Finished Cyanotypes

[fgorga]

Over the past several months, I have posted the results of several experiments/test that I have done as I relearned/adapted the printing of cyanotypes after a hiatus of about twelve years and after moving from a full darkroom/lab to my basement without much infrastructure.

I think that I have reached the point of making some finished prints and present here four of them for your comments and critiques. All of these are scans of 4x5 prints made from digital negatives.

#1 -- Still Life with Bottle

#2 -- East Quoddy Light (Campobello Island, NB)

#3 -- Gosport Chapel (Star Island, NH)

#4 -- Mill Building (Harrisville, NH)

Thanks for looking.

Regards,

 

[nmp]

Nice looking set, Frank. It is an accomplishment to have figured out all the little idiosyncrasies of the process and be able to print a few images with relative consistency. I am still in the idiosyncratic stage...

Are these all done on same paper? No. 3 seems to have coarser grains than the other, is that the paper - perhaps cold-pressed?

The last one has greater contrast and higher Dmax than the rest, so technically that one is the best, except for the slight highlight blow-out which probably can be fixed on the negative. What was different about that?

Appreciate if you can share what your final set of processing conditions were.

:Niranjan.

 

[BrianShaw]

Very nice!

 

[fgorga]

@niranjan

Thanks for your comments.

The first three prints are all on Fabriano Tiepolo (290 gsm Soft White) and the last one is on Fabriano Unica (white).

Thus it is interesting to me that you singled out #3 from the rest. I wonder if I coated the "wrong" side of the paper for that one. The two sides of the Tiepolo are very subtly different, so I could have easily coated the "wrong" side.

I am beginning to settle in on these two papers as my "go to" papers. I am not pre-treating either of these papers to remove any carbonate buffer present.

The Unica is a 250 gsm 50% cotton paper and is really inexpensive ($1.72 for a 22x30 inch sheet). The Tiepolo (100% cotton, 290 gsm) a bit more expensive at $5.18 for a 22x30 inch sheet. The Teipolo also comes in a 130 gsm version which is also very nice and only costs $1.95 for a 19x27 inch sheet. The lighter paper works just fine for small prints... I print the 4x5 images on 5x7 paper.

So here is a brief outline of my working methods...

I'm using the traditional cyanotype chemistry and coating paper with a hake brush. Coated paper is dried passively (i.e. no fan, no heat) on a rack. Exposure (generally 7 or 8 minutes) is with a home built unit using black light LEDs.

I use six trays to process exposed 5x7 paper, as follows: 1) 500 mL of 25% vinegar for 1 min with constant agitation; 2) 500 mL of 1% vinegar for 1 min with constant agitation; 3) 500 mL of 1% vinegar for 3 min with intermittent agitation; 4) 1.5 L of 1% vinegar plus a few mL of 3% hydrogen peroxide for 5 min with occasional agitation; 5) as for #4 except no peroxide; 6) same as #5.

The paper goes in tray #1 face down, but I turn it face up as soon as it is thoroughly wet. It stays face up in tray #2 but is then generally left face down in the remaining trays.

I usually don't make more than about 12-18 prints in a session, but if I do too many more I will change the solutions in the first three trays. I don't actually control this rigorously. I have made a few prints on 8x10 inch paper (with a 7x9 image) using the same set up and realize that I'll have to pay more attention to this issue with the larger prints.

Prints are dried passively (no heat/no fan) on a screen rack.

As far as the highlights in the last photo go, I think that that is all I have. The white trim was newly painted and bright white... I don't think that I blew the highlights in the original capture, but there just isn't much (any) detail there.

@BrainShaw

Thanks!

 

[nmp]

Wow...Frank. Thanks for sharing all the details of your process. I have a bunch of questions and comments but may be I will pace myself.

Starting with the paper: I notice that the 2 papers you are using are both printmaking papers as opposed to watercolor papers. The way I understand Printmaking papers are designed to retain/absorb water on the surface while watercolor papers are designed to repel water. So in the latter there is internal sizing as well as surface sizing whereas the former has only internal sizing, albeit on the heavier side. Based on this, there must be some fundamental way the two types of papers behave when a sensitizer is applied. I am guessing you don't use T-20, since you didn't mention. In the 2 watercolor papers I have worked on so far (Arches Bright White HP and Canson XL Watercolor) I have to use T-20 to get an even coating, though it depends heavily on the humidity level. I am using rod-coating that might change the equation somewhat from brush. So is that because of much more hydrophilic surface in th printmaking papers? What does the absence of surface sizing do? Your whites are great, even with all-acid process, which for the life of me I can't get unless I do a short water "develop" first. Questions, questions...

I am thinking, instead of trying out a bunch of watercolor papers randomly (not that I am looking to do it,) I should considering comparing specific categories of papers and see some are better suited for cyanotypes - there are printmaking papers and mixed media papers, besides watercolor papers that can handle wet processing. I can see more money down the rabbit hole....

:Niranjan.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I settled on Hannemuhle platinum rag. No more farting around with acid baths.

 

[fgorga]

@niranjan

I am glad that my information is useful for you. I did forget to mention that I do, indeed add Tween-20 to my coating solution. I add 1 drop of a 10% per 2 mL of coating mixture. I now do this for all papers as I have never found that it hurts but it sometimes helps.

I think that brushing on the solution is much more satisfactory than a coating rod. The brush really allows one to work the solution into the paper. In my view the only reason to use a coating rod is to save on expensive precious metals which, in my view is not at all an issue with cyanotype.

I am no expert on paper or sizing, but my understanding of the difference between watercolor and printmaking papers is the same as yours. To be honest, I can say that I did not really make a conscience decision between watercolor and printmaking papers, I just tried what I had in my stock. I also use both watercolor and printmaking papers to make black and white inkjet prints using both OEM Epson inks and Piezography K6 inks so I had them around.

I have also used a number of hot press watercolor papers as well, but I am slowly coming around to the view that they need pre-acidification to get consistent results. (I know that this is not news to many folks, but I like to make my own conclusions!) This is also true for many printmaking papers as well. One of my favorite papers for inkjet prints is Stonehenge Warm and initially I thought that I could make good cyanotypes on it without pre-treatment, but I could not do it consistently.

I am currently working on a method for pre-treating papers with fairly dilute (~ 0.1 M) HCl and using the solution only once. I know that many folks use sulfamic acid or citric acid, but HCl is dirt cheap and easily available as muriatic acid in building supply stores. I bought a gallon of 31% HCl (about 10 M) for $6.00. Thus, as long as one doesn't mind having to work with concentrated acid it seems a good approach. (Remember... I am a retired chemist, so I'm used to handling concentrated but I understand that many folks are hesitant.)

Regards,

Having said all of that, I may be slowly deciding that the extra steps involved in pre-treating may not be worth the effort if there are nice papers that work without pre-treatment. The two Fabriano papers seem to work this way thus far. I have also recently ordered some of the unbuffered papers designed for alt process printing to see how much better they are in my own hands. (I am also thinking about trying Ziatypes next and this is much more of an issue there I believe.) In addition to their expense, I find the selection of sizes that these papers are available in to be troublesome.

 

[fgorga]

I settled on Hannemuhle platinum rag. No more farting around with acid baths.

Andrew,

I think that I may eventually arrive at the same conclusion, but I'm not quite there yet!

There are much more interesting things to do in life than soaking paper in dilute acid and waiting for it to dry.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew,

I think that I may eventually arrive at the same conclusion, but I'm not quite there yet!

There are much more interesting things to do in life than soaking paper in dilute acid and waiting for it to dry.

At any rate, it's a fun journey!

 

[ced]

Nice prints & info thanks! Strange colour I find (scanning result or display over the web?) maybe the first dev. in 25% vinegar is enough without the other washes including vinegar also no need for the peroxide. Just 2 baths could be enough.
My result with Tiepolo but my dilutions differ from the conventional cyano recipe & here no neg involved: https://www.flickr.com/photos/67202854@N05/48195725911/in/dateposted-public/
Good luck with further printing.

 

[nmp]

@niranjan

I am glad that my information is useful for you. I did forget to mention that I do, indeed add Tween-20 to my coating solution. I add 1 drop of a 10% per 2 mL of coating mixture. I now do this for all papers as I have never found that it hurts but it sometimes helps.

I think that brushing on the solution is much more satisfactory than a coating rod. The brush really allows one to work the solution into the paper. In my view the only reason to use a coating rod is to save on expensive precious metals which, in my view is not at all an issue with cyanotype.

I am no expert on paper or sizing, but my understanding of the difference between watercolor and printmaking papers is the same as yours. To be honest, I can say that I did not really make a conscience decision between watercolor and printmaking papers, I just tried what I had in my stock. I also use both watercolor and printmaking papers to make black and white inkjet prints using both OEM Epson inks and Piezography K6 inks so I had them around.

I have also used a number of hot press watercolor papers as well, but I am slowly coming around to the view that they need pre-acidification to get consistent results. (I know that this is not news to many folks, but I like to make my own conclusions!) This is also true for many printmaking papers as well. One of my favorite papers for inkjet prints is Stonehenge Warm and initially I thought that I could make good cyanotypes on it without pre-treatment, but I could not do it consistently.

I am currently working on a method for pre-treating papers with fairly dilute (~ 0.1 M) HCl and using the solution only once. I know that many folks use sulfamic acid or citric acid, but HCl is dirt cheap and easily available as muriatic acid in building supply stores. I bought a gallon of 31% HCl (about 10 M) for $6.00. Thus, as long as one doesn't mind having to work with concentrated acid it seems a good approach. (Remember... I am a retired chemist, so I'm used to handling concentrated but I understand that many folks are hesitant.)

Regards,

Having said all of that, I may be slowly deciding that the extra steps involved in pre-treating may not be worth the effort if there are nice papers that work without pre-treatment. The two Fabriano papers seem to work this way thus far. I have also recently ordered some of the unbuffered papers designed for alt process printing to see how much better they are in my own hands. (I am also thinking about trying Ziatypes next and this is much more of an issue there I believe.) In addition to their expense, I find the selection of sizes that these papers are available in to be troublesome.

I have been putting off carbon ink inkjet printing project for an another day (or a year) - have a Epson 1430 unused waiting to be plugged in just for that.

Regarding rods and bushes, rod-coating is what I started with when I first tried alternative processing via platinum/palldium and it has kind of stuck with me. Lately though I am debating going over to brushing as well, as I am finding that watercolor paper surfaces are extremely sensitive to pressure of a rod coat (I guess I am not as gentle as I should be) resulting in dark spots in the final print. I have sort of figured out how to work around this issue but it wouldn't hurt to take up a brush - to take your advice.

I am still not convinced about acid-treatment being a positive for classic cyanotype - as a matter of fact I feel it is a detriment (fogging) based on my own experience. I do have COT 320 that I tried earlier for cyanotypes but found it to be dull (lower Dmax at first glance, though and I never did a full-fledged process optimization on it) compared to non-specialty papers like the Canson XL and Arches Bright White HP. Yes those papers (COT, HPR, etc) are a must for the New cyanotype, platinum/palladium etc and if longevity is of concern. I'd say for cyanotypes, unless I see huge visual benefits (better Dmax, Dmin, grains etc) I would be inclined to keep using the cheaper alternatives.

:Niranjan.

 

[nmp]

Nice prints & info thanks! Strange colour I find (scanning result or display over the web?) maybe the first dev. in 25% vinegar is enough without the other washes including vinegar also no need for the peroxide. Just 2 baths could be enough.
My result with Tiepolo but my dilutions differ from the conventional cyano recipe & here no neg involved: https://www.flickr.com/photos/67202854@N05/48195725911/in/dateposted-public/
Good luck with further printing.

Hi, Ced:

You have some nice cyanos on your flicker page.

I have been playing with dilutions as well - increasing the overall concentration and changing the FAC : KFerri ratio. For the latter, I find that lowering from the standard recipe of 2.5 : 1 to between 1.75 and 2 : 1 (depending on the paper) gives the best combination of Dmax, Dmin and speed. Any further reduction in FAC reduces the Dmax and the exposure times start being extra long. Increasing the overall solids concentration from 17.5% of the standard recipe increases both the Dmax and the Dmin, upper limit is mostly governed by the coating quality as higher concentration increases the viscosity and the sensitizer starts having trouble getting absorbed at the surface, leading to wash-off of lower values in development. Where this happens seems to be a function of the paper - with Arches Bright White HP, I could push it to 37% but with Canson XL, higher than 25% was unacceptable. This is with rod-coating - I suspect the behavior might differ if a brush is used.

It's complicated...

:Niranjan.

 

[ced]

Thanks Niranjan! I like deep blue and quite high D.Max in my prints. My current dilution is A: Ammonium Citrate 18gr. - 50ml. H2Odist. & B: Pot. Ferri. 10gr. - 50ml. H2Odist. Just before coating one can play with further dilutions. My first wash 1litr. H2O + 25cc Vinegar. 3-5 or even 8 min. (vinegar can cause some bleaching of the colour) then clean water for 30min. final wash. Papers can give blotchy results no matter if rod or brush coated, some cheap papers are fine others useless. Good quality (expensive) papers generally give nicer results. I do filter the A quite often to remove mould from the bottle.

 

[fgorga]

Nice prints & info thanks! Strange colour I find (scanning result or display over the web?) maybe the first dev. in 25% vinegar is enough without the other washes including vinegar also no need for the peroxide. Just 2 baths could be enough.
My result with Tiepolo but my dilutions differ from the conventional cyano recipe & here no neg involved: https://www.flickr.com/photos/67202854@N05/48195725911/in/dateposted-public/
Good luck with further printing.

Ced,

Thank for the comments.

I agree that the color I'm getting is not quite the usual cyanotype color, but on the other hand it is not, to my eye at least, unpleasant. My guess is that this has to do with the relatively high concentration of vinegar I'm using to "develop " with.

I have taken to using a bit of acid in all of my washes as I seem to have seasonal changes in the water from our well that were affecting the reproducibility of my process. (I live in a rural area and have a private well. )

As for the peroxide, it is known to accelerate the formation of the Prussian Blue pigment that occurs naturally via air oxidation. Adding it to a wash bath just allows one to get a better (but still not perfect) idea of the final dried print result a bit more quickly than waiting patiently for the oxygen in air to do the job.

As for the number of washes, my rule of thumb with static baths, is to use enough of them so that the last two baths show no color (yellow in this case) at the end of a typical printing session. I'd rather over wash a bit than under wash and leave unreacted iron around. Furthermore, basic chemistry says that multiple washes with smaller volumes is more effective than one wash with a larger volume.

Lastly, I enjoyed looking at your Flickr page.

 

[fgorga]

I have been putting off carbon ink inkjet printing project for an another day (or a year) - have a Epson 1430 unused waiting to be plugged in just for that.

Regarding rods and bushes, rod-coating is what I started with when I first tried alternative processing via platinum/palldium and it has kind of stuck with me. Lately though I am debating going over to brushing as well, as I am finding that watercolor paper surfaces are extremely sensitive to pressure of a rod coat (I guess I am not as gentle as I should be) resulting in dark spots in the final print. I have sort of figured out how to work around this issue but it wouldn't hurt to take up a brush - to take your advice.

I am still not convinced about acid-treatment being a positive for classic cyanotype - as a matter of fact I feel it is a detriment (fogging) based on my own experience. I do have COT 320 that I tried earlier for cyanotypes but found it to be dull (lower Dmax at first glance, though and I never did a full-fledged process optimization on it) compared to non-specialty papers like the Canson XL and Arches Bright White HP. Yes those papers (COT, HPR, etc) are a must for the New cyanotype, platinum/palladium etc and if longevity is of concern. I'd say for cyanotypes, unless I see huge visual benefits (better Dmax, Dmin, grains etc) I would be inclined to keep using the cheaper alternatives.

:Niranjan.

Niranjan,

Regarding, Piezography... yup it is another rabbit hole to explore!! I've been using a 1430 with warm neutral inks for a couple of years. However, last week I bought a 3880 which I intend to convert to the Piezography Pro system which gets you any tone or combination of tones you want... talk about rabbit holes! Being retired allows me time to explore and as my wife says is keeps me off the streets and mostly out of trouble!

As for rod coating, it is definitely a talent that needs to be developed and then practiced regularly to be successful. Probably why I stick to the brush!

As for papers. I pretty much agree. In my practice, the jury is still out about acid pretreatment for traditional cyanotype. But, everything one reads suggests that many other alt processes are better (or even only work) on po papers without calcium carbonate. I don't have much experience with processes other than cyanotype and the experience I have is all in workshops which, as I'm sure you know, much different than getting things to work by yourself in your own space!

 

[ced]

Frank thanks! I wonder after looking at some of your nice blog images & particular the "Shaker Village" camera obscura with the interesting unsharp areas on the edges. What camera & pinhole is causing that to come about? KR!

 

[fgorga]

Frank thanks! I wonder after looking at some of your nice blog images & particular the "Shaker Village" camera obscura with the interesting unsharp areas on the edges. What camera & pinhole is causing that to come about? KR!

Thanks for looking at my work and the nice comment.

My camera obscura images are made by photographing the ground glass of a camera obscura

Frank thanks! I wonder after looking at some of your nice blog images & particular the "Shaker Village" camera obscura with the interesting unsharp areas on the edges. What camera & pinhole is causing that to come about? KR!

Ced,

Thanks for looking at my blog and for the kind comments.

The photos you specifically mention were made with this contraption:

The walnut box at the bottom is a camera obscura that I purchased. (Alas, the fellow I bought it from is no longer making them.) The lens is a simple single meniscus lens housed in the brass tube. The box contains a mirror which projects the image onto a ground glass on the top of the box. (I also use a Fresnel lens under the ground glass to brighten things up and even out the illumination.) The black box on top of that is a shroud that I made. On top of that is a small digital camera that I use to photograph the ground glass. The camera is held steady by a mount that screws onto the back of the camera obscura.

At first I used a dark cloth instead of the shroud. If you have ever used a dark cloth, you will recognize this is not particularly convenient. The second generation was a cardboard shroud that fell part fairly quickly. Thus, I made the third generation out of thin model makers plywood. You can clearly see the difference in woodworking skills... the camera obscura has nice dovetailed joints. My shroud is held together with duck tape and gaffers tape!

In use it functions like a camera with a waist level viewfinder. It is usually mounted on a tripod. I focus the digital camera on the ground glass. The image is focused on the ground glass by sliding the brass tube in or out of the box. If I am careful I can one bit in decently sharp focus... of course sharp focus is not what this contraption is about!

I carry it around with me often and it is a lot of fun! It sometimes attracts, as you might expect, some strange looks and a bit of attention.

The Shaker Village photos you mention are an example of this. While I was making these photos, I ended up talking with a woman who was passing by, She in turn, talked with director of the museum. The end result is that prints of these photographs are now in the museum's permanent collection. That is a first for me!

Regards,

 

[Vaughn]

I settled on Hannemuhle platinum rag. No more farting around with acid baths.

I have been using it for pt/pd prints...though I like the surface of COT320 a little better (the look of the surface texture, primarily). But I working on a 4-foot (50") x 33 foot roll of the Hannemuhle Platinum Rag, so I better like it!

I am not using Tween -- that is one difference between cyanotypes and platinums...the cost of the material. With platinum, one wants sufficient, but minimal penetration of the solution into the paper...if only to keep all that expensive metal close to the surface of the paper where it can actually be exposed and seen!

Cyanotypers...how much solution do you apply for 100 square inches (about the amount for an 8x10), if you measure? I use about 40 drops (10 to 15 drops per ml) of my platinum/palladium/ferric oxalte solution for an 8x10 and would like to compare, as cyanotypes might be in my future again.

PS -- I start coating with a rod and after 4 to 6 passes with the rod, I have set the size/borders, and I finish with a light touch with a brush. Below is a 5x7 print made that way (rod is 5.5" long). Zion Nat.Park, 2018, pt/pd

 

[nmp]

My camera obscura images are made by photographing the ground glass of a camera obscura

Wonder if Talbot had a digital camera, would he have invented the calotype.....

 

[fgorga]

I have been using it for pt/pd prints...though I like the surface of COT320 a little better (the look of the surface texture, primarily). But I working on a 4-foot (50") x 33 foot roll of the Hannemuhle Platinum Rag, so I better like it!


Cyanotypers...how much solution do you apply for 100 square inches (about the amount for an 8x10), if you measure? I use about 40 drops (10 to 15 drops per ml) of my platinum/palladium/ferric oxalte solution for an 8x10 and would like to compare, as cyanotypes might be in my future again.

Vaughn,

Working from the roll do you have trouble with curl? If so, how do you decurl? (By my calculation, you save about 40% using the roll compared to 11x15 or 8x10 sheets; B&H prices).

As for cyanotype coverage... I am in the same ballpark as you are for Pt/Pd. In calculating how much cyanotype mixture to make, I use the value of 32 sq. inches / mL. I coat with an inexpensive 2" Hake brush. By my calculations (using 12 drops / mL) , you are getting 30 sq. inches / mL.

I read some where about a Richardson (I think) "magic brush" for coating. It is supposedly much less a absorbent than typical brushes and thus there is less 'overhead" when brush coating with expensive metals. Anyone have any experience with this?

Regards,

 

[Vaughn]

I have a 'magic' brush. Works great...but so has some other brushes...just got to watch out for those errant hairs.

I have not had a problem with curl -- but then I cut a large number of sheets out of the roll and put them under some weight for a couple of days. I believe I coat the inside of the roll...slightly less texture than the outside. A slight curl works if one remains has coated easily with a rod or far.

 

[nmp]

Niranjan,

Regarding, Piezography... yup it is another rabbit hole to explore!! I've been using a 1430 with warm neutral inks for a couple of years. However, last week I bought a 3880 which I intend to convert to the Piezography Pro system which gets you any tone or combination of tones you want... talk about rabbit holes! Being retired allows me time to explore and as my wife says is keeps me off the streets and mostly out of trouble!

As for rod coating, it is definitely a talent that needs to be developed and then practiced regularly to be successful. Probably why I stick to the brush!

As for papers. I pretty much agree. In my practice, the jury is still out about acid pretreatment for traditional cyanotype. But, everything one reads suggests that many other alt processes are better (or even only work) on po papers without calcium carbonate. I don't have much experience with processes other than cyanotype and the experience I have is all in workshops which, as I'm sure you know, much different than getting things to work by yourself in your own space!

Piezography Pro is much too expensive for me. I was thinking of buying Paul Roark's Eboni ink and mixing my own set (I like to make everything more difficult for me, a little quirk.) Any experience with that? Initially I bought 1430 to make it a dedicated printer for digital negatives when my HP B9180 died and the Epson 400 didn't cut it for me. Then I was able to find another used HP that I revived so 1430 never got plugged in.

Yeah, workshops are nice, they make you feel like having been a "I made this!" place with souvenirs and all to bring back. But then recreating the process from scratch adapting your own environment is a big challenge. That's part of the fun and frustration at the same time.

If you want to see the effect of acidifying paper on Pt/Pd printing, see Bill Schwab's video here:



For cyanotypes, more than the process itself, the buffer plays a role in image fading over time so if that was a concern, neutralizing it would be beneficial. However, it does not have to be a pre-treatment. I suspect with fairly strong vinegar treatment in your workflow, you are probably neutralizing most of anyway.

:Niranjan.


P.S. I like this thread. May be can make it a permanent one to discuss all things cyanotypes and related issues.

 

[Youngfolk]

Such cool stuff. Looks awesome.