14x17 Bleached & Redeveloped Print

[Andrew O'Neill]

A lot of hard work went into the making of this... I wouldn't have it any other way!

 

[F4U]

I'm curious as to the ticking sound in some videos. Is that an intentional sound effect? Or what causes that? Is this the convetional cyanotype process, or one of the new variants?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm curious as to the ticking sound in some videos. Is that an intentional sound effect? Or what causes that? Is this the convetional cyanotype process, or one of the new variants?

If you are referring to a beeping sound out in the field with my camera, it's my stopwatch's metronome, to count the exposure time. I only use the conventional Cyanotype formula.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm curious as to the ticking sound in some videos. Is that an intentional sound effect? Or what causes that? Is this the convetional cyanotype process, or one of the new variants?

Yes I have noticed this myself and it always seems to be in the videos involving trees. I believe it to be that of a home-made time bomb concocted by those brown bears, tired of Andrew using trees that they need to scratch their backs on.

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes I have noticed this myself and it always seems to be in the videos involving trees. I believe it to be that of a home-made time bomb concocted by those brown bears, tired of Andrew using trees that they need to scratch their backs on.

pentaxuser

Thankfully, the bears are still in hibernation

 

[pentaxuser]

Andrew, what was the negative? I take it we only saw the stop and fix parts of the process. D23 did a great job again

What you ended up with looked to a naive onlooker such as myself as if a similar end result might have been achieved by contact printing alone or does cyanotype then bleaching and tannic acid produce a subtly different result?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, what was the negative? I take it we only saw the stop and fix parts of the process. D23 did a great job again

What you ended up with looked to a naive onlooker such as myself as if a similar end result might have been achieved by contact printing alone or does cyanotype then bleaching and tannic acid produce a subtly different result?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I thought the blueness of the negative would be a dead giveaway Sadly, my camera would fog the film if I had it on during the film development step, so, I only show after the stop bath.
Whenever I print in Cyanotype, I always tone, or do a gum over. I'm not fond of the blues. As far as Tannic Acid goes, it seems to not stain the paper as much, especially if I bleach first.

 

[F4U]

Just by the fact that he used D-23 1:3 I surmised it was X-ray film, though i could be wrong. I'm still on the fence about getting into cyanotype. I'm not a fan of the blue, but it still had a very good tonal range for what it was until it was bleached and toned (or redeveloped) But every time I've seen the people bleach and then tone it, it always comes back rather dull and gray. so it's either that cold blue with a snappy tonal range, or looking like a muddy gray plain silver print. A lot of times with the paper stained to boot. But I have not studied if there is even a way at all to get the print back snappy with a long range at all from bleaching, and still be rid of that cold harsh blue.

 

[pentaxuser]

I thought the blueness of the negative would be a dead giveaway Sadly, my camera would fog the film if I had it on during the film development step, so, I only show after the stop bath.
Whenever I print in Cyanotype, I always tone, or do a gum over. I'm not fond of the blues. As far as Tannic Acid goes, it seems to not stain the paper as much, especially if I bleach first.

Thanks I hadn't noticed the blueness of the negative but it may be that I lack enough empathy and emotional intelligence to spot signs of depression

On a slightly more serious note is there not a filter that might allow a camera to be used, albeit the light level might be low but enough for the camera to operate? It might not matter here but I recall, I think, seeing a video on ortho film development where the presenter seemed to be able to record what was happening while the viewer was able to see what was happening

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just by the fact that he used D-23 1:3 I surmised it was X-ray film, though i could be wrong. I'm still on the fence about getting into cyanotype. I'm not a fan of the blue, but it still had a very good tonal range for what it was until it was bleached and toned (or redeveloped) But every time I've seen the people bleach and then tone it, it always comes back rather dull and gray. so it's either that cold blue with a snappy tonal range, or looking like a muddy gray plain silver print. A lot of times with the paper stained to boot. But I have not studied if there is even a way at all to get the print back snappy with a long range at all from bleaching, and still be rid of that cold harsh blue.

He as in me? That's why I don't bleach out the imagine completely. I leave in the shadows, up to just touching the mid tones. If you know how to expose and develop your negatives for the process...and then slightly over expose the print (cyanotype), bleach/redevelopment is never results in a muddy print. As far as paper stains go, if I had left the print in the water over night, there is hardly a stain. I just happen to like the warmth of a slight stain... Personally, I do not care for a straight Cyanotype. I always use it as a bridge to something else, such as tri-colour gum. As far as I'm concerned, using the Cyanotype for the blue layer is the best way to go. Much clearer detail, and deeper shadows. Cheers!

 

[pentaxuser]

F4U, I couldn't see any dull or muddy grey in Andrew's picture It looked excellent as a print. I just wondered if a straight contact might have looked as good but that is all it was, my curiosity

I suspect that it might not look the same and might be not as good but only a comparison could demonstrate this

pentaxuser