Cyanotype progress - hey, this is fun!

[htmlguru4242]

Did some more cyanotype experimenting - and, wow, a really sunny day helps alot.

Used a digital negative this time, printed in the sun; first for 10 minutes - way too much, and then again for a little over 3. That seems about right, not exactly. The shadows are a little dark and low contrast, and the highlights are almost completely blown. More experimentation seems to be called for. I'm just using the standard cyanotype formula, coated on linen writing paper with a piece of cotton (no brush handy at the moment)

Attached is a scan of the images - first one I did on the top, second one on the bottom. The scans don't do the images justice, but they give an idea ...

I'm toning one of them in coffee as I write, so we'll see what that does to it.

Any suggestions?

 

[Vaughn]

Congrats! It is a fun process. It looks like you just need to fine-tune your digital negs to match the process. You also might try exposing in open shade...it will increase your exposure time, but might help get a more even tonality. One can start out in the open shade and "finish off" with some exposure in the direct sun.

Reading in Christopher James new edition of his book, another method for exposing is to expose in the sun for half the time, then rest the print for a while in low light for 5 to 10 minutes, then resume your exposure in the sun. This is for better separation and detail in the shadows while keeping the highlights and deep blues. The theory is that the printing-out part of the process takes time and does not occur to its full extent if the print is exposed in full sun for a short period of time (like 3 minutes).

Vaughn

 

[keithwms]

Let me invite you over to hybridphoto for the digital neg discussions...

 

[htmlguru4242]

interesting suggestion, vaughn - I'll give that one a try.

And I'll post on Hybridphoto a lil' later about the digital neg. part - figured it'd have something to do with that.

Would it make more sense to use "real" negatives to get the rest of the process into control first?

 

[Vaughn]

snip...Would it make more sense to use "real" negatives to get the rest of the process into control first?

That will depend on what your final negative source will be. If you will be working primarily with camera negatives, then yes, it might pay to produce some camera negatives to work with cyanotype.

When I was teaching myself to make carbon prints I worked with both the process and my negatives at the same time. Negative quality (density, contrast) and process usually go hand-in-hand...and usually both need to be worked on together to get the most out of the process.

Cyanotypes do not require the high-contrast neg that many other alt processes seem to need. Tweeking your negatives to match the way you work with cyanotypes will eventually yield much nicer prints.

But don't forget to have fun!

Vaughn

 

[htmlguru4242]

that makes good sense, once again.

As far as the negatives required, so I can have a starting point, both digital- and non, am I looking for about the same density and contrast as for contact printing on regular paper? Higher? Lower?

 

[Vaughn]

I would aim for slightly more contrast than would print on variable contrast paper without a filter...say in the neighborhood of a #1 filter. Aim for somewhere around there and see how it works. There are several ways to control contrast in the print during developing (Christopher Jame's book covers them well), but if you already have negs, you likely have ones that cover the range of possible contrast -- try printing some of them and see what works best!

Vaughn

 

[yellowcat]

A few years since I did anything with cyanotype, I made the negatives by printing onto ilfochrome ohp film and printing in contact frame in sunlight. It may be worth making a contact printer using UV tubes, should give more controllable results than sunlight.