This negative has a large scratch across the back (probably caused in camera) so I have never printed it successfully optically (nose grease didn't work). I thought I would try the hybrid route. The sea has disappeared into the blue........the base of the tower really is blue!
Thank you. It's very striking especially as it is quite a big print. You might think the negative has been manipulated to get the clouds like that but it has not -it was the very unusual weather. There was a thunder snow storm. It stopped snowing and the sun came through a gap in the clouds. Photoshop (Elements) confuses me a lot and I find it takes me hours to do the simplest thing. I would like the sea in front of the tower to print out as well. The sea isn't very interesting but it does give the tower context. Unfortunately the sea is too dark and so it has disappeared. I will probably make another negative but this time lighten the sea so that it has a chance of printing with the limited tonal range of a cyanotype. This would be the equivalent of dodging at the printing stage.
Really well done. Hard to get any detail in cyanotype, lots happening here. The sky does a great job of contrasting the big white thingy. Does look better with out the sea, like it is here.
That's kind of you. I was pleased with it. I am going to try the Mike Ware "improved" cyanotype process next but the traditional process worked well enough here and the blue is a very deep Prussian Blue. I didn't really follow the accepted wisdom for the coating process. I used loads of sensitiser, spreading it around with a foam pad until the paper was soaked in it (on one side) and then hung the paper up to drip from a corner. I read that lots of people have problems at the developing stage with the blue colour washing away. That didn't really seem to happen at all for me I think because the sensitiser was soaked into the fibres of the paper. The wash was just tap water, no vinegar or other acid.
The highlights cleared well for me to a good white. I've not had a problem with bleed but I haven't made that many Cyanotypes. I believe the paper is critical. I've used paper I bought at a local art shop. It isn't a type of paper recommended on any of the websites I've read but it has worked every time for me. I mixed up the chemicals to form Part A and Part B the same day I coated the paper. I mixed Part A and B to form working sensitiser immediately before coating and added a few drops of surfactant. I used chemicals made by Jacquard (Potassium Ferricyanide and Ferric Ammonium Citrate). I was very liberal with the coating and picked up the paper and moved it to allow the sensitiser to coat evenly. I did the coating under safelight as I am suspicious that the LED lightbulbs in my house emit some UV and could cause fogging. I hung the paper to dry in total darkness overnight. I exposed the paper in a contact frame in sunlight and timed by inspection. I watched the uncovered parts of the paper turn from green to yellow to blue and could see through the negative when the shadows were done (even a bit solarised). I then developed in running tap water in subdued light. If you do try more liberal coating make sure you have a tray to catch the drips! You can make up a batch of paper and keep it in a black lightproof bag so that you can experiment with different exposures, coating techniques, papers etc. Compared to other alternative processes it’s very cheap.
Sometimes I’ve used test strips from bits of paper I’ve coated badly. You might be underexposing which could contribute to bleed. I put a strip under part of the negative and expose in the sun.
Thanks, must of read and tried about a dozen different versions of how to do's, but there seems very little in the way of detailed cause and effect. Seems if you find a system that works for you, you should stick to it or keep plugging away till you do.
Same goes with Vandyke Browns or I think I have found a publication that actually tells you all the variations.....I hope.
I’ve not tried VDB but I have made Argyrotypes recently. The Cyanotype (traditional formula) emulsion is much slower (about 4 times slower or more). Try a series and use stops like 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes to narrow down exposure (whole stops are very big jumps for paper though). Sun exposure is superior to artificial light sources so the stuff I read says. You could also try placing objects on the paper instead of a negative -this should leave a perfect white imprint after development and would help refine your process. Possibly the pH or minerals in the wash water might be affecting this. You could try a wash in 3 changes of distilled water. The only other thing I can think of is humidity. The humidity is high in the U.K. so in fact my Cyanotypes probably actually develop a bit whilst in the sun (the iron being converted to insoluble Prussian blue in response to UV light, oxygen and moisture in the air). If your climate is bone dry this won’t happen. I wonder what would happen if you carefully humidified (not too much) an exposed Cyanotype (in the dark) prior to washing. Worth a try! Also worth trying washing the print face down which may reduce bleeding.