Option8...

Time is certainly getting short and a potential licensee isn't going to want to commission new manufacturing equipment to be built. It's going to be hard enough to re-establish links with the chemicals and batteries folks without having to build new machines...

I - for one - really want to take a meeting at Polaroid to have some questions answered. Is the offer of a license just lip-service to keep us all buying film until the end? Is it at all feasible to continue the manufacture. Are they scrapping the machinery immediately or will there be time to recover it. And even more to the point, could the film be made more efficiently, faster or cheaper with newer equipment?

So many questions...

Peter - you're the man. Thanks so much for all the great (and some very sad) info!
delicate boot [deleted] 11 years ago
Dave -

Check the Save Polaroid threads...the equipment is already being auctioned/scrapped. I'm sure you've already seen the post...


You are a hero this day. Amazing effort in getting this info across. Thanks.
-pea- PRO 11 years ago
I shall have a go at a lift with some spray mount!
pbpix 11 years ago
Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again.

Have any of you been receiving email as I did for a Polaroid petition?

Today I also received an Email from Steve Pfaff the president of Daylab
concerning Polaroid film manufacturing.

I'll pass it along as general info .
Here's the context of his email to me:

Like any company, I do not think Fuji is prepared to do anything new
unless it is financially viable for them. They can do nothing for intregral
films such as 600 and Sx-70 since they currently manufacture their own
intregral film that is not compatible with Polaroid.

With peel apart film it is another story. Fuji currently makes 3x4 and 4x5
pack films that can be used in place of Polaroid. There is a small rumor
that they might make 4x5 sheet film, 8x10 sheet film and 20x24 sheet film.
These rumors are just rumors from third parties, but it might be possible.
This would not be a big investment on the part of Fuji, but it would be
based on Fuji film, not Polaroid.

Fuji could create a more artistic film similar to 669. They would have to
change the iso and the backing. Again, they will only do this if the
numbers are there. I do not think Fuji has to license anything since it
would only be a change to their existing product.

When I have suggested this to Fuji their response is how big is the
market? It would be very persuasive if we could somehow have as many users
as possible project how much 669 they will purchase per year. If this
turns out to be as big a number as I think it is, it could make the
difference in convincing Fuji.

Give it some thought on how we could come up with these projections.

Best Regards,

queermountainman 11 years ago
"[Fuji] can do nothing for intregral films such as 600 and SX-70 since they currently manufacture their own intregral film that is not compatible with Polaroid."

I don't see the logic of this. The issue is whether there's a sufficient market for 600 and Spectra materials to justify manufacturing them. This would represent a new market for Fuji -- not competition -- as current owners of Polaroid integral-film cameras aren't about to buy Instax cameras and films -- which aren't readily available in the US, anyway.

If Fuji wanted to create a market for its Instax materials in the US, it would need to produce a high-quality "professional" RF or SLR camera with a fast lens and manual controls (or control) to use them.
MexicoGata 11 years ago
I use a Vivitar Slide Printer for Polaroid Transfers and now want to try the Fuji FP-100c product. Has anyone used the VIvitar for transfers using this Fuji film? What are the issues concerning color cast (yellow?) that could arise with Vivitar slide printer similar to this problem with the Daylab?
-pea- PRO 11 years ago
I have the vivitar printer too, but I have only done fuji transfers direct from the camera so far. Could you put a colour filter in its little filter slot?
pbpix 11 years ago
Yes in fact with my old Vivitar..I used to use a slight red or magenta filter with Polaroid film to compensate for the typical cyan bias.
spiky fork [deleted] Posted 11 years ago. Edited by spiky fork (member) 11 years ago
I just tried some transfers with FP-100c tonight onto BFK Rives. I found that spritzing the paper with isopropanol until it is uniformly damp and then doing the transfer gives quite acceptable results (all other parameters I used were those outlined by Peter). Actually the isopropanol gave a more uniform transfer than I got using dry BFK Rives.
pbpix 11 years ago
That's very interesting to hear. i'll have to give that a try soon too.
What gave you the idea?
some regular old rubbing alcohol has 30% ethyl alcohol.
I think that may be all I have around to try.
Is that what you used?
Did you use Rives BFK white or buff color?
Can you post a copy of your results?
spiky fork [deleted] 11 years ago

I had read somewhere else that isopropanol enhanced the intensity of colour transfer with 669 and just thought I'd give it a go with FP100c. I'm sure regular rubbing alcohol would work, I'm interested in comparing methanol, ethanol and isopropanol at some point. I used Rives BFK white paper.

Here are a couple of examples, please make allowances for:

(1) shot under halogen lights so colour balance is off
(2) shot "live" with a pinhole camera and even allowing for reciprocity failure the exposures were dark
(3) subject matter - roses (eek!)

example 1:

Fuji FP100c Transfer I

example 2:

Fuji FP100c Transfer II
Kiep 11 years ago

For anybody interested: using 70% rubbing alcohol is quite common for use with inkjet transfers, works a treat. So I can see this working for other media as well. With inkjet transfers, only the 70% works, NOT the 100%.

Peter, thank you so much for shedding light on this whole Fuji transfer question. Your tons of info have been really helpful.

spiky fork [deleted] 11 years ago

Thanks for the info on inkjet transfers. In the case of my Fuji transfers, I did use 100% isopropanol.

pbpix 11 years ago
Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again...

Today I was testing various receptor papers.

GOOD NEWS testing..

I tried a DRY Fuji transfer onto Arches 90# hot presspaper and only got a big green-black blotch as expected.

.. however when I tried a dry transfer onto Reives BFK (white) the image was fine as long as I used rather heavy rolling pressure.

I also tried wetting agents too and discovered that Witch Hazel (TM Dickinsons) for some reason...seems to be a great agent allowing successful transfers to almost any paper I tried!!

So I tried the Arches 90# hot press again ...but this time I dampened it with Witch Hazel and the transfer came out just fine!

I still feel that the Arches 88 dry transfers are about the best I can get although I also find that Border & Riley's #234-Paris paper is very good too.

I tried BFK both wet with witch hazel and dry too and that works good either way.
My wet tests with Stone Henge were fine too... but my wet test with Fabriano and Lanaquarelle seemed a bit muddy.

I tried some rubbing alcohol too but that didn't work for me.

I have no clue about why Witch Hazel does the trick so nicely but at least it DOES work.. not only to help in emulsion to paper contact... but it seems to eliminate whatever chemical it is in some papers that causes that big green-black blotch. ( water will cause it too).. but I've never tried distilled water.

I'm sure it has something to do with PH or the like... but whatever I am.. I am certainly no chemist...lol

Wouldn't it be great to get some direct feed back assistance from the chemical lab guys at Fuji who actually make this stuff and know what's going on?
That would sure help to eliminate all this "poke and hope" experimentation!

All my tests today were done using a new Daylab Copy System Pro
Flat image copier.
My exposure settings were at +4 and I either used NO color filters or I used a Cyan+magenta filter if there was too much yellow.

I should also note here for those who notice that my images seem contrasty...lol
....that these flat 4x6" color prints that I was making transfers from ...are extremely contrasty to start with .....because these color prints are NOT the original images but in fact they themselves are copies of my actual original 35mm color transparencies that I duped to color negative film and had these prints made from those negs...lol

So by the very nature of all that duping ... especially in non-lab conditions causes dark contrasty prints.

Anyway... here are the results of all my tests... ENJOY and learn.
.. Then get out there and EXPERIMENT!

Peter G. Balazsy
brahma photographica 11 years ago
peter, I have one big question for you, what color safelight would allow me to do the fuji transfers without turning out the lights altogether? I need light of some kind to place my transfers since I use many transfers per image, ?
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago


I really can't say specifically because I haven't tried a "safe light" per se.

All I ever do is simply make sure that no bright direct light strikes the film after peel-apart ....during those few seconds it takes to place the negative face down onto the receptor sheet.

I leave a lamp on in the adjoining room and a small light on the other side of the room. Just enough light to see what I'm doing.

First I place my receptor sheet on the glass surface in front of me on my work table.

I have a desk lamp positioned right above my work area and I switch it off just before I pull the white tab through the rollers.

In the darkened room..I just allow my eyes to adjust to the dim light and check that I can see the sweep second hand clearly on my watch and that I can see properly to position the negative on the receptor sheet.

Then I pull the white tab and then the black tab and glance at my watch to start the 20 second timing.
When 15 seconds goes by I then quickly get prepared to position the negative over the receptor sheet. At the 20 second point I quickly pull off the un-used positive and place the negative face down on the receptor sheet and smooth it flat quickly with my free hand to insure that it is down flat and no light will leak under it..

... At that point I can NOW turn the light on over my work area and procede to roll with the brayer roller.

My desk lamp is positioned right above ( 6-10 inches or so) the film to help keep it at a good temperature for developing properly.

It's really all rather easy.
No big deal ...the light only really needs to be out for only a few moments during the time the peel-apart occurs.
.... just before placing the film down on the receptor paper.. that's all.

good luck...
pbpix Posted 11 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 11 years ago
Hi All :
Peter Balazsy here again:

Experiment - experiment

I tried more DRY transfers tonight onto both Arches 88 as usual but comparing it as well to Lanaquarelle hot press paper.

I still prefer the Arches 88... however I did get pretty good results with Lana paper too.... but I used a hard rubber Brayer with very hard rolling pressure. The extra pressure seems to be needed to assure that the emulsion will get down into the "surface texture" or "tooth".

Wet transfers usually help eliminate that problem however I noticed that even using Witch Hazel as a wetting agent it seems to darken the colors a tad with a slightly muddier look. This is why I wanted to test DRY transfers on these other papers.

I also decided to try a few other little techniques.

I used Krylon matte finish spay on a piece of Lana paper... and while it was still damp .... I transferred onto it.

The result was quite good and the emulsion seemed to get down into the tooth better because the paper was softer and wetter.
I also sprayed the Krylon matte finish over the transfer later and it didn't really improve or change anything to speak of.

So I decided that simply VERY hard pressure with a hard rubber roller on Lanaquarelle paper works well ....as long as you really press hard.

I also tried to over-coat all my test images tonight with a semi-gloss spray Lacquer.

I used DEFT brand Clear Wood Finish Semi-Gloss spray. It dries in a couple of minuets to a nice hard finish where the emulsion is.

This DEFT brand spray lacquer is available in most hardware stores or wherever paint is sold.
But ....I guess any other brand will do.

I really liked the creamy looking wax-like feel to the image area after the Lacquer dries. It really gives it a special "extra" feeling.

The edges around my images are from colored pencil or watercolors or both.

Here's the test images:
brahma photographica 11 years ago
thanks Peter, I get what you are saying, I think I am looking for a constant filtered light source, I rely heavily on getting consistent results and being able to place the images within seconds, here is an example with 669, it took 167 transfers onto one 7 foot long piece of paper (sorry picture taken through a frame, slighlty washed out the colors)

if anyone has any good results with safelights please post them, ...

one note about the 669 film, I just ordered what will most likely be my last batch, I got 2000 exposures at 18.00 a pack with free shipping! and its all dated 3/09, if anyone wants to get this I will tell you what I did....
I called polaroid and talked to one of the salesmen, he explained if I opened a business account with them (free) that I would get the best price plus free shipping, he emailed me some paperwork over, I signed and emailed back and sure enough 3 days later I got my film, bad news is that he called me last week to tell me they were down to their last thousand packs of 669! worldwide, I maxed myself out getting 2000 exp. so if anyone else wants a great price I would call them soon.... (all the film packs have big yellow stickers now saying "DISCONTINUED" like a stab to the heart.........
pbpix Posted 10 years ago. Edited by pbpix (member) 10 years ago
Hi All:
Peter Balazsy here again.

I thought I'd try to pass along some more interesting helpful hints about making creative/artistic Fuji ]transfers.

I have usually recommended using Arches-88 as a receptor paper because it does give you good repeatable results.. (albeit on the yellow side it seems)

Today I did a dry transfer onto RIVES "Heavyweight" watercolor & printmaking paper. www.pearlpaint.com/shop~parentID~6893~categoryID~6889.htm

The transferred image was a bit pale and thin or washed out.... but I contribute that (lack of density) mostly to the fact that I was copying from a color ink-jet print instead of copying from a good, rich-colored, regular silver halide color photo.

Anyway my point here today is that I decided to experiment with water-color painting over the transferred image ( much as I used to be able to do with Polaroid transfers) using just some simple 99 cent kid's watercolors and it seemed to work well.

In my experiments with watercolors in the past ( using Arches88) I couldn't use watercolors because just the clear water itself seemed to effect or dilute the transfer and even if it didn't effect the transfer colors the watercolors would swell-up the paper. Because the paper is acting like a sponge and does not allow one to brush on in any reasonable way.

However, using the Rieves "Heavyweight" paper today, it took the watercolors quite well.

I was afraid the water might dilute the FUJI dyes ...but that didn't seem to be the case.

I didn't want to "paint" over the image so much as I just wanted to sort-of tint the image using very thin watery "translucent-like" colors.

My goal was to allow much of the definition of the photo to still appear through the watercolors and NOT to have the opaqueness of the watercolor paint obliterate most or any serious amount of the detail beneath it.

spiky fork [deleted] 10 years ago

Very nice effect - it looks like a fresco painting.

josefchiang 10 years ago
Thanks for the invaluable info, Peter!
bambam4236 PRO 10 years ago
Thanks heaps for the info pete, i just did my first transfer with fuji today ;)
anphotoart 10 years ago

FUJI works fine, but is different from Polaroid.

You can see some examples to compare here:


DRY Fuji transfer was made onto Arches Aquerelle Satin 100% Cotton.


light master 10 years ago
Peter, you are using Fuji for transfers right? Have you tried lifts? How have those worked for you? I ordered Fuji 100c45 and found it is too large for my Daylab Jr. Did I orcer the wrong thing? Thanks!
.taf 10 years ago
I believe the Daylabs use FP100c but not in the 4x5 size - you need the smaller sized film.
His Noodly Appendage 10 years ago
Any workaround ideas for how the glossy blacks in the finish on FP-100 C make it difficult to scan: I attempted some "lifts" over the weekend and - as also indicated above, they don't stick to the paper too well and dry fairly stiff. Worse yet, when scanned, the glossy blacks create thousands of little dust-like "sparkles." While that could be used to good effect in some circumstances I suppose, I was left wondering if there was any coating that could be applied to reduce this effect (other than painstaking PS retouching)?
Any ideas much appreciated.
(This question also posted in the Fuji fanclub thread so apologies for the repetition).
12catcrazy Posted 10 years ago. Edited by 12catcrazy (member) 10 years ago
I'm chimeing in here... tried some Fuji transfers over this past week. First tried them using Fabriano 140 Hot Press Watercolor paper which had been soaked in simmering water, rinsed and dried. Using a Daylab slide printer, I first took a couple of regular prints to see what the Fuji looked like and how long it needs to develop. I had some high hopes as the Fuji prints have really nice color and I was hoping that my transfers would have similar color. I Blew thru my remaining 8 pieces of Fuji film and didn't get a single useable print! Major disappointment.

First off, this Fuji film is really tempermental. I discovered through trial and error that you don't need total darkness when you peel your negative, but its a very fine line between being dark enough to not polarize your negative (and get the big green blotch) and getting too much light. I was working in my kitchen and found that if I turned off the light in the hall (and the kitchen light obviously) and left the computer in the kitchen turned on (facing away from my work area), that gave me enough light to place my neg on the paper but was still dark enough not to get the dark blotch. When the light in the hall was on, even though the kitchen seemed fairly dark, it was enough to get the blotch.

Okay, for some reason, I had it in my head (from reading this thread) that wetting the paper with a bit of witch hazel was a good thing, so I barely dampened a couple of sheets of paper with witch hazel and attempted a couple of prints. The good news was that the Fuji ink nicely went into the paper, the bad news is that the colors kind of ran into each other, and the black on the model's tank top ran into the flesh tones on her upper chest, making everything look muddy. I then decided to rinse the print under water to see if the muddiness would wash off.... it did, but so did most of the inks! Fuji inks are NOT waterproof!!! Won't make that mistake again.

I tried making a couple of more prints, but no luck getting anything decent but that was mainly due to "user error" (to use a Daylab slide printer, you have to have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time).

In frustration, I sent Mr. Balazsy an email asking for suggestions. He kindly emailed me back and told me to try DRY paper and to keep plugging away at it. He suggested the Arches 88, but the closest to that I could buy in these parts was Rives BFK paper, which is "half-sized".

I hauled out my Daylab again, loaded up my 2nd pack of Fuji and gave it a go. Since I was actually doing this in the afternoon, the light situation was a bit tricky. My house is on the dark side at high-noon, and I have a hallway which is always kind of dark. I set up a tv table in the hall and taped some brown paper over the doorway from the hall to the dining area. It was dark, but maybe not dark enough... anyway, I took a picture, waited 20 sec and peeled it in the hallway, stuck it to the paper, ran it into the kitchen and started rolling it like mad with a hard rubber brayer.

After almost a minute of rolling, I peeled back the negative and actually had a fairly nice print. The down side is that a) it looks nothing like the beautiful artistic Polaroid transfers where that cyan edge and liftup adds "something" to the print. b), though I was rolling that negative like a SOB, there was still white "specks" on the print, where the ink didn't get into the paper. They really bugged me, because they don't look "artistic" and there was enough of them to make re-touching them a PITA. c) the print is VERY yellow. My model had almost white-blond hair and was wearing silver jewelry and a shirt that had a gold and white print on a black background. Well my friends, anything that read "White" on the original slide came out yellow on the transfer print. The model's skin which is actually on the pink side on the slide is very peachy (leaning to orange) on the transfer print. So I had this picture with a model with very yellow hair, almost orange skin, wearing gold jewelry instead of sliver, also wearing a shirt with a gold on black print (no white). There was absolutely NO WHITE anywhere on the transfer print.

Now I don't know if this is because of the paper that I used or if this is something that is just part of the Fuji film, but it is a problem, and a major one depending on what you are trying to make a transfer of.
For the fun of it, I tried using the blue and magenta filter on my Daylab to try to counteract the yellow, but had no luck in the next print. It was still really yellow, and disappointing. It also had even more of the white "specks" than the previous transfer .

I think that I now have about 5 pieces of film left to play with. I had a dinner date and had to pack it in early today. I'll keep playing with this Fuji as it's going to be the only game in town pretty soon, but I'll say it loud here in public that it majorly sucks that Polaroid 669 has gone the way of the Dodo. I'd love to get a voodoo doll in the image of that Petters guy and stick lots of needles in it on a daily basis.

This Fuji film is tempermental and has turned something that was a beloved passion (making Polaroid transfers) into a frustrating pain in the ass. If anybody has had better luck at getting non-yellow pictures, please post your secrets. And if anyone has a petition to sign to bombard Fuji with requests for a 669 clone, please pass it on to me, because I sure don't have the money to be buying speculator-priced Polaroid on eBay!
light master 10 years ago
Thanks for sharing 12catcrazy. I'm still in the process of ordering the proper Fuji film for trying these transfers. I'll post my own findings after I get the chance to try it.
bambam4236 PRO 10 years ago
HI catcrazy

I have just started using arches88 dry for mine with pretty good results. I do find black areas do need a good hard rolling otherwise i get the speckling you mentioned. I haven't tried it wet but used peter's great experience as a guide so stuck with dry and have been happy so far.
I do also find the whites are slightly yellow like you did, i kind of like it but can see why it might annoy some.
Emma Frye 10 years ago
I've just been talking to a friend of mine and he said to leave it for about 1min 30 before peeling apart the film. This seems an awfully long time as I've heard you only need to leave it 20-30 seconds and that the green blotchy transfers are due to development time and not doing it in the dark.

So now I am rather confused. Can someone please clear this up for me?
12catcrazy 10 years ago
- please read the above posts.

The green blotch has nothing to do with developement time, but with the light hitting the negative. Fuji is NOT Polaroid - Polaroid negatives are not light sensitive.

1.5 minutes will give you a good Fuji positive - don't leave it that long if you are doing a transfer - experiment, but I found that about 25 to 30 seconds worked best.

There is also a Fuji transfer group by the way www.flickr.com/groups/708265@N23/discuss/

Though most of the info on how to do this is on this discussion. I keep meaning to get back report on my last experiments. Arches 88 printmaking paper will give an almost regular "photographic" look to the print. For best results, you really need to use an unsized paper like the Arches 88, or soak sized paper in hot water to try and remove most of the sizing. The Fuji "goop" is very thin and doesn't absorb the way the Polaroid goop does.

Good luck. Do some playing and come back and report your results.
Emma Frye 10 years ago
Thank you for your help. I have had two attempts so far, nothing like the green mess I was getting before, but still no where near perfect.

12catcrazy 10 years ago
- from looking at your transfers, my guess is that too much light is hitting them as your peeling your film apart and laying the negative on the paper. Either that or you're having a problem with the paper as apparently, some papers can also cause a blotchy looking result.

You don't need ptich-darkness, but you need to have your work area pretty dark. If you can only work in a room with daylight in it, try using a cardboard box with some dark fabric draped over an opening and create darkness that way (yeah a real PITA).

Only let your film develop for about 25 seconds before placing on the paper, and see what that looks like. Also, don't leave the negative on the paper for more than a minute tops. If left on too long, it goes very dark and blotchy.
bambam4236 PRO 10 years ago
I'm not sure but are the actual shots quite dark themselves? it looks like they may be as the transfers are extremely dark, more then i'd expect from leaving the neg on the paper too long.
You may need to press a bit harder too, i find fuji needs more pressure then polaroid film otherwise you get the white spotty blotches where it doesn't adhere to well to the paper.
Good luck! fuji can be fiddly but with some experimenting you can get good results.
Read through all PBPIX's replies above, he really knows the stuff well.
Emma Frye 10 years ago
Thanks to everyone's help I think I have finally managed it!!

suzanne_ludlum 10 years ago
Hey, everyone. I'm new to this group and new to Fuji transfers. Peter's been giving me some good suggestions (same as what I've read here). I use a Daylab slide printer with dial filtration. I find that if I use a 20 Cyan filtration with a -3 exposure, it gets close to a good result.
Has anyone tried hydrogen peroxide on the receptor sheet? I just picked some up and am going to try it today. The witch hazel just runs the colors right off, but perhaps it would improve with less brayer rolling.
I've also tried Arches 88 and Pescia (white), and the Arches is definitely better.
TracieHeller 10 years ago
I've recently tried Fuji transfers on Arches 88 on a Daylab, and agree that they are too yellow - even with the cyan filter at 80. So I taped a piece of cyan acrylic just below the lens and it got rid of the abundance of yellow. It brought the blue back into my skies, and now I can adjust the amount by changing the cyan filtration on the Daylab. The acrylic was from lighting gels.
C-Rhoades Posted 9 years ago. Edited by C-Rhoades (member) 9 years ago
Hey guys, thank goodness for all of you also trying to make the transition from Polaroid to Fuji. It's given me a headache. I got my film from Freestyle Photographic Supplies and got 2 packs of Fuji to see if I could figure it out. On their website they've got a tutorial of sorts, a lady who's been doing polaroids for however long has posted the way she has gotten the film to work. I never really saw development times for doing transfers so I was just experimenting in pretty dim light. I tried everywhere from 10 sec (since thats what i'm used to with the 669 film) to 40 sec. I pretty much gave up and let the rest of them develop fully.

I've had pretty good luck with the lifts, I get the water boiling and let it soak for a few minutes, usually until I can stand to stick my fingers in. The emulsion doesn't boil and lift up like the 669 film. I usually rub a corner back far enough til I can grab it and peel it back. It really likes to curl, but it's been coming off pretty easy. A very simple solution to those of you who've not had luck with the emulsion sticking to the paper after it dries...unlike the 669, the gelatin holding the emulsion on doesn't disintegrate and i've had great results simply putting that film back (the gelatin doesn't even seem to really move or slide off!) onto the paper face down and rub the gel onto the paper, spread it around with my fingers and then put the emulsion on. I uncurl it as best I can and use a brayer to remove air bubbles and get it stuck down permanently. Takes a long time to dry, but it sticks!

As for the transfers, i've tried more again today, using the blue filter on my daylab with a pretty high exposure. After reading a lot of the posts on here, I moved from a dim room to my closet with 2 entrances, I put a towel at the bottom of the door I was near and left the other unblocked so I could sort of see what I was doing. I finally got some good prints. I let it develop roughly 20 seconds, peeled it apart and stuck it to the paper. I tried on Rives, it had a lot of places where the ink didn't transfer but it wasn't yellow/green/muddy like the ones I had done before I moved to the closet. So I tried this Arches paper I had left over from a printmaking class, I'm not sure which it is, the watermark just says Arches. It might be the 88 you're all talking about. Kinda stiff and thin. Anyway, all the ones I did on that paper turned out really well. I applied A LOT of pressure, used my thumb at first, then a hard rubber brayer and finally my thumbnail to dig it in even more. All of that totally eliminated any places where the ink didn't transfer.

It's such a relief...I'm participating in an art festival in about 2 months and was debating having to make my editions smaller because I wouldn't have enough 669 film, but now i'm confident I can make this Fuji thing work, phew!!
anphotoart 9 years ago

Fuji FP-100C45 works fine (but I prefer dead Polaroid)....

You have to transfer dry and in the dark (just the moment you
position the negative over the receptor sheet).

Here some examples:


I never tried emulsion lift. Some test and examples have
benn posted by Peter Balazsy.


siddal Posted 9 years ago. Edited by siddal (member) 9 years ago
I could use some advice. I purchased a DayLab pro a few months ago and have now used it twice. I'm finally getting the hang of working with Fuji film in the semi-darkness, and haven't had any problems with solarization yet, but I am having emulsion problems. Some of my transfers come out with long scratch-like marks on them. They are always the same direction, which makes me worried that something is wrong with the roller. For instance, if the image is horizontal, the scratches would be running from the top to bottom (IE vertically) within the image

I'm always quite careful when I pull out the film, so it's very hard to try to identify what could be making this happen. It's about 50-50, which is maddening, as it really wastes the film. I'm using Arches 88 paper. I put up a few examples in my stream in a set called "scratch problems".
Any thoughts? Thank you!!!!
transfer2008 9 years ago
Those are not scratches. The marks are wrinkles on the negative made when you first started rolling on it to make the transfer. The Fuji negative is much thinner than the Polaroid. Be sure the negative is flat when when starting and you may want to start rollong from the center. Also, please tell me what filtration and the amounts you use.
bambam4236 PRO 9 years ago
I also found once you have the neg down that a couple of light rolls to begin with help reduce the chance of the wrinkles.
siddal 9 years ago
Ah! Thank you so much, both of you! That is very helpful.

transfer2008, for those that I posted I was using the blue/cyan filter and I had the exposure know turned up almost all the way.

Best wishes, Robin
__rou 9 years ago
Does anyone have any experience / tips / advice, on using a normal enlarger to expose the slides to fuji polaroid??

Im in the UK and getting a Daylab over here is expensive and im a completely broke student!

I have a durst enlarger that does all formats with a colour head and filters. The film i have is Fuji Polaroid 100

for example, what kind of exposure settings and times should i be using? Im worried about ruining a load of polaroid trying to work out good times.

Also (forgive me, im very new to all this and this film also), once i have exposed the polaroid do i have to do the transfer straight after, or can it be left? So i couldnt take a photo in a polaroid camera and transfer it later for example??
TOTSPUPS.com 9 years ago
When taking a super sharp 4x6 print and creating the polaroid, how much sharpness will I lose? Thx
Papanek 9 years ago

I've been working with wet Fuji image transfers today and they work. Incredible! I've been spraying Arches Hot Press paper with room temp water, and I do not blot up the excess. I make the exposure, let it imbibe for about 10 seconds, then peel and press. I DO NOT roll with a Brayer roller. I smooth the negative onto the paper with light hand pressure, rubbing lightly a few times, and let it sit for a total of 60 seconds. I might peel up an edge or a side during that time, just for the effect. The results are incredibly like wet 669 transfers. Fantastic. I'll post some pics in the next few days...
enriquevw 9 years ago
I'd love to see your results Papenek! :)
ravenlilys 9 years ago
I was wondering if anyone had used the fuji instax film, or instax mini for transfers or lifts
Option8 PRO 9 years ago
I do not believe that integral type films can be transferred in any of the traditional peel-apart film styles.
Ms. Estable 8 years ago
I have spent weeks doing Fuji 100c transfers...at this link I wrote up the process that, in the end, worked fairly well for me...


Thanks for all the tips and help here from you all (Peter!)...that really got me on my way again (as I'd only done polaroid transfers in the past...)

Option8 PRO Posted 8 years ago. Edited by Option8 (admin) 8 years ago
One thing Id like to note about your blog post is that you talk almost exclusively about using a slide printer/enlarger and not anything else.

Id figure alot more people would do the processes you've (awesomely) worked out in an easy to read form, were they also encouraged to use anything that takes FP100C.

Be it a camera, holgaroid, ID camera or otherwise.

And on a side note, if you have access to a print press roller, that would be ideal instead of a brayer and tired arms!
Holly Barnett 8 years ago
I have a Daylab II pro. Does anyone know if that works for the new Fuji 100C film?
Any info is appreciated.
All of your comments have been so helpful. Thank you!
Andreas Duess Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Andreas Duess (member) 7 years ago
I don't know if this is really old news, and I apologize if it is, but I just tried a transfer with a box of FujiFP-100C and it worked in bright daylight, on really crappy notepaper.

It was just one of these "I wonder what will happen" moments. I tested out a new (old) Polaroid 250 I had bought, then took the negative and rubbed it with my thumb on a notepad. When I peeled it off after 5 seconds the image had transferred.

It doesn't look great, but I only had the neg on the paper for a very short time, and of course the paper is as cheap as it comes.

I'll be grabbing some nice sheets later on, see what happens.

Did Fuji change the formula perhaps? Here's the result:

Polanthusiast 7 years ago
I doubt that the formula changed, but (unless that print is a duplicate) you did the transfer AFTER the print developed, making the notepaper print with the leftover dyes in the negative side.

Most people peel prematurely, before the print is produced, so the colors of the transfer are more vivid. When done with Fuji film, that requires darkness; otherwise the photo comes out a big dark green blotch.
Andreas Duess 7 years ago
Thanks Polathusiast, that explains it. I've since played some more, and you're right; the speed of peeling does have an effect. I'm currently trying out different papers, to see what works best.
Polanthusiast 7 years ago
Let us know what else you discover. I've had trouble making good Fuji transfers, and would love advice.
DeGuilherme Posted 7 years ago. Edited by DeGuilherme (member) 7 years ago
I'm also interested in your developments Andreas, but one question:
doing transfers like that, after letting the positive develop, and use the left over goo-thing,

leaves you with a positive, a transfer, BUT is the negative still good for bleaching? does anyone knows?
.Jæɱs 7 years ago
In the negative, the amount of developed/un-developed silver halide for each colour will remain unchanged, so there will always be a negative/positive image result from the silver halide.
Colour dye corresponding to undeveloped silver halide will also remain in the negative.

The amount of developed colour dye remaining in the negative layer should be "mostly" depleted during normal development (90~120sec) being sucked into the goo then onto the paper.
.Jæɱs 7 years ago
So in theory, Yes, it should still leave a useful neg, and I'm going to test it now :)
DeGuilherme 7 years ago
thank you! waiting for the result then!

because having the image in 3 different suports, is a definitely a great thing hm?!

even tough the most important would be having the print, and a good quality negative for enlargements (even if digital ones)
Andreas Duess 7 years ago
Been playing a bit more and got some lovely transfers out of the Fuji Film. I can only add my observations to the instructions posted above:

1. Paper - use a good, absorbent print making paper. Archos 88 works perfectly.

2. Keep the negative out of direct light. The darker, the better the result.

3. Peel after 15 seconds, if you can live with the loss of a print. Otherwise, for a slightly paler transfer just let develop for the full 90 seconds.


I've been having far more fun with Polaroid Blue, courtesy of The Impossible Project. That stuff just transfers on pretty much anything. Here's a transfer onto a paper napkin, shot this morning in my local coffee shop.

Brian A Catnut 7 years ago
it works on glass as well, I must find my old Magic Lantern and try make some slides
(1 to 100 of 108 replies)
Groups Beta