Grain in Kallitype Prints

[Brent Mathison]

I am just learning the kallitype process using Sandy King's method. In my first few prints, I am noticing a decent amount of grain. The grain is not present in my negatives, so I know it is not that. My ferric oxalate is 3-4 weeks old. For the print I have attached here, all of my processing chemicals are fresh - this was the first print through. Developer is 20% sodium citrate, paper is Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag. The print was gold toned using Sandy King's gold toner formula #2. My darkroom is 76 degrees and 46%-50% humidity. Oh, and I did not use any dichromate for contrast control.

Not having a real kallitype for comparison., does the grain you see in my print seem excessive? If so, any ideas on where I could start to troubleshoot?

(And I know I need to tweak my curve a bit to get some detail in the highlights.)

Thanks,
Brent

 

[osella]

I can’t help you with kallitypes, but Platinum Rag while relatively smooth still has some texture which may cause it to look grainy.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It could be because the RH in your work space is too low. Try soaking the paper in distilled water for a few minutes. Hang to dry. Then coat. Let it air dry for about 20 min. I use the same paper, by the way. You could also put a drop or two of Tween-20, or even Photo-Flo in the sensitiser, to help it sink into the paper a bit.

 

[Brent Mathison]

It could be because the RH in your work space is too low. Try soaking the paper in distilled water for a few minutes. Hang to dry. Then coat. Let it air dry for about 20 min. I use the same paper, by the way. You could also put a drop or two of Tween-20, or even Photo-Flo in the sensitiser, to help it sink into the paper a bit.

Great - I’ll give that a try. Hoping it’s that easy. Thanks!

ps - I just checked out your Flickr feed and see you have done some gum over kallitype. That’s my next phase once I get the kallitype process figured out.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Great - I’ll give that a try. Hoping it’s that easy. Thanks!

ps - I just checked out your Flickr feed and see you have done some gum over kallitype. That’s my next phase once I get the kallitype process figured out.

And gum over cyanotypes. Loads of fun! Hope that solves the problem. Is not, it may be your ferric oxalate mixture gone bad...

 

[Brent Mathison]

And gum over cyanotypes. Loads of fun! Hope that solves the problem. Is not, it may be your ferric oxalate mixture gone bad...

Yes - I’ve done some gum over cyanotype - that gives a totally different look compared to just gum. If the moisture doesn’t help, I’ll mix a new batch of ferric oxalate. Will let you know. Thanks again!

 

[Brent Mathison]

I can’t help you with kallitypes, but Platinum Rag while relatively smooth still has some texture which may cause it to look grainy.

Thanks, but this feels like an issue with grain rather than paper texture. I think Andrew has pointed me in the right direction - will be able to confirm later today.

 

[koraks]

The grain is not present in my negatives

Uhm...convince me. Looks like you're using digital/inkjet negatives. For me those have always produced 'grainy' prints (in fact artifacts derived from the inkjet dithering). Print at a larger size so you have a longer viewing distance; it becomes less of a problem.
In any case I'd recommend making a few test prints from real negatives (even a strip of 35mm will do!) to eliminate this possible (probable...) cause.

 

[nmp]

Uhm...convince me. Looks like you're using digital/inkjet negatives. For me those have always produced 'grainy' prints (in fact artifacts derived from the inkjet dithering). Print at a larger size so you have a longer viewing distance; it becomes less of a problem.
In any case I'd recommend making a few test prints from real negatives (even a strip of 35mm will do!) to eliminate this possible (probable...) cause.

If you can reproduce dithering pattern from negative printed on a decent inkjet printer on a hand-coated, alternative process print on a watercolor paper and then digitized on a scanner and presented as a size-limited jpg, that would be great feat indeed....

:Niranjan.

 

[gone]

I would ck it w/ a real neg too, that would be my first step, simply to eliminate something simple and obvious from the equation. Then ck the paper, and keep going along checking things, if necessary. While what nmp wrote is accurate, the problem could be multiple problems. Combine the ink jet dithering, the type of paper (especially a textured paper that has crevices for stuff to sit in), etc and it gets complicated, so I always start w/ the easiest and fastest way to eliminate at least one problem initially.

 

[koraks]

If you can reproduce dithering pattern from negative printed on a decent inkjet printer on a hand-coated, alternative process print on a watercolor paper and then digitized on a scanner and presented as a size-limited jpg, that would be great feat indeed

Nothing special really. Happens all the time. Especially if the print is on the small side.

Here's one example, original on 4x5" Fomapan 100, but this is a carbon print from a digital negative. Don't remember the size but probably around 5x7":

Another one; cyanotype, also digital negative. Image size maybe 6x8" or so. Check the face:


Van Dyke Brown; check the blade and the handle:


One more, carbon transfer from digital original:


Inkjet grain shows clearly in alt. process prints unless pretty nifty/advanced inkjet materials & methods are used; e.g. piezography I'm told should give smooth results.

 

[revdoc]

That's my experience as well. It isn't always obvious, and it only shows up with certain tones, but it's there.

 

[nmp]

Nothing special really. Happens all the time. Especially if the print is on the small side.


Inkjet grain shows clearly in alt. process prints unless pretty nifty/advanced inkjet materials & methods are used; e.g. piezography I'm told should give smooth results.

This is very much out of the realm of this sub-forum. I am not sure we can discuss this freely here.... could start a new thread if interested. But what is "grain" in these pictures, where is "dithering" pattern? Kind of hard to judge. (For that matter, I am not sure what grain OP is talking about either, the example looks fairly normal to me.) In the cyanotype example, I can see some horizontal pattern that is most likely due to misaligned nozzles, which is fairly easy to fix. I can't see the normal printer-applied dithering pattern, most at 1200 dpi or better nowadays, with naked eye on a glossy inkjet media, let alone reproduced on a contact print. Dithering is used to actually smoothen the tonal transitions, not make them coarse. Perhaps you are talking about something else.

I can give you that any artifact that is on the inkjet negative would show up much easier on a carbon print (or on a glossy silver gelatin print) because clearly you are not superimposing the grain of the paper in that case. That's why I was very specific about watercolor paper.

:Niranjan.

 

[DMJ]

Very interesting topic. This could be part of this thread:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...og-negatives-in-alternative-processes.183371/

 

[koraks]

Perhaps you are talking about something else.

In any case I'm talking about inkjet artifacts that are exacerbated by the fact that transparency media don't have the bleed that consumer inkjet heads & inks are optimized for.

In the cyanotype example, I can see some horizontal pattern that is most likely due to misaligned nozzles

The horizontal pattern in that print is actually the paper texture of that particular paper stock. I'm talking about the grainy rendition of larger surfaces of similar/identical tones.

BTW this particular printer (Epson 3880) makes perfect regular prints on paper.

Not quite sure what your case is really, it seems you're mostly sidestepping the issue or trying to talk your way out of it or something. I don't care really, my suggestion remains for OP to try a silver negative before being sent on a goose chase of all kinds of arcane issues.

 

[nmp]

Not quite sure what your case is really, it seems you're mostly sidestepping the issue or trying to talk your way out of it or something. I don't care really, my suggestion remains for OP to try a silver negative before being sent on a goose chase of all kinds of arcane issues.

Sorry Koraks, I learn a lot from you on these pages so last thing I want to do is have a case with you. However, my comment was directed towards your speculation that the grain that the OP was seeing was somehow related specifically to “dithering” in the printer. To that I said I would be very surprised if that was the case given the inherent other noise-making sources of much greater magnitude in the whole series of steps in the printing process – not the least of which is the surface structure of the paper itself. I am not disputing that inkjet printers introduce other artifacts – one could only wish they didn’t. And if you used the word “dithering” as a catch-all phrase for all artifacts created by an inkjet print, that was not what I understood.

I really don’t like to get in on a discussion about digital vs analog, printing or otherwise, as it usually is a moot/philosophical point for me. Most people do not have a choice of doing one or the other. I for one would not be into alternative processes if it was not for digital negatives – as I have neither the facility nor the inclination to take up large format photography (I should really give my TOYO monorail to someone who can make a better use than a dust-magnet) and learning the requisite chemistry in order to match the DR and contrast of the negative to those of the particular printing process in use.

We don’t know if OP is using an analog original or a digital one. So using an analog film to compare may not be feasible or practical. A better method to see if the origin of the observed grain is the negative itself is to do a blanket exposure half without any transparency on top and half with plain transparency without any printing with an exposure dose good for mid-grays (say 50% B) with the rest of the process in an identical fashion as before. If you do not see the same grain there, then the issue is the ink that was put on the transparency. Otherwise everything else. Then again, the OP specifically mentioned that the negative looks fine.

This is my last post on the subject – before we get shut down by the moderator. The thread should have been started in one of the hybrid sections anyway since the OP alluded the use of a digital negative. I wish though they would merge all these different sub-forums into one for all things alternative – analog, digital or everything in-between. Most other sites treat it as such.

Happy Holidays!

:Niranjan.

 

[Brent Mathison]

I see there has been quite a bit of discussion since my original post. I was indeed using a digital negative. I am used to a certain amount of grain in my cyanotype and platinum prints, but not to the extent I was seeing here. Separately someone suggested that my development time was too short. I was developing 2 minutes in sodium citrate. I increased the development time to 10 minutes, and my prints are much smoother now...still a little grain, but a much more reasonable amount.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments.

 

[Brent Mathison]

The thread should have been started in one of the hybrid sections anyway since the OP alluded the use of a digital negative. I wish though they would merge all these different sub-forums into one for all things alternative – analog, digital or everything in-between. Most other sites treat it as such.

I'm fairly new to this site and still learning the structure. I agree that it would be much more intuitive to have all things alternative in a single place.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I see there has been quite a bit of discussion since my original post. I was indeed using a digital negative. I am used to a certain amount of grain in my cyanotype and platinum prints, but not to the extent I was seeing here. Separately someone suggested that my development time was too short. I was developing 2 minutes in sodium citrate. I increased the development time to 10 minutes, and my prints are much smoother now...still a little grain, but a much more reasonable amount.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments.

A longish time in the developer does indeed assist in less grain, and smoother tones. I typically develop for about 5 to 8 minute, in either sodium citrate, or sodium acetate.

 

[MattKing]

I have no problems with the digital negative references here. If anyone wants to really dive deep into how to make better digital negatives, we would ask that they move that discussion to a sub-forum that is dedicated to that subject. If they wished to discuss making enlarged internegatives, this is a good sub-forum for that.
The divisions here arise because of some historical factors within APUG - the site's predecessor. If you were around when those were happening, they would make a lot of sense to you.

 

[Brent Mathison]

I have no problems with the digital negative references here. If anyone wants to really dive deep into how to make better digital negatives, we would ask that they move that discussion to a sub-forum that is dedicated to that subject. If they wished to discuss making enlarged internegatives, this is a good sub-forum for that.
The divisions here arise because of some historical factors within APUG - the site's predecessor. If you were around when those were happening, they would make a lot of sense to you.

Ah - thanks for the context! And I hope I didn’t come across as complaining, that certainly wasn’t my intent.

 

[DMJ]

To the OP. Did you look at your digital negatives through a loupe?
The first attachment is a picture of the densest area of a DG printed on Pictorico taken with a cell phone through a loupe.
The second one is a scan of an area of the same DG

There is a "pattern" or "granularity" but it would be hard to see on watercolor papers with a coarse grain, I would assume.

.