Digital cyanotypes

Hi,
I've just joined to learn more about creating digital cyanotypes. I've been dabbling with the trad method but would like to be able to use my own photographs. However, I simply cannot get clear enough images using OHP laminate. I've followed all the online instructions/videos I can find but I'm no further forward. Some seem very simple, others very subtle and complex.

What do I use? The premixed cyanotype prep and also my own blend using the individual chemicals - both work OK with the traditional method. I've tried all manner of papers (Hahnemuhle, Bockingford, basic Daler Rowney and Crawford & Black) - varied success but not bad with the trad cyanotypes, so I know the prep/paper side of things is OK.

For the digital stuff, I have an HP Deskjet Plus 4100 printer. The paper is a just a basic cheapie OHP laminate from The Works - so perhaps this is the culprit!

I reverse the image to b/w, print it on the OHP paper. Sandwich this under glass (sticky side down in contact with the prepped paper) and expose in sunlight. The results are so pathetic I’m embarrassed to share the images. There are no highlights, basically. They are so dark, you cannot make out what is supposed to be there. I've tried different lengths of exposure, no difference.

I’ve fiddled about with variations: trying out the ‘sepia’ colour. Big fail. They just came out darker. I’ve tried doing complete reverses (white on black and vice versa). Zip. You can hardly make out the image - the 'masked' area under the black ink of the negative just turns mid-blue.

So where on earth am I going wrong? Is it the printer ink, perhaps? Too much UV getting through? Or do I need an HP-specific OHP laminate? Should I try acetate? Should I just give up and stick to blinking ferns!

I would be grateful for any suggestions as it’s very frustrating. Help!

Pam
Novice cyanotype aficionado

hey pam !
welcome aboard

can you provide a link to the process you are working on? I've done my share of traditional cyanotypes and done a variety of media for hybrid ones
( laser print, ink print, OHP, Xerox ( both paper and film ) and the fancy pictorico ...
thanks !
John

Try using Mitsubishi Pictorico film. Everything else doesn't seem to work worth a damn. And set the inkjet printer to monochrome and highest print quality - you want lots of pigment black ink.

If you want to go the traditional route then I have found success with reversal processing lithography film to make enlarged negatives. A google search should turn up lots of information.

Pam,

A couple of thoughts...

It sounds like you may not be getting enough ink onto the transparency. Thus you are not blocking enough light with your negative to get good highlights.

This can be a problem some generic OHP sheets. The coating just won't hold enough ink. The 'gold standard' material for digital negatives is the Pictorico stuff. However, I have been getting good results with the generic sheets sold specifically for silk screening. They are generally labeled as "waterproof". The specific shetts that I have been using most recently are these: https://www.amazon.com/Waterproof-Inkjet-Transparency-Screen-Printing/dp/B01G9GKVQG

I am not familiar with your model of printer so I can not comment specifically. However, if you don't solve your issue by using a different transparency material, you can go further with your experiments in using a different color ink when printing the negative, Remember that density in the UV which is what you want for cyanotype is different than visual density. Thus printing out a test pattern of squares of different colors onto a transparency and using that to print a cyanotype might provide you with a better option than black. You would be looking for the color that blocks the most UV light by looking for a light blue or white square on the print. Also, the difference in UV density between matte black and photo black in some ink sets can be significant, so if your printer has two blacks, also experiment with that.

Brilliant info. Thank you. Will try. I'm now mostly dubious about our new printer, to be honest. Seen the Pictorico stuff but as a newbie, it's a financial commitment. Need to check things out. Here I am in the UK. My husband is a retired chemistry prof and finds himself fascinated about the process. Don't ask him about potassium thingummy!

jnantz said:

hey pam !
welcome aboard

can you provide a link to the process you are working on? I've done my share of traditional cyanotypes and done a variety of media for hybrid ones
( laser print, ink print, OHP, Xerox ( both paper and film ) and the fancy pictorico ...
thanks !
John

Click to expand...

Thanks, John. I usually use Hahnemuhle Nostalgie paper. I treat it with the usual potassium recipe that I found here: https://www.alternativephotography.com/cyanotype-classic-process/



Solution A: 25 grams Ferric ammonium citrate (green) and 100 ml. water.

Solution B: 10 grams Potassium ferricyanide and 100 ml. water.


I’ve just been using basic OHP paper from LabelHeaven and it certainly seems as if this could be the culprit.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/overhead-projector-transparency-210x297mm-compatible/dp/B004T0G50Q


I’ve just bought some specific paper for our HP printer, so we shall see if this is any better.


The UV here in Kenilworth has been very high this past fortnight, so maybe I’m overexposing as well? I’m afraid I didn’t time things. Just bunged the prints outside for ten minutes and hoped for the best! Oh dear.


The other problem could be the black ink. In fact, I’ve just noticed that the black has run out on our printer, so perhaps that’s a clue. Someone suggested printing out a sheet of different coloured squares, so that’s my next job.


It’s bucketing here today, so no outside cyanotype activity! Good day for OHP testing!

fgorga said:

Pam,

A couple of thoughts...

It sounds like you may not be getting enough ink onto the transparency. Thus you are not blocking enough light with your negative to get good highlights.

This can be a problem some generic OHP sheets. The coating just won't hold enough ink. The 'gold standard' material for digital negatives is the Pictorico stuff. However, I have been getting good results with the generic sheets sold specifically for silk screening. They are generally labeled as "waterproof". The specific shetts that I have been using most recently are these: https://www.amazon.com/Waterproof-Inkjet-Transparency-Screen-Printing/dp/B01G9GKVQG

I am not familiar with your model of printer so I can not comment specifically. However, if you don't solve your issue by using a different transparency material, you can go further with your experiments in using a different color ink when printing the negative, Remember that density in the UV which is what you want for cyanotype is different than visual density. Thus printing out a test pattern of squares of different colors onto a transparency and using that to print a cyanotype might provide you with a better option than black. You would be looking for the color that blocks the most UV light by looking for a light blue or white square on the print. Also, the difference in UV density between matte black and photo black in some ink sets can be significant, so if your printer has two blacks, also experiment with that.

Click to expand...

Hi,
Thanks for this. I like the look of the screen-printing paper. I've found a small pack on Amazon to try out. Will also do the squares thing. Will also check the HP blacks. Good tip!

There is a perfectly acceptable substitute for Pictorico - Fixxons waterproof inkjet transparency film: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006CUDXO2/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 it's a fraction of the price of Pictorico. I do platinum/palladium, and I find it makes no difference in my prints.

I'm not familiar with your particular printer, so I can't comment on the ink to say for sure it is the problem, but it is quite likely to be the primary cause for the problem. The corollary problem is the curve you are applying to the image before printing - if you print with the right mix of inks and the right kinds of inks, if you don't have the right curve for the media you are printing on (cyanotype, platinum, gum bichromate, etc), you will get flat, muddy prints. The transparency media is a factor in this too, but the first two issues are paramount. If you want to keep things simple while learning, I highly recommend going to the Bostick & Sullivan website and watching their short YouTube video on making digital negatives, and then download their Cyanotype correction curve. They've taken the hard work out of the process. Are their curves perfect? No, but they're really really good for 90% + of your images.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Try using Mitsubishi Pictorico film. Everything else doesn't seem to work worth a damn. And set the inkjet printer to monochrome and highest print quality - you want lots of pigment black ink.

If you want to go the traditional route then I have found success with reversal processing lithography film to make enlarged negatives. A google search should turn up lots of information.

Click to expand...

Hi, Thanks for this. I'll think about the Pictorico, once I get more confident. I'll also check out the HP black ink. The reversal processing might be beyond me! Still, you never know. This stuff is seriously addictive.

Pam Kelt said:

I'll think about the Pictorico

Click to expand...

As FlyingCamera suggested, I looked at the Fixxons listing on Amazon and it is indeed cheaper and probably would work just as well.

Thanks for this. I checked the costs out in the UK. Things have gone a bit bonkers over here, in more ways than one. And? Ouch. £41. Plus £14 tax. Plus £14 postage. I will look into this. There must a better option, surely?
Cheers
Pam

Pam Kelt said:

Thanks for this. I checked the costs out in the UK. Things have gone a bit bonkers over here, in more ways than one. And? Ouch. £41. Plus £14 tax. Plus £14 postage. I will look into this. There must a better option, surely?
Cheers
Pam

Click to expand...

I get my overhead material from a local silkscreen supply shop here in Vancouver. Suss out a supply shop where you are. It's identical to Pictorico, and heaps cheaper.

Andrew O'Neill said:

I get my overhead material from a local silkscreen supply shop here in Vancouver. Suss out a supply shop where you are. It's identical to Pictorico, and heaps cheaper.

Click to expand...

I agree.. I think that any "waterproof inkjet transparency" material sold for silkscreen should work just fine for digital negatives.

Pam Kelt said:

Thanks, John. I usually use Hahnemuhle Nostalgie paper. I treat it with the usual potassium recipe that I found here: https://www.alternativephotography.com/cyanotype-classic-process/



Solution A: 25 grams Ferric ammonium citrate (green) and 100 ml. water.

Solution B: 10 grams Potassium ferricyanide and 100 ml. water.


I’ve just been using basic OHP paper from LabelHeaven and it certainly seems as if this could be the culprit.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/overhead-projector-transparency-210x297mm-compatible/dp/B004T0G50Q


I’ve just bought some specific paper for our HP printer, so we shall see if this is any better.


The UV here in Kenilworth has been very high this past fortnight, so maybe I’m overexposing as well? I’m afraid I didn’t time things. Just bunged the prints outside for ten minutes and hoped for the best! Oh dear.


The other problem could be the black ink. In fact, I’ve just noticed that the black has run out on our printer, so perhaps that’s a clue. Someone suggested printing out a sheet of different coloured squares, so that’s my next job.


It’s bucketing here today, so no outside cyanotype activity! Good day for OHP testing!

Click to expand...

hi !
thanks for the reply...
pictorico is the best there is ... if you want fewer problems go for the top!
I can't comment on the material you were using ... the pictorico has a layer or clay or something fancy on the film that
makes it perfect for making digital negatives. when you make your digital negatives are you using curves in photoshop or
making a perfect black and white print and inverting it ? I always use curves and it worked well, but had friends in school who inverted a good positive and
it seemed to work well for them. ALSO. are you using sunlight? I love printing outside but a UV light bank makes it consistent and easy too. I never would have thought
in a million years that I would use a UV bank but its worth the effort if you don't have one...
it cuts exposure down from HOURS to minutes ...

have fun with your cyanotype adventure, its so much fun I'm surprised its legal
John

.

I wonder how she faired?