Gum bichromate or cyanotype for architecture photography?

Hi,

I would like to try some of the "alternative processes", but preferably without silver nitrate (because of price).
I got 2kg of potassium dichromate from ending darkroom, so I would like to use it. Film negatives (8x10), mostly for minimalism architecture photo and some details/still life.

I would like to get a print with a different look than silver-gelatin process, more painterly and dreamy, but with sufficient definition for details like bricks and ropes on bridges.

Carbon transfer - I was interested in this process, but what I read it is also the most complicated, so I would like to start with something simpler.
Gum bichromate - when I look on the internet, I see mostly photos in "pictorialism" style. I like it, but I need a little more definition/shrapness.
Or maybe cyanotype? Toned......because I don't like blue color in general Without dichromate, but still cheap and affordable.

I haven't had a chance yet to see these processes on paper. It is clear to me that it cannot be judged by digital representations on the internet - mix of bad scans/photo, poorly made digital negatives etc.

Thank you for your opinion and experience.
Jan

I’m all for architectural cyanotypes. Did some in the long distant past. If blue is okay, although toning to other colors is possible, there is a nice balance of “painterly” with detail. Paper choice becomes important. My most detailed were done with a hot press paper. Slightly less detailed, but also quite crisp, on cold press paper. Most painterly and lacking a lot of detail on watercolor paper.

Gum bichromate was a major challenge that I never really mastered. I gave up because it was always too painterly.

If you want realistic-looking gum, learn from this guy:

nmp said:

If you want realistic-looking gum, learn from this guy:

Click to expand...

Well, this is amazing. But I have B&W film negatives and definitely not such equipment as he
I took from the comments that he uses hot press wattercolor paper. But if I need to have experience like him, so I can create more "realistic" gum prints......I'll probably need another life.

I started off with van dykes, quickly moved to kallitypes, then to carbon transfer. I also do cyanotypes and tri-colour gum. Just starting out, I recommend something easy like cyanotypes, or van dykes. Carbon transfer is labour intensive. You need time and patience. You need to keep good notes. I've been making them for about 12 years. If I can do it, anyone can! Carbon Transfer would be ideal for architecture because of it's ability to show minute detail.

I’ve played with cyanotypes and Van Dykes, in fact, even did both on the same print. Here a Van Dyke on craft paper and a Van Dyke and cyanotype on the same paper.

Somehow cyanotypes seem uniquely appropriate for architecture, It's the process that was used for the original blue prints of many buildings

It is worth noting that non alt process print will be as sharp as an inkjet print or a silver gelatin print. The reason for this is that the image is formed within the fibers of the paper rather than in a thin coating that lies atop the paper. That said, one can certainly make decently sharp alt process prints using a nice smooth paper. Any texture to the surface of the paper will diminish the perceived sharpness of a print.

As far as negatives go, realize that the contrast of your negative needs be tailored to the printing process in order to get the best results. With film, this means exposing and developing your negative with a particular alt process in mind. If you are open to a hybrid process, one can scan a film negative, apply an appropriate adjustment curve and print a digital negative to get around this limitation.

As for the various processes... from what I have seen carbon prints are probably the sharpest. I have no experience in making carbon prints but from what I have read/heard it is, in terms of technique, very different from most of the other alt processes and it has a fairly steep learning curve.

Cyanotype is very inexpensive and a good place to start an exploration of alt processes. In my opinion, the blue of cyanotype works well with photos of buildings (see below). As for toned cyanotypes, just be aware that toning comes at the cost of stability. I have a triptych of the same image in native cyanotype and two different toned versions all in the same frame. It has been hanging in our home for almost 20 years. The two toned versions are quite faded compared to the untoned cyanotype.

Gum prints are very nice. However, I would not put sharpness near the top of a list of their strengths. The environmental costs of using dichromate are high and properly disposing of the waste generated add complication to the process.

As for the silver-based processes... Yes, sliver is more expensive than iron, but it is still not that expensive in the grand scheme of things. Of course, I know nothing about your finances, so this is easy for me to say. If you want to go this route, learn the mechanics of alt process (coating paper, etc.) using cyanotype then switch to a silver-based process as the mechanic of many of the alt processes are similar.

Lastly, here are a few cyanotypes of building that I have made in the past couple of years...

Mill Building (Harrisville, NH)

Gosport Chapel (on a textured paper, so not really sharp)


East Quoddy Light (Campobello Island, NB)

Window Detail (Cyanotype Toned with Tannic Acid and Ammonia)

blacksquare said:

I got 2kg of potassium dichromate from ending darkroom, so I would like to use it.

Click to expand...

That's irrational and irresponsible.

Compare the health and safety risks (for you, the general population and the environment) with the costs of silver nitrate (also not completely benign, but FAR less problematic than dichromate).

Dichromate is in VERY few cases a necessary evil and should be treated that way.

I'm not saying you should never use any dichromate at all (although ideally of course you wouldn't!) I do keep a jar at hand for those very rare instances where there's no substitute for it. Like you, I've been gifted more dichromate than I reasonable could (and should!) in several lifetimes, which is not a reason at all to try and use more of it.