How to improve density in Cyanotypes?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Are you using the sun or an artificial uv light source?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I agree with Vaughn. You're looking for complicated solutions to a simple problem, IMO.

Well if it WERE simple, I wouldn't be having the problems that I'm having. I've got the basic process down. Print negative, mix chemicals, coat paper, expose, develop. I can make a print. But those prints, whether exposed correctly or not, aren't providing me with satisfactory results. I want density closer to that of a traditional print. I dont want newspaper looking images, bad or good.

And as I've said multiple times in this thread alone, I've used an entire pack of Bergger COT-320, which is a paper that is supposed to be manufactured specifically for alternative processes. But even with this paper I'm not satisfied with the density of the prints.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Are you using the sun or an artificial uv light source?

UV box that I built.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

UV box that I built.

Try using the sun as a test. I used a uv box I made for cyanotypes and when a developed it in the water bath, most of the emulsion washed off. The sun worked better. I think my light box had the wrong wavelength of uv for cyanotype.

 

[removedacct1]

Well if it WERE simple, I wouldn't be having the problems that I'm having. I've got the basic process down. Print negative, mix chemicals, coat paper, expose, develop. I can make a print. But those prints, whether exposed correctly or not, aren't providing me with satisfactory results. I want density closer to that of a traditional print. I dont want newspaper looking images, bad or good.

And as I've said multiple times in this thread alone, I've used an entire pack of Bergger COT-320, which is a paper that is supposed to be manufactured specifically for alternative processes. But even with this paper I'm not satisfied with the density of the prints.

I never got a great cyanotype using an artificial light source. Not once. Use daylight.
I’ve made cyanotype on Bergger COT paper and got flat results with poor D-max every time, so I gave upon it. It might fare better if you size the paper first, but why bother if there are papers out there that perform well without the extra steps? Try Canson Pro Marker paper. It makes remarkable cyanotypes with great blue-black D-max. Did you look at the print I linked to a couple days back? Made on Canson Pro Marker.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I never got a great cyanotype using an artificial light source. Not once. Use daylight.
I’ve made cyanotype on Bergger COT paper and got flat results with poor D-max every time, so I gave upon it. It might fare better if you size the paper first, but why bother if there are papers out there that perform well without the extra steps? Try Canson Pro Marker paper. It makes remarkable cyanotypes with great blue-black D-max. Did you look at the print I linked to a couple days back? Made on Canson Pro Marker.

I've been using Canson XL Bristol Recycled - the smooth side, for the last few prints, and I like it's results better than the Bergger. But I'm not getting the sharpness, and "resolution" I like. Even with the Canson it's still too speckled. I've never done any printing besides traditional silver, so alt processes are new to me. Maybe my expectations are just unrealistic. Or maybe the problem is with my cheap printer and the negatives it prints out.

 

[Jerevan]

I am not an expert on this ... but Adox Baryta or fixed-out silver paper could up the perceived Dmax and the resolution, but then you are going to have to buy into another set of challenges, like getting even coating and perhaps defects showing from a digital negative. I'd do a test, from actual film negatives, even something like 35 mm would work, believe it or not, showing you what you can get. It's a trade-off, to me they sort of look like blue-toned silver prints, which may or may not be to ones' liking.

 

[removedacct1]

I've been using Canson XL Bristol Recycled - the smooth side, for the last few prints, and I like it's results better than the Bergger. But I'm not getting the sharpness, and "resolution" I like. Even with the Canson it's still too speckled. I've never done any printing besides traditional silver, so alt processes are new to me. Maybe my expectations are just unrealistic. Or maybe the problem is with my cheap printer and the negatives it prints out.

Christopher, I've tried the Canson Bristol XL for alt processes as well, and found it quite poor. No, that's not right: it SUCKS. It made some of the worst cyanotypes ever, for me. Your expectations are not unrealistic! You can get a lot closer to what you desire, but you've got to use a suitable paper.
Are you unwilling to try the Canson Pro Marker pad? It makes superior cyanotypes. Its also excellent for Van Dyke prints, albumen prints, etc. Its a HARD surface paper that delivers exceptionally good resolution of negative details. I believe that if you try it, you'll find it gets you MUCH closer to your desired result, with far less hassle.

 

[Vaughn]

Well if it WERE simple, I wouldn't be having the problems that I'm having. I've got the basic process down. ...

My apologies, Chris. What I meant is that there are simple solutions without adding extra sizing to papers that already have it or using fumed silica at this point. Those 'solutions' make relatively minor improvements, more along the lines of fine-tuning one's prints, and will not solve the basic problem you are having. IMO, they will only mask it and distract you from finding the answers. Good prints can be made without the extra treatment of papers, or so I have been told! Make some photograms, have fun!

Since CT has no emulsion, the fibers of the paper are required to hold the chemicals in place. If one is having the image wash off, then the sensitizing solution did not penetrate deep enough into the paper (or was forced-dried too quickly before the solution had a chance to penetrate into the paper). This means most of the dry solution is just sitting on top of the paper's surface and will wash off since no paper fibers are holding those chemicals.

Edited to add: Found this out with pt/pd printing -- I was hitting the coated paper too quickly with the hair drier and a lot of cash was being washed off my prints into the developer!

Without sizing, the solution soaks all the way through the paper -- and one's image will be in the paper, mostly unseen. COT320 and other papers designed for alt processes have sizings that allow the right amount of penetration and chemically will not interfere with the processes, but there are many variables to deal with that can mess with things. A test in the sun would be interesting -- using halves of the same coated paper, try to match the exposures with the sun and your UV lamp (pick an area in the printing-out image to match exposures) and see what the differences are.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Christopher, I've tried the Canson Bristol XL for alt processes as well, and found it quite poor. It made some of the worst cyanotypes ever, for me. Your expectations are not unrealistic! You can get a lot closer to what you desire, but you've got to use a suitable paper.
Are you unwilling to try the Canson Pro Marker pad? It makes superior cyanotypes. Its also excellent for Van Dyke prints, albumen prints, etc. Its a HARD surface paper that delivers exceptionally good resolution of negative details. I believe that if you try it, you'll find it gets you MUCH closer to your desired result, with far less hassle.

I'll try anything at this point. I'll pick one up or order one in just a bit.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

(or was forced-dried too quickly before the solution had a chance to penetrate into the paper). This means most of the dry solution is just sitting on top of the paper's surface and will wash off since no paper fibers are holding those chemicals.

Oh well now there's a distinct possibility. I'm not letting the chemicals sink in. I force dry with a hair dryer on the cool setting. Perhaps I should allow some time between coating, and drying for the chemicals to sink into the fibers. Thanks for that!!

 

[removedacct1]

I'll try anything at this point. I'll pick one up or order one in just a bit.

Christopher, it’s just a iPhone snap, but here is a print I made last summer from a glass collodion negative, on Canson Pro Marker:

I included my hand so you can see how dark the blue is compared to skin values.

 

[Vaughn]

Chris...are you getting a lot of wash-off of the image? Is the cool setting as in 'cool' or as in 'warm, but not hot'? If it is just room temp air, it should not dry it too quickly. I hang dry my paper now with a fan on them (so room temp air)...60% humidity for a couple hours, but probably could print at one hour. Then I box up the dry sheets to maintain that moisture level (so the paper will print more-or-less the same though-out the session).

I am doing pt/pd printing with a set amount of sensitiser (moisture) per sheet on the same types of papers, so drying times can be fairly consistent.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I get some wash off, but not much. You can tell that there's some blue in the water, but its not like "windex" blue, and it's usually just the very first wash. Subsequent washes are clear.

And now that I'm thinking about it, the very first step wedge I printed came out much more satisfactory. It was on Bergger paper, I coated it, and let it sit for 40 or 45 minutes before my patience got the best of me and I hit it with the hair dryer. All prints after that were coated, and dried within 15 to 20 minutes. So that may be one of the biggest issues.

I've got the Canson Pro Marker paper on the way from Amazon, since Paul recommended it. And maybe since I have this one portrait negative correctly adjusted I should reprint it on my last remaining sheets of Bergger.

ETA: I just ordered some pipettes too. I've just been pouring capfuls and mixing it, so it's not been all that accurate.

 

[Vaughn]

Great! Has anyone mentioned over-drying? One does need some moisture in the paper for the chemical reactions to happen when struck by UV light...that was one of the improvements I noticed when I went to air drying (more consistent moisture levels, too). As long as it feel dry to the touch, one is good to go.

 

[nmp]

Its a combination of the right paper, matched with the right negative (contrasty, dense highlights) and the right exposure.

I get the best results coating a single coat of Ware formula sensitizer on Canson Pro Marker Pad paper, and a fairly contrasty negative.
This is a crappy scan of the print, but at least you'll get an idea of whats possible: https://flic.kr/p/2j8vBaj
The D-max areas are almost blue-black, they are so dense. Most watercolor papers I've used are crap with this process, so find something with a VERY hard (hot press) surface, and use the Ware formula of sensitizer, and I think you'll get better results.

Hi, Paul:

A couple of questions.

Is the paper the same as this -

https://en.canson.com/artist-series/pro-layout-marker

It is pretty thin (70 gsm) and translucent. I wonder how it handles the wet processing. I have a pad of Bienfang 360 marker paper (at 50 gsm it is even thinner) that I have never used - may be I ought to try it.

Also, this is spec'd as "acid free" so it probably does contain buffer. Did you pre-acidify the paper to handle the new cyanotype or used as is.

Finally, did you try the classic process on this paper and if so, how did that turn out.

Thanks. That's an awesome print.

:Niranjan.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Great! Has anyone mentioned over-drying? One does need some moisture in the paper for the chemical reactions to happen when struck by UV light...that was one of the improvements I noticed when I went to air drying (more consistent moisture levels, too). As long as it feel dry to the touch, one is good to go.

Not over drying, but someone did mention earlier in the thread something about relative humidity. We keep the boat pretty dry, yesterday evening it was about 27% RH in the salon area. So I'm going to figure out how to store my paper in the bilge or engine hole, or steam it in the shower or something and try that.

 

[Vaughn]

A total aside -- while searching for the paper Paul recommended I found this by the same company...just thinking of double-sided prints. Coat, expose, process, dry -- repeat on the other side...hmmmm. Book making possibilities.

https://www.dickblick.com/products/canson-the-wall-sketchbook/

 

[removedacct1]

Hi, Paul:

A couple of questions.

Is the paper the same as this -

https://en.canson.com/artist-series/pro-layout-marker

It is pretty thin (70 gsm) and translucent. I wonder how it handles the wet processing. I have a pad of Bienfang 360 marker paper (at 50 gsm it is even thinner) that I have never used - may be I ought to try it.

Also, this is spec'd as "acid free" so it probably does contain buffer. Did you pre-acidify the paper to handle the new cyanotype or used as is.

Finally, did you try the classic process on this paper and if so, how did that turn out.

Thanks. That's an awesome print.

:Niranjan.

Yes, that's the paper I used to make the print I cited.
No, I do not treat the paper in any way before coating with sensitizer.
Washing the paper requires some delicate handling, I will admit: its thin, butr reasonably resilient even in water for 15 minutes wash. (It clears VERY fast)
And I have only used the Ware formula cyanotype for several years now. I suspect the classic formula would work just fine too.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ditch the blow dryer. Air drying (in the dark) is best.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, that's the paper I used to make the print I cited.
No, I do not treat the paper in any way before coating with sensitizer.
Washing the paper requires some delicate handling, I will admit: its thin, butr reasonably resilient even in water for 15 minutes wash. (It clears VERY fast)
And I have only used the Ware formula cyanotype for several years now. I suspect the classic formula would work just fine too.

Hey Paul, where do you source the Ammonium iron oxalate from? Thanks!

 

[nmp]

Yes, that's the paper I used to make the print I cited.
No, I do not treat the paper in any way before coating with sensitizer.
Washing the paper requires some delicate handling, I will admit: its thin, butr reasonably resilient even in water for 15 minutes wash. (It clears VERY fast)
And I have only used the Ware formula cyanotype for several years now. I suspect the classic formula would work just fine too.

Thanks!

 

[removedacct1]

Hey Paul, where do you source the Ammonium iron oxalate from? Thanks!

Andrew,
because I don't go through a lot of Cyanotype chemistry (I made a dozen each June, more as a nostalgic exercise than anything) I just buy the Ware formula kits from Photographers Formulary. I have no idea where one would buy that component from. ArtCraft Chemicals doesn't list it.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Andrew,
because I don't go through a lot of Cyanotype chemistry (I made a dozen each June, more as a nostalgic exercise than anything) I just buy the Ware formula kits from Photographers Formulary. I have no idea where one would buy that component from. ArtCraft Chemicals doesn't list it.

I was looking for Ammonium Iron Oxalate at artcraft the other day, and I thought I found something that said the other name for is is Ferric Ammonium Oxalate, which Artcraft does in fact have.

https://www.artcraftchemicals.com/product/ferric-ammonium-oxalate-part-1684/

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Yep this is what I found that gave the synonyms for it.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ferric-ammonium-oxalate

Also, I found this site that confirms it's the same.

http://www.wetplatesupplies.com/amm...nium ferric,the new formula Cyanotype recipes.