A Cyanotype & A Salt Print

[Andrew O'Neill]

I finally made a Cyanotype that works for me...

 

[blacksquare]

I finally made a Cyanotype that works for me...

Very nice! I understand that you often don't find a scene suitable for blue color. Have you ever tried toning a cyanotype?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very nice! I understand that you often don't find a scene suitable for blue color. Have you ever tried toning a cyanotype?

I have been toning Cyanotypes for years. I usually bleach and redevelop them in Tannic Acid. Cyanotypes make a great blue layer for my Tri-Colour gums. I have some videos on my channel about toning them. In fact, I just finished making one from a 14x17 negative, yesterday. Video to follow, once edited.

 

[blacksquare]

I have been toning Cyanotypes for years. I usually bleach and redevelop them in Tannic Acid. Cyanotypes make a great blue layer for my Tri-Colour gums. I have some videos on my channel about toning them. In fact, I just finished making one from a 14x17 negative, yesterday. Video to follow, once edited.

I should have studied your older videos more before asking I've tried cyanotype and salt print in the past, both from digital negatives. But now I'd like to create only from film negatives, so I'll watch your videos for inspiration.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I should have studied your older videos more before asking I've tried cyanotype and salt print in the past, both from digital negatives. But now I'd like to create only from film negatives, so I'll watch your videos for inspiration.

Thanks, blacksquare! I use both digital and in-camera negatives... but at the end of the day, I prefer the look of film!

 

[Ben 4]

That definitely works best in blue!

 

[Rick A]

I much prefer the cyan print, well done.

 

[bdial]

I am with you on cyanotypes in general. Also agree that in this case, the cyanotype is the winner.

 

[fgorga]

Andrew,

I agree, the Prussian Blue of cyanotype does not fit too many subjects. I tone many of the cyanotypes I make with sumac which gives a nice warmish print. You can see this and other toners here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/cyanotype-toning-options.207444/#post-2828187.

Regarding your prints, I also agree that the cyanotype is the nicer of the two prints as presented and that the process fits the subject.

However, I don't think that you have fully explored this image as a salt print. Since you have made a digital negative for this process, you could easily adjust the density of the water and recover much of the detail visible in the cyanotype but missing in the salt print.

To me, one advantage of digital negatives is the ability to "dodge & burn" as one prepares the negative. My usual practice these days is to make a small test negative and print using my best guess with regard to the dodging & burning. About three-quarters of the time I get things 'right' and proceed to make a larger negative for the final print. The other quarter of the time, I make a new negative adjusting the tonality based on the test print. Only very, very rarely do I need to make a third negative in order to get what I want in the print.

I use this method for all of the alt processes (salt printing is my main process) I print with but it is especially useful for saving expensive sensitizer when making platinum/palladium prints.

 

[mshchem]

I very much enjoy your videos. Yes the cyanotype wins the race. Are you toning your salt prints?
I played around with some POP, I remember that toning tended to intensify the image. I'm sure you have a few pounds of gold chloride sitting around

I like how you have a short few steps across your deck to get to your darkroom. Looks like a beautiful spot.
Best Regards, Mike

 

[pentaxuser]

Definitely the cyanotype and for me it is not even a close -run thing. It suits the subject in a way that the salt print never will

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew,

I agree, the Prussian Blue of cyanotype does not fit too many subjects. I tone many of the cyanotypes I make with sumac which gives a nice warmish print. You can see this and other toners here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/cyanotype-toning-options.207444/#post-2828187.

Regarding your prints, I also agree that the cyanotype is the nicer of the two prints as presented and that the process fits the subject.

However, I don't think that you have fully explored this image as a salt print. Since you have made a digital negative for this process, you could easily adjust the density of the water and recover much of the detail visible in the cyanotype but missing in the salt print.

To me, one advantage of digital negatives is the ability to "dodge & burn" as one prepares the negative. My usual practice these days is to make a small test negative and print using my best guess with regard to the dodging & burning. About three-quarters of the time I get things 'right' and proceed to make a larger negative for the final print. The other quarter of the time, I make a new negative adjusting the tonality based on the test print. Only very, very rarely do I need to make a third negative in order to get what I want in the print.

I use this method for all of the alt processes (salt printing is my main process) I print with but it is especially useful for saving expensive sensitizer when making platinum/palladium prints.

I routinely bleach/redevelop cyanotypes with Tannic Acid, but this time...for the first time ever...appreciated the natural blue. Yes, I could have pushed the digital neg for the Salt print further, but preferred not to. When I have a bit of time, I'll revisit it... Just too darn busy finishing up some projects, and making some carbon prints to take for some friends over in Japan. Cheers!

 

[koraks]

@Andrew O'Neill very nice prints for sure, and it's particularly interesting how very different they 'feel' as a result of differences in hue, tonal relationships etc. Both are very successful I think.

I noticed you mentioning the negatives came out a little flat to your liking. Have you ever played with intensification? I know you print carbon transfer with dichromate, which means that (1) you have a supply of dichromate you could use and (2) you evidently don't have issues/objections against using it. Chromium intensifier is very (very!) effective and I use it 'all the time' for carbon transfer negatives. Btw, for those who'd rather steer clear of dichromate, the process also works with permanganate, but it seems to be much slower that way. Overall it's a pretty easy process, although I've not yet found a way to control it very precisely. I generally get 'a whole lot' of extra density - which generally suits me fine; heck, I often repeat it a few times to build as much density as I need. I was wondering if you've considered the same, or perhaps have even done so, and in case of the latter, whether it's something you moved away from for some reason.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@Andrew O'Neill very nice prints for sure, and it's particularly interesting how very different they 'feel' as a result of differences in hue, tonal relationships etc. Both are very successful I think.

I noticed you mentioning the negatives came out a little flat to your liking. Have you ever played with intensification? I know you print carbon transfer with dichromate, which means that (1) you have a supply of dichromate you could use and (2) you evidently don't have issues/objections against using it. Chromium intensifier is very (very!) effective and I use it 'all the time' for carbon transfer negatives. Btw, for those who'd rather steer clear of dichromate, the process also works with permanganate, but it seems to be much slower that way. Overall it's a pretty easy process, although I've not yet found a way to control it very precisely. I generally get 'a whole lot' of extra density - which generally suits me fine; heck, I often repeat it a few times to build as much density as I need. I was wondering if you've considered the same, or perhaps have even done so, and in case of the latter, whether it's something you moved away from for some reason.

Yes, quite often I intensify negatives with selenium. One of these days, I'll take a look at Chromium intensifier. I'll suss out a recipe. Can you recommend one?
As a side note, I do prefer dichromate, and use it carefully and responsibly. The very dilute amounts that I use, are always neutralised, before discarding. I wear gloves, and a respirator when mixing up the powder. I've been using the stuff since the mid 80's with no ill effects, that I can see...

 

[Rick A]

Andrew, have you tried Van Dyke Brown printing? It's less hassle (less prep), and IMHO slightly better results. Here's the article that got me started:

Vandyke Notes

 

[koraks]

Can you recommend one?

I generally use something like 2ml 10% potassium dichromate and 5ml 10% hydrochloric acid to 200ml water. It's not very critical, it seems. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but I always expose to UV after bleaching (bleach back entirely), then develop in...whatever. I generally use a non-staining developer, but you could develop in e.g. pyrocat to add stain, which is quite effective. This should give you a massive bump in density; more so than selenium. And you can repeat the process if you want to go where no negative has gone before...

The way you use dichromate should be quite safe.

Andrew, have you tried Van Dyke Brown printing? It's less hassle (less prep), and IMHO slightly better results.

'Better' is kind of subjective. It's different for sure. Van Dyke has two peculiarities that personally I don't like all that much. Firstly, it tends to suffer from blocked-up shadows more so than salted paper. This is because salt prints are self-masking, which makes for a very gradual and pleasing tonal rendering. The other is that Van Dyke bronzes like mad in the shadows, so you have to tone in gold to get a presentable print, or you have to juuuuuust hit dmax but not a fraction more.
The article you linked to was also my 'gateway drug' towards Van Dyke; despite the issues mentioned above I still print VdB from time to time and yes, it sure is a nice process also because it coats so easily. Overall, I personally prefer salted paper. Van Dyke tends to get a little too harsh to my taste; I also find it easier to get a deeper dmax on salted paper - at least with a proper negative. It takes a truckload of exposure to get there.

Above: absolute density

Above: normalized density for comparison

Ogling curves – Comparing salted paper, Van Dyke and DAS carbon – Koraks tinkers

tinker.koraks.nl

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, have you tried Van Dyke Brown printing? It's less hassle (less prep), and IMHO slightly better results. Here's the article that got me started:

Vandyke Notes

Actually, Van Dyke Brown was the very first Alt. process that I tried, and is what kicked it all off for me. I've been meaning to give them a go again...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@koraks thank you!