Internegative for cyanotype from 35mm?

[RLangham]

Yeah, Caffenol is slowish, though you should be able to speed it up a little by raising the pH (a little drain opener lye replacing all or part of the washing soda). It's also faster if you use the Vitamin C version -- superadditive, like metol and hydroquinone). I hardly noticed, when i was using it regularly, because I was using the LC+C version to get normal contrast from microfilm stock, and the alternative for that was Parodinal 1:100 or mixing something more complicated like H&W Control.

I keep forgetting to buy ascorbic.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I got mine at a local health food store. Probably overpaid, because food grade and health food store, but it was local. It was a GNC, as I recall. Expect to stand in a line outside the store these days, and you might call ahead to verify they have the powder form in stock...

 

[RLangham]

I got mine at a local health food store. Probably overpaid, because food grade and health food store, but it was local. It was a GNC, as I recall. Expect to stand in a line outside the store these days, and you might call ahead to verify they have the powder form in stock...

I have just discovered I still have the original 3 percent and citric solution, in an old Scotch bottle, in fact, so I'll try it again soon. By the way, does reversal work on paper or dry plates?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Reversal should work the same on any dry gelatin silver halide emulsion, though a very few emulsions may require caution in selecting the reversal bleach (for instance, you wouldn't want to use a ferricyanide/sodium chloride and ammonia bath on a silver chloride emulsion like Azo).

 

[RLangham]

Reversal should work the same on any dry gelatin silver halide emulsion, though a very few emulsions may require caution in selecting the reversal bleach (for instance, you wouldn't want to use a ferricyanide/sodium chloride and ammonia bath on a silver chloride emulsion like Azo).

I'm thinking specifically of J Lane's plates and some old Kodak RC III so yeah, nothing weird or alt-process about it. It was just a weird thought.

 

[KenS]

Am I the only one scanning my negatives adjusting for 'size' and 'contrast' and using Asahi's Pictorico Overhead Film as an 'inter-negative' rather than using the 'original' silver-gelatine (in case of 'damage') ?????

Ken

 

[koraks]

I started out with inkjet negatives as well. Worked quite ok for cyanotypes, but I turned to silver negatives due to the limitations of inkjet, at least within my budget.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@KenS I think lots of folks do that -- but this is an analog-only "safe zone" so we don't talk about that here. There's a hybrid workflow forum just over thataway...

Protecting your original negative is important; I've read about people using an acetate sheet between the negative and the alt-process print. Potential to reduce sharpness a little, but if you use a fixed, point source light (arc lamp?) a good distance from the work, you probably won't be able to see the difference.

 

[KenS]

@KenS I think lots of folks do that -- but this is an analog-only "safe zone" so we don't talk about that here. There's a hybrid workflow forum just over thataway...

Protecting your original negative is important; I've read about people using an acetate sheet between the negative and the alt-process print. Potential to reduce sharpness a little, but if you use a fixed, point source light (arc lamp?) a good distance from the work, you probably won't be able to see the difference.

Donald,
I was only trying to provide a means by which "I" 'protect' my original negatives. I don't 'do' 35mm since I much prefer my 4x5 Linhof and/or my 8x10 B&J 'woodie' with which to make photographs. I have to admit that I have 'lost' one sheet-film negative when making a print under my UV light source.
Any any and all images I have 'made' in the past 20 (or so years since I 'retired' from my position with a Federal Government Research department have been made with either Kodak (or Ilford) large format 'sheet film.. and since my retirement, ANY and ALL of my images have been exposed using FILM.
YES ... I Do have a small digital that I often carry around when I find a 'scene' that will be worth while 'revisiting' when the 'light' is 'just right' for the 'extra work/effort for recording to silver/gelatin "FILM. My use of 'digital' is, therefore, 'minor'. and would appreciate a 'redaction' of your invitation to 'move away' to 'over there'. At 79 (coming up soon to 80 years of age (64 of which have been making use of 'sheet' film), I find your 'invitation' to "move OVER THERE more than just 'somewhat' offensive.

Sincerely,

Ken Sinclair SDA, BFA, RBP, FBPA

 

[RLangham]

Donald,
I was only trying to provide a means by which "I" 'protect' my original negatives. I don't 'do' 35mm since I much prefer my 4x5 Linhof and/or my 8x10 B&J 'woodie' with which to make photographs. I have to admit that I have 'lost' one sheet-film negative when making a print under my UV light source.
Any any and all images I have 'made' in the past 20 (or so years since I 'retired' from my position with a Federal Government Research department have been made with either Kodak (or Ilford) large format 'sheet film.. and since my retirement, ANY and ALL of my images have been exposed using FILM.
YES ... I Do have a small digital that I often carry around when I find a 'scene' that will be worth while 'revisiting' when the 'light' is 'just right' for the 'extra work/effort for recording to silver/gelatin "FILM. My use of 'digital' is, therefore, 'minor'. and would appreciate a 'redaction' of your invitation to 'move away' to 'over there'. At 79 (coming up soon to 80 years of age (64 of which have been making use of 'sheet' film), I find your 'invitation' to "move OVER THERE more than just 'somewhat' offensive.

Sincerely,

Ken Sinclair SDA, BFA, RBP, FBPA

Please stop. You're acting very obsessive and pushy.

 

[removed account4]

I'm thinking specifically of J Lane's plates and some old Kodak RC III so yeah, nothing weird or alt-process about it. It was just a weird thought.

Hi RLangham
do you hav a way to get your hands on some liquid gelatin emulsion ? they sell the foma flavor at freestyle and liquid light too .. you can coat a piece of paper the size you want and enlarge your 35mm film onto that, then make a contact print on a 2nd sheet and then use THAT sheet, waxed with paraffin as your internegative . tracing paper and Japanese papers are like glass when waxed and the liquid emulsion will give you the right contrast range for your alt process needs. (I'm currently using waxed paper negatives to make cyanotypes, gum prints and prints on Azo paper works great )

 

[RLangham]

Hi RLangham
do you hav a way to get your hands on some liquid gelatin emulsion ? they sell the foma flavor at freestyle and liquid light too .. you can coat a piece of paper the size you want and enlarge your 35mm film onto that, then make a contact print on a 2nd sheet and then use THAT sheet, waxed with paraffin as your internegative . tracing paper and Japanese papers are like glass when waxed and the liquid emulsion will give you the right contrast range for your alt process needs. (I'm currently using waxed paper negatives to make cyanotypes, gum prints and prints on Azo paper works great )

I might do that. In the meantime, I've finally received my sensitizer kit and been experimenting with exposing and rinsing some cyanos. I had some underexposed 4x5's on Shanghai Pan 100, from when the back shutter on my Pacemaker was wound too tightly, and I've actually made some contacts from them with some success. I haven't found a good paper for the print base though, since most of the art papers I have get a little "fuzzy" when dampened with the cyanotype mixture, leading to a rough texture when dry that doesn't let the paper take any detail.

 

[removed account4]

don't over brush / brush hard your sensitizer, use a spongy paint brush and slowly brush it on the paper.... blow dry it on COOL, when it is dry, put a 2nd and/or 3rd coat.. have fun ! cyanotypes are addictive and loads of fun

 

[RLangham]

don't over brush / brush hard your sensitizer, use a spongy paint brush and slowly brush it on the paper.... blow dry it on COOL, when it is dry, put a 2nd and/or 3rd coat.. have fun ! cyanotypes are addictive and loads of fun

Hmmm... I had been using a dish-washing sponge, but I had been going very quick with it in an attempt to coat the paper evenly. I don't have a blow dryer, but I need to get one for other photographic needs (drying film et al.) I had been letting it sit in a dark room with the AC on for about thirty minutes to an hour, at which point it was only slightly damp, and then loading it into the contact printer.

I had not yet thought to put another coat. That would probably help with the problem of the texture of the paper. Thanks for the advice!

 

[removed account4]

you probably don't want to use it unless it is bone-dry, it should "snap" when you bend the paper back and forth. damp isn't good. ... kitchen sponge sounds good too, like SpongeBob I like that !
I got my hair drier at big lots or something, super cheep...works like a champ. sometimes its just the paper that is amiss and no matter how you coat it it doesn't work right... when in doubt just change papers
have fun!
j

 

[RLangham]

you probably don't want to use it unless it is bone-dry, it should "snap" when you bend the paper back and forth. damp isn't good. ... kitchen sponge sounds good too, like SpongeBob I like that !
I got my hair drier at big lots or something, super cheep...works like a champ. sometimes its just the paper that is amiss and no matter how you coat it it doesn't work right... when in doubt just change papers
have fun!
j

Yeah I knew I should have been letting it get dry. It left a streak of Prussian on one of these 4x5's. I'll get a hair dryer.

What general types of paper have worked for you?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Much worse than leaving a streak of Prussian blue on the negative, the ferrocyanide in cyanotype will bleach the silver in the negative if there's any moisture present -- and if you try to redevelop, you could get a diffferent density (one of the old methods of intensifying a weak negative was to bleach -- with potassium ferricyanide and table salt -- and just redevelop, all in the light).

 

[RLangham]

Much worse than leaving a streak of Prussian blue on the negative, the ferrocyanide in cyanotype will bleach the silver in the negative if there's any moisture present -- and if you try to redevelop, you could get a diffferent density

Hmm... there seems not to have been enough moisture present, or else the Pot Ferri's action must have been prevented by the ferric ammonium citrate-- the negative is intact, but with a bunch of Prussian I don't think I can get off.

(one of the old methods of intensifying a weak negative was to bleach -- with potassium ferricyanide and table salt -- and just redevelop, all in the light).

Why wouldn't that leave a thinner negative with less contrast?

 

[MattKing]

(one of the old methods of intensifying a weak negative was to bleach -- with potassium ferricyanide and table salt -- and just redevelop, all in the light).

Why wouldn't that leave a thinner negative with less contrast?

That method is effective at intensifying a negative that has been under-developed. By bleaching, you are restoring the negative (or at least the parts with some density) to its undeveloped and light sensitive state, and then by exposing it to light and re-developing, you ensure that the image is fully developed, and therefore less "weak".
As in all the other methods of intensifying a developed negative, you don't retrieve shadow detail that was lost in the first place through under-exposure.
You can do a few other things through this process. If your re-halogenating bleach replaces the silver with a silver halide that differs from the one that was originally in the film, you can make interesting changes in the image tone and grain in the negative.

 

[RLangham]

That method is effective at intensifying a negative that has been under-developed. By bleaching, you are restoring the negative (or at least the parts with some density) to its undeveloped and light sensitive state, and then by exposing it to light and re-developing, you ensure that the image is fully developed, and therefore less "weak".
As in all the other methods of intensifying a developed negative, you don't retrieve shadow detail that was lost in the first place through under-exposure.
You can do a few other things through this process. If your re-halogenating bleach replaces the silver with a silver halide that differs from the one that was originally in the film, you can make interesting changes in the image tone and grain in the negative.

Oh, I didn't know pot ferri rehalogenated. Does C-41 bleach rehalogenate as well? Some people have spoken of using pot ferri as a replacement in a more economic C-41 developing system.

 

[MattKing]

Oh, I didn't know pot ferri rehalogenated.

It doesn't - pot ferri plus table salt might though.
I confess though I hadn't noticed that Donald didn't specify a re-halogenating bleach. You do need that to intensify.

 

[removed account4]

What general types of paper have worked for you?

I've used brown paper bag, computer ( Xerox type ) paper, butcher paper ( virgin/uncoated ) Bristol300, platinum rag, and #10 envelopes cause they are like perfect dimensions ... I've also been putting it on roof flashing, ( silverish as well as copper ) plexiglass, regular glass, tracing paper, and Japanese papers and a couple of other surfaces im probably forgetting... sadly I misplaced the Japanese papers. they've all worked pretty well. some I have had to acidify in vinegar because they are buffered with chalk .. they make a nice fizzzzz, that's the only issues I have had. ...

 

[RLangham]

I've used brown paper bag, computer ( Xerox type ) paper, butcher paper ( virgin/uncoated ) Bristol300, platinum rag, and #10 envelopes cause they are like perfect dimensions ... I've also been putting it on roof flashing, ( silverish as well as copper ) plexiglass, regular glass, tracing paper, and Japanese papers and a couple of other surfaces im probably forgetting... sadly I misplaced the Japanese papers. they've all worked pretty well. some I have had to acidify in vinegar because they are buffered with chalk .. they make a nice fizzzzz, that's the only issues I have had. ...

How has your result on glass been? I had no idea non-porous materials could be used. Surely it would be delicate, but so were daguerreotypes...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

"Naturally, I want to stay analog. I know how easy it would be to produce a digital negative with my inkjet, but where's the fun in that?"

Obviously, you've never made a digital negative. There's nothing greater than being able to build in your dodge and burns into the negative... Anyhoo....before I got into making digital negatives (and I still do this sometimes), I enlarged my smaller negatives onto ortho, or xray sheet film to make a soft positive. They were then contact printed onto another sheet of film to produce a negative of appropriate density range. It worked really well.

 

[koraks]

the negative is intact, but with a bunch of Prussian I don't think I can get off.

Have you tried washing it in a weak solution of carbonate? That should bleach the ferricyanide. I'm not sure if it'll disappear entirely, but it should be much less dense afterwards.