Cyanotype on a 3d surface?

[jsmoove]

I'm wondering if there is a method to expose a cyanotype on a ping pong ball or an egg.
Would I need a UV-bulbed enlarger or some sort of in-camera contraption?
I figured creating a spherical negative would be too much work.
Has anyone tried such a thing?
To clarify, I'd only need half of a ball (one side) to be imaged, not the whole thing.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Mercury arc point light. Wear your welding goggles.

 

[jsmoove]

Sounds complex? This would go in an enlarger?
I imagine putting a coated 3d shape coated into the back of an old fashioned regular camera would not do the trick?
I hear that the exposure times are much longer also due to the camera lenses blocking out the uv.

 

[fgorga]

Sounds complex? This would go in an enlarger?
I imagine putting a coated 3d shape coated into the back of an old fashioned regular camera would not do the trick?
I hear that the exposure times are much longer also due to the camera lenses blocking out the uv.

There is a reason that alt processes involving UV are more-or-les universally done via contact printing. That reason is that any other solution would be complex to the point of impracticality.

One would need a very intense UV source (as Donald suggests) along with all of the heat dissipation problems that come along with such a source not to mention dealing with the ozone produced.

Then there is the question of optics. One would need quartz optical components in order to get most of the UV to your light sensitive surface. Quartz is expensive as is custom fabrication.

So how much time and money are you willing to spend?

I think that you would probably have better luck finding a thin flexible material from which to make a suitable negative for contact printing.

Good luck in your quest!

 

[removed account4]

you could submerge coat your object in cyanotype chemistry. have it dry then repeat 2x more ( so 3 coats total )
then prin whatever photo you want on it as a negative and wax it with paraffin or bees wax or whatever you have to make it see through...
wrap it tightly around your object and leave it outside in sunlight. winter sun might take a few days but wouldn't be hard to do...
if you do it when there is snow on the ground it will shorten your exposure time because you will get bounce uv light.
have fun

 

[jsmoove]

@fgorga Im learning as I go here, since I've never tried any type of cyanotype....why do quartz lenses allow more UV light? Are there other lenses that do the same?
I'm also wondering, are there more sensitive cyanotypes?
I've only seen the regular jacquard stuff and the solarfast stuff, not sure if there is a difference between these two in exposure time.
My budget is low...so probably no quartz lenses hah. Would be an endeavor to make a uv enlarger....so in camera if anything.
@jnantz I was looking at https://www.blueprintjam.com/copy-of-scapes-1
She told me that she separates the film from the backing after inkjet printing and wraps the film around the object.....the gloves here are really impressive, not sure if the film was used here....
This might be the way to go...

 

[fgorga]

@fgorga Im learning as I go here, since I've never tried any type of cyanotype....why do quartz lenses allow more UV light? Are there other lenses that do the same?
I'm also wondering, are there more sensitive cyanotypes?
I've only seen the regular jacquard stuff and the solarfast stuff, not sure if there is a difference between these two in exposure time.
My budget is low...so probably no quartz lenses hah. Would be an endeavor to make a uv enlarger....so in camera if anything.
@jnantz I was looking at https://www.blueprintjam.com/copy-of-scapes-1
She told me that she separates the film from the backing after inkjet printing and wraps the film around the object.....the gloves here are really impressive, not sure if the film was used here....
This might be the way to go...

Yes... quartz is transparent to UV light while glass is not. There may be other UV transparent materials, but quartz is, to my knowledge, the most commonly used. As far as an in camera process goes the same problem exists... glass is not transparent enough to UV. There are a few quartz lenses available for cameras but they are very expensive. In principle a pinhole would work but practically the very small apertures combined with the low speed of cyanotype make this not workable.

I have not used either of the two commercial cyanotype mixtures you mention... I mix my own sensitizer using the traditional recipes. I would guess that both of these products are similar to each other and also based on traditional mixture. Mike Ware's "new cyanotype" is somewhat faster than the traditional formula, but not really dramatically faster as you would need here.

The work of Ms. Tcherniak you provided a link to is very interesting. I would try to find out exactly what film she prints negatives on as I image that that might be your best choice. I would be interested in hearing the details. As for the gloves... I imagine that they were printed flat using a 'regular' negative, but of course I really don't know.

 

[removed account4]

I was looking at https://www.blueprintjam.com/copy-of-scapes-1
She told me that she separates the film from the backing after inkjet printing and wraps the film around the object.....the gloves here are really impressive, not sure if the film was used here....
This might be the way to go...

yea I was going to suggest a digital negative ( using pictorico or even getting the images printed at a copy shop ) but I wasn't sure you are down with modern tech.
you would just invert whatever image you want and print it as a negative have it make contact with the object and just leave it in the sun maybe in a circular area surrounded by aluminum foil to bounce as much uv onto the object as possible, or if you have uv lights uv lights .. you can get uv led lights in a strip at amazon or at your pet store as a grow light or lizard warming bulb and make a surround uv "tent" would be kind of ez and fun..
have fun
John

 

[jsmoove]

@jnantz Gotcha...ok, well I'll try something like this first. It's probably the easiest way to go.
I am wondering if there is a certain transparency film that is very flexible, almost like fabric or something.....that could give me higher resolutions if I was touching all of the object firmly for contact printing.
@fgorga Out of curiosity theoretically speaking, if one had a lens on a camera that didn't block the UV, could you essentially have a 3d object inside your camera and expose it? (if you made the room, depending) I definitely don't have that kind of $$....I had no idea that the UV lenses were that pricey. Yes, I will ask her what type of film.

 

[fgorga]

@jnantz Gotcha...ok, well I'll try something like this first. It's probably the easiest way to go.
I am wondering if there is a certain transparency film that is very flexible, almost like fabric or something.....that could give me higher resolutions if I was touching all of the object firmly for contact printing.
@fgorga Out of curiosity theoretically speaking, if one had a lens on a camera that didn't block the UV, could you essentially have a 3d object inside your camera and expose it? (if you made the room, depending) I definitely don't have that kind of $$....I had no idea that the UV lenses were that pricey. Yes, I will ask her what type of film.

Pictorico OHP film and its ilk are flexible but not flexible enough to wrap around a sphere. I don't know of any inkjet printable material that would be suitable. You could wrap Pictorico around a cylinder such as a coffee mug, but not around a ping pong ball. I am definitely interested in hearing about the material Ms.Tcherniak uses for negatives.

As for your theoretical camera... I would image a simple box to hold your object fitted with a lens to project an image on to it. A big problem, of course is getting enough of your 3D object in the focal plane so that one gets a sharp image. No need for complications such as shutters... your exposure times would still be quite long.

 

[koraks]

I don't know of any inkjet printable material that would be suitable.

You could try with a very thin pulp-based paper and then treat it with e.g. oil (sun seed/vegetable oil would be fine) to make it transparent and even more pliable. Oiling/waxing was done in the mid 19th century and continues to be done today for instance by people making printed circuit boards using laser printed patterns (although they tend to use flat surfaces obviously).

I'd forget about in-camera approaches or using an enlarger for the difficulties with getting sufficient exposure that were highlighted by the earlier posters.

 

[removed account4]

ok, well I'll try something like this first. It's probably the easiest way to go.
I am wondering if there is a certain transparency film that is very flexible, almost like fabric or something.....that could give me higher resolutions if I was touching all of the object firmly for contact printing

You could try with a very thin pulp-based paper and then treat it with e.g. oil (sun seed/vegetable oil would be fine) to make it transparent and even more pliable. Oiling/waxing was done in the mid 19th century and continues to be done today for instance by people making printed circuit boards using laser printed patterns (although they tend to use flat surfaces obviously).

+1

you can use cheap computer printer paper and wax it. you might want to experiment on getting the paper wet after you make your negative/print on it and while it is wet wrapping it around the ping pong ball / egg to try to get it to shape / mold around the object. waxing isn't hard. I use paraffin I melt on the stove but might start using Renaissance wax .. a little bit on a finger tip and rubbing it on the paper... I can't speak from experience but it works well .

 

[jsmoove]

Thanks all. Great suggestions. Ok, I have maybe a silly related question.
Is cyanotype the only "biodegradable" emulsion?
Can't seem to link the biodegradable question I made last year. Cyanotype was suggested.
If I was wanting to put emulsion on a 3d object and expose it, liquid light would probably be best....but it isn't biodegradable/compostable. (I'm wanting to put these 3d objects outdoors over time for context)
The blueprint site from above, I'm not sure what product she is using for digital negatives, but the film peeled off must be like cling wrap/saran wrap to cover a sphere.

Oh, and the other question is, can I do something similar with a film negative, can I remove a layer to make it more flexible?
I'm assuming not, other than instant film.

 

[koraks]

Well, biodegradable - depends on how you define it. But no, not really; prussian blue is pretty stable. But it's also fairly harmless in the minute quantities that will be on your objects. You could also consider gum dichromate; once the chrome is washed out, you're left with gum and whatever pigment you used. You could pick an inert pigment like lamp black or something. It'll be more difficult to make your 3d object prints though, and you'll have dichromate in the process.

And no, film cannot be peeled. The emulsion breaks down when you soften it enough to release from the base.

 

[jsmoove]

@koraks Sounds like cyanotype is the way to go. I like the idea anyways, easy to buy and work with.
I read elsewhere on the forum that acrylic lenses could be used instead of quartz....for some reason I'm still very intrugued by the in-camera idea, it just sounds so fun idealistically.
Though @fgorga has mentioned that if I had a 3d object in a camera only a portion would be in the focal plane, which makes sense.
Also, Im not sure if I have this correct...but for cyanotype Rex, is it just using one of the two bottles first and then adding the other after? I heard this speeds things up exposure time wise

 

[koraks]

acrylic lenses could be used instead of quartz.

I don't think so.
Yes, the in-camera idea is attractive, but it just isn't going to fly.
I have no experience with c.Rex, so can't comment.

 

[grain elevator]

Liquid silver emulsion would be much easier as you could expose under an enlarger. I don't think the biodegradability-aspect would be dramatic, other people place bronze sculptures outside, isn't the effect of copper from them more severe than the bit of silver? Not to speak of agricultural copper sulfate use.

 

[fgorga]

Regarding acrylic lenses... here is the absorption spectra for a numer of polymers, including acrylic and "uv acrylic" (some special variant whith enhanced UV transmission): https://images.app.goo.gl/eY3j3HXukEV2xk7L9

Given that alt processes work with "black light" bulbs or LEDs which emit light in the range of 380-400 nm, run of the mill acrylic won't work as it is pretty much opaque below 400 mm. However, a lens made from the "uv acrylic" just might work as its absorption doesn't begin to decrease until roughly 375 nm... if such a lens is available and that's a big IF!

One could test this easily by replacing the glass in a contact printing frame with acrylic glazing and see just how much the exposure time increases compared to glass

Upon further thought, the enlarger idea won't work no matter the wavelength, for the same reason the camera idea will not work... how are you going to project a well focused image onto a 3D object?

Contact printing with the appropriate material for a negative is likely going to give a sharper image... although maybe sharpness isn't a primary concern here.

 

[koraks]

One could test this easily by replacing the glass in a contact printing frame with acrylic glazing and see just how much the exposure time increases compared to glass

I once made a contact frame with plexiglass because I was under the impression that it was a plexiglass type that was UV transparent. Turns out it wasn't. Transmission was reduced by some 3-4 stops (thickness was something like 3mm).

 

[jsmoove]

@fgorga That is the issue for sure, the fact that the image just wont be in focus on a object with enlarger or camera.

 

[removed account4]

Oh, and the other question is, can I do something similar with a film negative, can I remove a layer to make it more flexible?
I'm assuming not, other than instant film

you can do image transfers with an ink jet prints, its not hard. there are ways to do it with purel/ sanitizer, acrylic or packing tape even pva which are very easy and you will get a flexible negative you can use to wrap around your object. you don't need specialized lenses or cameras or enlargers.. google image transfer/acrylic lift transfer... and most likely the image layer of a consumer ink jet print(er) is not very stable so it will age / decompose if that is what you are looking for.

 

[jsmoove]

@jnantz About the submerging idea....do you think if I just put a mixture of gelatin and cyanotype on the back of a negative, (cyanotype on the outside) contacted printed it, then threw the whole thing into water...would the emulsion lift off the negative? Then I could dip the 3d object in and have the emulsion wrap around it, then dry?
Or would the gelatin stick too well to a negative?

 

[jsmoove]

Ok, I have a strange question. This was the main line of my thinking anyways....If I had a glass ball and coated it on one side with cyanotype....would an image collimate(not sure if right word) on the cyanotype?
Not sure if that makes sense. Or would it just turn out blank....?

 

[koraks]

You could theoretically use the object itself as a lens, yes. But it'll take either a lot of experimentation or some fairly advanced optics modeling to figure it out. Interesting thought though!

 

[Craig75]

would Mike Ware's cyanotype formula not be quick enough to use under an enlarger?

the enlargement would be tiny if its onto an egg

I'd imagine you'd still need a looong exposure time but it might work / might not work / dont know