A question about cyanotype process

[Loris Medici]

Hi there,

Indeed, it's pretty hard to make nice cyanotypes with good dmax and smooth / delicate tones, but it's possible. OTOH, it's a given fact that you just can't get the same degree of delicacy compared to (say...) pt/pd. I have many good cyanotypes that I'm proud of, but when you print the same image (on the same paper) in pt/pd and then compare the two side by side, the cyanotype version (which is "very fine and satisfactory" when judged alone) looks quite grainy and lacking (in terms of tonality). You just have to accept that it isn't the best process in the department of smooth and delicate tones. (But that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, you have to persevere until you're sure you've hit the limits of the process...)

Here's the scans of a couple of my cyanotypes:
Leaves @ IFM (Trad. Cyanotype)
Dried Flowers (Trad. Cyanotype)
(These aren't especially big prints; both are around 11-12" in the shortest dimension.)

Can provide scans of an image realized in both cyanotype and pd for a better comparison if you like, but I don't have any online repros right now. Let me know if you need it.

Regards,
Loris.

I've somewhat new to cyanotypes. I love the simplicity of it. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems that the cyanotype process is pretty contrasty and it's very hard to get delicate tones. Even with digital inkjet negs. Does anybody else find that's the case?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think that hexavalent has made my point for me.

I have both Baryta powder and Titanox powder here and have experienced the mess of working with them. I have also seen Baryta paper at the Kodak paper plant before it is pressed, and I have worked with paper with different pressures having been used in this process.

I stand by what I said.

EDIT: Within the context of some of the posts here to get better detail and the absorption of "image materials" into paper fibers, I think that there was absolutely no criticism of the formula on Denise's web site. Think about that please!

PE

 

[dwross]

MDR and jnanian, Thanks! Yes, it is a very satisfying surface to coat on.

PE: Not sure what you stand by. Your "quite porous" opinion is simply wrong. I don't take your comment as criticism, simply ignorance. If you had made baryta-coated paper from the classical recipe I adapted, you would know it is not porous. Also, I believe Ian is talking about incorporating baryta into the actual paper pulp itself and then trying to make glossy paper from that. It's intriguing, but I certainly believe it could be a mess!

As is my nature, I have made an illustration. On the left is Photographers Formulary glossy baryta paper, in the middle is my baryta, coated on Rives Lightweight, and on the right is uncoated Rives. Each blotch of pink is from one drop of erythrosin solution (i.e. pink water.) All the drops were identical in size. Putting liquid on the PF paper is like putting liquid on plastic. Non-porous to be sure. To a fault. I tried twice. Even where the paper was very flat, the drop spread and dried unevenly.

What happens on the uncoated paper is obvious. Also, there was a lot of bleed-through to the back of the paper.

But, Tah-Dah! The handmade baryta held the drop in place. It did not spread beyond the area it originally fell on. It dried evenly and with the rich color of the wet solution. There is absolutely no bleed-through. A much bigger puddle than a drop can be spread just as nicely with a puddle pusher.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Denise, have you coated emulsion on those 3 samples and then printed definition charts onto them? That is the real test! Or perhaps, using this thread as an example, made a cyanotype print?

PE

 

[dwross]

Ron, I will never understand your problem. I was simply responding to your erroneous contention that handmade baryta paper is "quite porous".

 

[Hexavalent]

I'll chime in with two cents worth. As mentioned by others, acetic or citric (probably tartaric also) can really bring out a range of tones in traditional cyanotypes, but caution is the key - a little to acidic and there can be staining, image washing off etc.,

With cyano, and the other Fe-based processes that I practice, the key element seems to be the paper itself. I've achieved very detailed and "crisp" prints on Canson Bristol, but the buffering agent causes fading within months. Acidifying the paper leaves it too porous. Heavy gelatin sizing has never worked very well for me - Iron and gelatin do not always play nicely; redox reactions can both soften and harden the gelatin, not to mention play havoc with the image. Using a weak (1:2 - 1:4) coat of PVA size can help with excessive absorption and increase sharpness, though too much will let the image literally slide off the paper.

Experiment! ... and learn the true meaning of patience.

 

[MDR]

Iron based processes like their acid, nothing worse than calcium buffered 100% archival paper. That's why I find that cheap no-name papers often work quiet well with cyanotypes. A sizing with arabic gum might work. The gum is slightly acidic and it closes the pores pretty well.

Ron isn't the titanium oxide basically a brightener as opposed to a true sizing that helps diminish the sinking of the emulsion into the paper fibres.
Regarding the high pressure and heat for baryta sizing wouldn't that fundamentally change the characterstics of the paper a rough cold presses watercolor paper would become a hot pressed pretty smooth paper. I can understand the need for high pressure and heat in a commercial environment where speed and absolute smoothness is of importance (machine coating), for the same reasons most magazine printing paper is mostly chalk these days (speed and smoothness at the cost of archival permanence), but in the handmade department a simple gelatine/baryta coating without the need for pressure should suffice (of course the results are not up to commercial/industrial standards).

 

[Loris Medici]

Actually sharpness isn't a property that cyanotypes lacks at all; I've successfully resolved individual halftone dots in imagesetter negatives printed using a 225lpi screen at 3600dpi hardware resolution. In other words, Cyanotypes are extremely sharp and crisp.

The problems with cyanotype can be grouped in several categories:

• First category is paper related problems; most important properties are chemical compatibility and absorption. The papers you choose for cyanotype shouldn't have a buffering agent, OR if it's buffered, the paper has to be de-alkalinized (for instance; giving enough time in a 9-10% sulfamic acid solution - using papers w/o any alkaline buffer should be preferred). Also, the emulsion needs to be well absorbed into the paper's fibers, and cyanotype isn't quite good at this (particularly the trad. formula); you may need to help the paper to absorb the emulsion by adding surfactants to the coating emulsion. (For instance; adding 1-2 drops of 5-10% Tween 20 per ml of coating solution - each paper has to be tested to find the speet spot...) Non-aborbed emulsion will wash off leading to a weak and excessively grainy image. The paper's fibre composition and sizing is also an important factor here; some papers are made using mixed fibres, when the absorption of each fibre is different, you get a grainy print and the tonality suffers...
• Second category is chemistry; as both Hexavalent and Herzeleid have mentioned before, there are several emulsion additives other than surfactants. Adding small amnts. of acid (where needed - has to be tested) and/or oxidiser into the coating solution may vastly improve results. (AGAIN, where needed!) Adding acid will flatten the high contrast of cyanotype (too much has a negative effect in the midtones and can cause stain in the specular whites), oxidiser will counteract it and help much in keeping the highlights clean. OTOH, you're not bound to the traditional formula. New cyanotype gives a much much smoother and delicate tonality (especially so in the upper midtones and highlights), but is much more picky with paper in the same time. The fact that new cyanotype works with less peptization (loss of image during processing, blue wash water in other words), makes possible to get much smoother images when paper is willing to comply.

Indeed, patience (lots of experimentation and evaluation / thinking that is) is rewarded when dealing with cyanotype. Once you nail down the process, other iron processes (pt/pd for instance) looks very smooth-n-easy. I was astounded how easy is pop pd printing after dealing with cyanotype for a substantial amnt. of time. That's one of the reasons I like cyanotype a lot; it educates / brings up / disciplines / tames the alt-process practitioner.

Regards,
Loris.

I'll chime in with two cents worth. As mentioned by others, acetic or citric (probably tartaric also) can really bring out a range of tones in traditional cyanotypes, but caution is the key - a little to acidic and there can be staining, image washing off etc.,

With cyano, and the other Fe-based processes that I practice, the key element seems to be the paper itself. I've achieved very detailed and "crisp" prints on Canson Bristol, but the buffering agent causes fading within months. Acidifying the paper leaves it too porous. Heavy gelatin sizing has never worked very well for me - Iron and gelatin do not always play nicely; redox reactions can both soften and harden the gelatin, not to mention play havoc with the image. Using a weak (1:2 - 1:4) coat of PVA size can help with excessive absorption and increase sharpness, though too much will let the image literally slide off the paper.

Experiment! ... and learn the true meaning of patience.

 

[Photo Engineer]

MDR, Titanox is not a brightener. In fact, it absorbs UV light and is an antibrightener but it is so white that it gives good reflectance to RC prints. Even so, brighteners are often added to the resin or the emulsion to bring up the white level in daylight.

As for making your own Baryta or whatever, ALL photo papers (FB) are hot press and all have a Baryta coat of about 1000 mg per square foot of the mix. IDK what the real figures work out to anymore. Thus, there results 3 levels of paper which can be used in this type of "experiment". Raw paper absorbs image materials on fibers and reduces sharpness. This was shown here on APUG by myself and David Goldfarb in images posted here about 5 years ago when this same "argument" arose. The second type of paper has a home made layer of whitening material (Usually Baryta) that has been hand coated. The third is commercial hot press Baryta paper. If one considers a sharpness series, then one would look at all 3 to see what happens.

Below are 4 contact prints made to the same density (as far as I could achieve it) on 1) Plain 100# Strathmore Smooth, 2) Plain Baryta hard hot press paper, 3) Ilford FB IV paper and 4) Watercolor paper - very rough with coating and scanning defects but generally showing the sharpness.

Each paper has its benefits and faults depending on your POV. This is just a part of what David and I discussed those many years before. He had closeup scans of fibers as well as photos.

PE

 

[MDR]

Ron thank you for the illustrations. Is the plain baryta paper (2) precoated or handcoated? It looks pretty good. The Strathmore doesn't look bad either but certainly lacks behind the the second and third example.
Also is Ilford Multigrade Art 300 not basically a FB paper that lacks a baryta coating?

To the OP Cyanotypes and gum work well together so there shouldn't be any ill effect when using a gum sizing.
Found this interesting sizing survey on alternativephotography.com
http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/paper/the-sizing-survey-the-results

Again thank you Ron

 

[Photo Engineer]

My samples are all handcoated and handmade emulsions on commercial Strathmore or commercial Baryta if present. The Ilford is FB IIRC. I would have to check as I did both.

I have coated Cyanotype in gelatin on Baryta and it looks very very nice indeed.

As for any Baryta, due to the high level of solids in Gelatin, the material is subject to cracking and crazing unless humectants are added to reduce the problem. Glycerine and Sorbitol are often used by hobbyists, but these do wash out to some extent in the process. In production, we use polymers so as to avoid washing out, and thus maintaining a supple coating. Often, the use of Sorbitol or Glycerine helps during storage before processing. If these are retained to any extent after processing they add to the prevention of cracks.

We often used PVA (Poly Vinyl Alcohol) or Carbowax. There, the secret is out!

PE

 

[MDR]

Ron thank you for the reply and I have another question does anyone know how well cyanotypes and albumen sizing will work together. Albumen creates a glossy surfaces and I am sure it will react with the iron compound but I don't know in what way.Thanks

 

[Photo Engineer]

MDR, albumen is chicken (or egg) gelatin. Since I can mix Cyanotype chemistry with gelatin this might work. But then, an albumen overcoat might be just as good.

PE

 

[MDR]

Ron I always thought that albumen was very different to gelatine and that they were not related in any way except that both have an animal source and are proteins mixed with something.

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi all,

How is gelatin, albumen or baryta related to the OP's question? I don't think they're asking about sharpness / crispness - Cyanotype is very very sharp. Actually, printing over a hardened gum layer will diminish sharpness (you get an effect similar to dot gain in pre-press), been there done that. I don't think you need any kind of extra sizing UNLESS you're printing on waterleaf and/or very weakly sized printing papers. With cyanotype, you need the emulsion being IN the paper's fibres (both when exposing and processing) for best results.

BTW, to the OP: See Mike Ware's latest publication about Cyanotype here you may find lots of practical information along with the history / theory and chemistry of the process - a true oasis of information about Cyanotype. I think it's a kinda reorganized version of his now out of print 1999 publication "Cyanotype: The History, Science and Art of Photographic Printing in Prussian Blue", which is currently fetching incredible prices in the second hand market.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron I always thought that albumen was very different to gelatine and that they were not related in any way except that both have an animal source and are proteins mixed with something.

Chicken gelatin or albumen are similar to bone and pig gelatin but the albumen will not chill set. Fish gelatin is also similar but will not set. We have used all of these for testing purposes and have even used Yak gelatin.

You can actually make an emulsion in albumen and coat it. It will not chill set, and its properties will be way off due to the heavy load of sulfur and the thinness of the gelatin.

PE

 

[MDR]

Yak sounds like fun and I just can imagine the public outcry if Kodak would have used Yak

 

[Photo Engineer]

Umm, they did, but it was years ago. Lets keep it our secret though, ok?



PE

 

[removed account4]

i have tried to soak paper in albumen and then coat it with gelatin
didn't work ... the albumen was set / hardened after drying
but the gelatin didn't like it, as almost repelled by it ..
same thing with collodion ...
both wet collodion ( ended up a mess ) and after it was dried
into celluloid / flammable plastic, the gelatin didn't like it and stayed liquidy ...

good to know these ( maybe not collodion ? ) will work with cyanotypes

....

ron, will collodion ( dried out ) work with cyanotype chemistry ?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not AFAIK. Collodion is dissolved in Ether and the Cyanotype chemistry is only water soluble.

PE

 

[removed account4]

Not AFAIK. Collodion is dissolved in Ether and the Cyanotype chemistry is only water soluble.

PE

thanks ron ..

for a second i was thinking that the collodion could be pouted onto a plate and dried
and the cyanotype chems could be plied to it so its like a film ..
i know other "plates" use collodion as part of their makeup
( collodion dry plates and all that fun silver sunbeam stuff ) ...
so i made the leap ... the only problem of course is collodion is much
more flammable than paper

 

[Photo Engineer]

Try it. It just might work.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Getting close

After struggling with the neg, I'm getting close.

 

[Loris Medici]

Not bad for starters, congrats and keep going. I see a BIG problem with your negative though; the tonal progression isn't right. (Too flat in the midtones and highlights - that's not the usual tonal progression of cyanotype, indicating your calibration is way off...) Best try with a real step tablet first (preferably with a 31-step tablet - each step log 0.1), just make sure the tonal progression and range are how we expect them, and to see if you have anything wrong in the analogue part of the process. If the analogue part is OK, then HybridPhoto is the place to discuss about the digital part.

Hint: With the step tablet test, you should expect a density range between log 1.4 - 1.6 (or slightly more - up to log 1.8) with traditional cyanotype, and very clear / discernible tonal progression.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Thanks Loris. It's a hybrid process. I noticed it didn't match my calibrated screen. I'll post on HybridPhoto.