How to improve density in Cyanotypes?

[Fraunhofer]

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

Agreed. Also I have observed that even a paper/sensitizer combination which may work great for someone else, does not have to work for me. I believe the overall humidity is a really important factor, e.g. I get my best Pd/Pt prints not on COT320 or Hahnemuehle Platinum, which by all accounts are outstanding, just not for me. That's why I am using my stack of COT320 for cyanotypes

Also what are you using to keep negative and paper together during printing? A good contact is essential for a sharp print and good tonality.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Agreed. Also I have observed that even a paper/sensitizer combination which may work great for someone else, does not have to work for me. I believe the overall humidity is a really important factor, e.g. I get my best Pd/Pt prints not on COT320 or Hahnemuehle Platinum, which by all accounts are outstanding, just not for me. That's why I am using my stack of COT320 for cyanotypes

Also what are you using to keep negative and paper together during printing? A good contact is essential for a sharp print and good tonality.

two pieces of glass and 6 large binder clips.

 

[ProfessorC1983]

Or maybe the problem is with my cheap printer and the negatives it prints out.

I think this may be a distinct possibility. Have you played around with the density/quality settings on the printer? Maybe looking at a scan of the negative and of your cyanotype side-by-side will help inform whether there's actually detail in the neg that's missing or if it was never there to begin with?

 

[removedacct1]

I concur about avoiding a hair dryer to dry the sensitizer. It just has to be physically dry to be ready. I find that with these lighter weight papers, they are ready to expose in about 30-45 minutes after sensitizer is applied.

Today I received a new paper that was recommended for Albumen print making, so I thought I'd test it out as a Cyanotype paper as well: Canson Universal Sketch Pad (Freestyle carries it as an alt process paper. Its cheap as heck, and you get 100 sheets of 11X14 paper for $11.00, which is outrageously cheap compared to Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag (which makes stunning Van Dyke Brown prints).

Anyway, I made two tests on this new Universal Sketch: one without sizing, and one with arrowroot sizing. Both were decent, both had a nice color (less cyan and more indigo), and the coating was very uniform (applied by sponge brush). However, the print that used the Arrowroot sizing was significantly more contrasty, and the D-max blues were a deep indigo that approached black. I am impressed.
Note: the difference between the two prints made on Universal Sketch Pad is much more obvious than it appears in these scans: the blue-black of the second one is much deeper than that of the un-sized print (the first).

The negative used was a wet plate collodion negative made in a Kodak Brownie 3B.

This is the print made on Universal Sketch Pad, without any sizing of the paper:

This is the print made on Universal Sketch Pad, with Arrowroot sizing applied to the paper before applying the sensitizer:

And for comparison, this is the "control" print made on Canson Marker Pro, without any treatment other than applying the sensitizer:

I find any of these approaches to printmaking acceptable, but they are very different in contrast and depth of color.

PS: Christopher, what are you using to print your negatives on? Epson inkjet and Pictorico film?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

PS: Christopher, what are you using to print your negatives on? Epson inkjet and Pictorico film?

Yes. Pictorio and an Epson inkjet, although it is just a cheap home office all in one printer. However, I have printed photos on glossy inkjet photo paper that were satisfactory.

 

[glbeas]

I had a lot of help from this guy

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I had a lot of help from this guy

That's exactly how I got my first cyanotype that I was mostly satisfied with. The portrait of my nephew came out much better in a advocado green color than it did with a straight black negative.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

@paulbarden are you sure that his Canson Pro Marker paper holds up to washing? I know you've used it, and said it did, but man is it thin. It's thinner than standard copy paper.

 

[removedacct1]

@paulbarden are you sure that his Canson Pro Marker paper holds up to washing? I know you've used it, and said it did, but man is it thin. It's thinner than standard copy paper.

Yes, it does. But you DO have to be a bit careful in handling it: a gentle stream of water, not a hard blast of water bashing it around the tray. It gets soft in the wash water, but it holds together really well. It was recommended to me a couple years ago as a paper for albumen print making, and it has to stand up to 40 minutes of washing at the end of the process, which it does. Try it. You'll see! It makes an excellent cyanotype print. That's what was used in the bottom example I posted above. Bear in mind, if you are using the Ware formula cyanotype sensitizer, it clears out of the paper very quickly, so with this paper the wash time is very short - like 5 minutes. Its just not in the wash for a long time.

Here's a tip about drying this paper (and other thin papers): Get thee some watercolor tape (brown paper tape with water-based glue on one side) and wet-tape your print onto a piece of glass to dry, after washing. You'll get a beautifully flat print. I often do this with silver gelatin prints as well, since I don't have access to a heated press.

I asked about the printer you were using, because the Canon inks are unsuitable for making a digital negative for printing from: they don't block UV the way Epson inks do. I've asked for tips on making the Canon inks work, but it seems nobody uses Canon printers for this purpose. I have access only to a Canon printer, so I've not succeeded in making a good negative for alt process work. But I've got collodion negatives I can use, and those work beautifully.

 

[nmp]

I concur about avoiding a hair dryer to dry the sensitizer. It just has to be physically dry to be ready. I find that with these lighter weight papers, they are ready to expose in about 30-45 minutes after sensitizer is applied.

Today I received a new paper that was recommended for Albumen print making, so I thought I'd test it out as a Cyanotype paper as well: Canson Universal Sketch Pad (Freestyle carries it as an alt process paper. Its cheap as heck, and you get 100 sheets of 11X14 paper for $11.00, which is outrageously cheap compared to Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag (which makes stunning Van Dyke Brown prints).

Anyway, I made two tests on this new Universal Sketch: one without sizing, and one with arrowroot sizing. Both were decent, both had a nice color (less cyan and more indigo), and the coating was very uniform (applied by sponge brush). However, the print that used the Arrowroot sizing was significantly more contrasty, and the D-max blues were a deep indigo that approached black. I am impressed.
Note: the difference between the two prints made on Universal Sketch Pad is much more obvious than it appears in these scans: the blue-black of the second one is much deeper than that of the un-sized print (the first).

The negative used was a wet plate collodion negative made in a Kodak Brownie 3B.

Hi, Paul:

What is your developing/washing conditions/sequence - use any acid or just plain water?

Quite a bit of difference in the starch sized print. I am fiddling with some arrowroot myself. Made some 2.5% solution, it is pretty thick. What concentration do you use it at? Rod coat, brush, dip or float?

:Niranjan.

 

[NedL]

Only thing to add about canson marker for cyanotype is that you might want to avoid using tween with it. The one time I tried that ( w/ original cyanotype formulation ) it caused problems. It did prevent puddling, but I think it let the solution sink so far into the paper that it reacted with the internal buffer and/or internal sizing. I also get more indigo/denim less cyan, like Paul mentions, if it is fully exposed.

 

[removedacct1]

Hi, Paul:

What is your developing/washing conditions/sequence - use any acid or just plain water?

Quite a bit of difference in the starch sized print. I am fiddling with some arrowroot myself. Made some 2.5% solution, it is pretty thick. What concentration do you use it at? Rod coat, brush, dip or float?

:Niranjan.

Hi Niranjan!
For washing these prints, I do the first three rinses in a tray with reverse osmosis water (our well water MUST be treated to be usable), which is slightly acidic. By the third rinse, most of the yellow has leached from the print. Then it goes into a tray with plain tap water (also treated, but has Calcium replaced at about 90ppm) for a couple more minutes. At some point near the end of the wash cycle, I put a tablespoon of H2O2 in a cup of water and splash it on the print, followed by a final wash.

As for the Arrowroot starch sizing, I am using the packet that comes with the Photographers Formulary Van Dyke Brown kit. I can't tell you what percentage it is, I just mix it up as the kit instructs (it has to be cooked, and the small packet makes a liter). Yes, its rather thick and gooey - if you keep it refrigerated, you will have to warm it up to use it. I brush it on the paper till the whole surface is wetted, then I brush horizontally and then vertically and keep brushing until the glossiness is gone, then let it air dry.

 

[Fraunhofer]

I asked about the printer you were using, because the Canon inks are unsuitable for making a digital negative for printing from: they don't block UV the way Epson inks do. I've asked for tips on making the Canon inks work, but it seems nobody uses Canon printers for this purpose. I have access only to a Canon printer, so I've not succeeded in making a good negative for alt process work. But I've got collodion negatives I can use, and those work beautifully.

I have managed to make satisfactory DNGs using a Canon Pixma Pro-100. The best UV-blocking color is some nasty olive green. I am pretty sure it's less UV blocking than the Epson inks, but you can exercise contrast control in printing at least for Pd/Pt and also with Mike Ware's Simple Cyanotope to shorten the print scale to match what the printer can do. Getting the highlights right is of course a bit fiddly, but not impossible. As a result, I find in-camera negatives somehow easier to work with, or maybe, it's just I don't mind spending time to tweak things on the analog side. I guess that's because, I spend my time at work in front of a computer.

 

[removedacct1]

I have managed to make satisfactory DNGs using a Canon Pixma Pro-100. The best UV-blocking color is some nasty olive green. I am pretty sure it's less UV blocking than the Epson inks, but you can exercise contrast control in printing at least for Pd/Pt and also with Mike Ware's Simple Cyanotope to shorten the print scale to match what the printer can do. Getting the highlights right is of course a bit fiddly, but not impossible. As a result, I find in-camera negatives somehow easier to work with, or maybe, it's just I don't mind spending time to tweak things on the analog side. I guess that's because, I spend my time at work in front of a computer.

I'd be interested to know more about your process in making a digital negative on a Canon printer, if you'd care to share. I too prefer to work with all analog materials, since I found instructions for making a negative on an Epson printer produced a garbage negative on my Canon, but I'd be interested in hearing how you did it!

 

[Fraunhofer]

A disclaimer at the beginning: I am no expert in DNGs (or pretty much anything related to photography), so what I describe here worked for me, may not work for others and I am sure that are many other and better ways to do it.

I do the usual find your print time for Dmax using a Stouffer wedge. Then I printed a color chart in hue/saturation space, make a test print and pick the color which retains white (or least gray) with the least saturation.

Then I make a DNG with a step wedge and a continuous linear gradient . Print that, scan the result and now I see what level of my most blocking color produces what gray in the print. Next, I work on the analog printing side to shorten the scale to just get a clean white at maximum color on the DNG by using contrast controls, dichromate in the developer for Pd/Pt or ammonia in the sensitizer for cyanotype.

Once done, I reprint the initial DNG wedge, scan the print and that gives me curve relating color on the DNG to gray in the print. Then I find the inverse of that curve. Make another DNG wedge and that then should produce a linear gray gradient in the print.

For the all print I co-print a Stouffer wedge, this allows me to check the scans for artefacts. I do all that on a linux machine and it took me a few months to get Gimp and all the other tools to cooperate and for this to work out. The printer runs form an old windows machine, though.

Let me know if anything's unclear.

 

[nmp]

Hi Niranjan!
For washing these prints, I do the first three rinses in a tray with reverse osmosis water (our well water MUST be treated to be usable), which is slightly acidic. By the third rinse, most of the yellow has leached from the print. Then it goes into a tray with plain tap water (also treated, but has Calcium replaced at about 90ppm) for a couple more minutes. At some point near the end of the wash cycle, I put a tablespoon of H2O2 in a cup of water and splash it on the print, followed by a final wash.

As for the Arrowroot starch sizing, I am using the packet that comes with the Photographers Formulary Van Dyke Brown kit. I can't tell you what percentage it is, I just mix it up as the kit instructs (it has to be cooked, and the small packet makes a liter). Yes, its rather thick and gooey - if you keep it refrigerated, you will have to warm it up to use it. I brush it on the paper till the whole surface is wetted, then I brush horizontally and then vertically and keep brushing until the glossiness is gone, then let it air dry.

Thanks Paul for more granularity on your process.

Looks like those PF packets are 20 g so the solution is 2%. I got mine from the local health food store. I think I will go down a bit from my 2,5% and see if it becomes more manageable. I wasn't warming so that might be another variation I should try.

It's very interesting to me that in the 3 examples that you showed with variations of papers and starch treatment, apart from the color and the sharpness (more in starch case) the prints are fairly similar in terms of range of tones covering the full scale - considering that they were all printed with the same negative and the process.

Thanks again....

:Niranjan.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

@paulbarden how do you coat the marker paper? I tried using a glass rod and it ended up like wet toilet paper. I was able to straighten it out and after an hour of drying it was fairly flat. It’s under the UV light now.

 

[removedacct1]

@paulbarden how do you coat the marker paper? I tried using a glass rod and it ended up like wet toilet paper. I was able to straighten it out and after an hour of drying it was fairly flat. It’s under the UV light now.

Foam sponge brushes.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I think I'm done with alternative processes. After coating some Bergger and Canson XL Recycled, and allowing them to dry in darkness for 24 hours, I printed the negative of my nephew again. I also coated a sheet of the Canson marker paper, and allowed it to dry naturally for an hour while the other two were being exposed. I opted to NOT use peroxide in the final wash to hurry the oxidation process, and allowed them to dry normally.

As it turns out, the issue is with my printed negative. The detail in the highlights is too "thin" for the printer to handle, and so it comes out looking speckled. So what I thought was a paper or exposure issue, turns out is a negative issue. Both the Canson XL, and the Canon Marker paper did an excellent job of sharpness that I was looking for, but the printer is the failing point.

But this has allowed me to recognize what's really bothering me - it's the necessity of the computer and digital manipulation. I don't like it. It does not make me happy. I sit in front of 3 computers, and at least 13 monitors 40 hours a week, and I dont want to do it at home. I also dont want to buy more technology (better printer), or have to scan my film in order to do what I want to do. I can't afford an 8x10 camera, or the film it uses, but I can afford my 35mm film, 120 film, and a small set up/tear down dark room. I've located a 6x7 Beseler locally that comes with most of the darkroom equipment I need (trays etc), so I will proceed with developing a way to set up the head in our boat as a dark room. I've got enough space to set up the enlarger, and the shower area will make a nice place to keep the wet processes.

I've wrestled with giving up on Alt Processes and said that I was going to "see it through until I mastered it", but I've got to go back to what I know the most about, and what I enjoy the most. If I continue to try this any longer, it's going to turn me off completely.

 

[koraks]

But this has allowed me to recognize what's really bothering me - it's the necessity of the computer and digital manipulation.

Man, you're exactly at the point where I was a few years ago. I went completely 'analog' at that point and haven't looked back. Yes, I occasionally scan a print or shoot a digishot if someone needs an image quick, but any 'serious' image making I do in the darkroom. The wish to make decent alt process prints was a driving factor for me to become more serious about large format. I've always disliked the digital negatives I could make and I spend/waste way too much time behind a monitor for work as well, so I can happily do without that in my spare time.

Don't give up. There's fun to be had, and it needn't involve a computer.

 

[Vaughn]

I print primarily with two alt processes with camera negatives. Those who like to work with computers, I say go for it! I have no desire to for my own work.

You could go the traditional way, Christopher -- enlarge your smaller negs onto film. Something to explore if/when you set up your darkoom.

 

[removedacct1]

As it turns out, the issue is with my printed negative. The detail in the highlights is too "thin" for the printer to handle, and so it comes out looking speckled. So what I thought was a paper or exposure issue, turns out is a negative issue. Both the Canson XL, and the Canon Marker paper did an excellent job of sharpness that I was looking for, but the printer is the failing point.

But this has allowed me to recognize what's really bothering me - it's the necessity of the computer and digital manipulation. I don't like it. It does not make me happy.

I can totally relate to this. Like you, I need less time sitting at a computer, not more.

I struggled for weeks to make a decent digital negative on Pictorico film, following all the best tutorials I could find (this was 7 years ago), only to discover that Canon printers are no good for making digital negatives (the inks don't perform well as UV blockers, like the Epson inks do). So, I gave up chasing that dream. It was just too much work and the reward was nowhere in sight. Now, I get far better results making Cyanotype (and Van Dyke Brown) prints from wet plate negatives, which can produce ideal contrast for these processes.

So here's a thought: can you afford an inexpensive 4x5 kit? I've seen 4x5 platinum and cyanotype prints that are stunning, and as deserving of attention as 8x10 prints. You can expose and develop 4x5 film to be contrasty enough to make an excellent cyanotype print, and it won't involve a whole lot of darkroom stuff (The Stearman Press film processing system would be ideal for you, I expect). Heck, you could even get yourself a Brownie 3B for $30 and make suitable negatives in that, with a little bit of fiddling. Sticking to an all-analog workflow will get you where you want to go. It's possible to do all of this digitally, with Pictorico film etc., but its not going to be any fun. It wasn't for me, that's for sure. I enjoy making a collodion negative for printing far more.

Don't give up. There's fun to be had, and it needn't involve a computer.

Hear hear!

Paul

 

[ProfessorC1983]

But this has allowed me to recognize what's really bothering me - it's the necessity of the computer and digital manipulation. I don't like it. It does not make me happy. I sit in front of 3 computers, and at least 13 monitors 40 hours a week, and I dont want to do it at home.

Yes, this +1000. In fact the entire reason I've adopted analog photography as a hobby is to get away from screens, so the digital negative process for alt techniques has always been a non-starter for me. It's what led me to modify my enlarger with a UV light source to create alt prints directly, which I've had some mixed success with (and posted about here). Though I'm also interested to try the more traditional technique of enlarging onto sheet film and then reversing, to see if that offers more predictable results and better contrast/density control.

 

[Fraunhofer]

There's a thread here somewhere, where I describe my attempt to enlarge a negative the analog way. The answer is: yes this can be done with limited equipment, but I found dialing in the desired contrast rather fiddly and thus have done it only once. If you value your time at all, making a suitable in-camera negative seems to be the fastest route.

I started therefore making pinhole cameras, they make nice large negatives for cheap, that could be a gateway drug to larger formats, it was for me. And just to be clear, a 8x10 camera and lens can be bought for the same price as a good Epson printer and that is the route I went. I love 8x10 as format.

 

[removedacct1]

If you value your time at all, making a suitable in-camera negative seems to be the fastest route.

I'm inclined to agree.