I've got the blues - Cyanotype pain

[cirwin2010]

WARNING: This is a vent session

I've been trying to get cyanotype prints to work for a few weeks now and I'm on the verge of giving up. It has just been endless problems that I have been unable to solve for both the new Mike Ware cyanotype and the classic formula.

I've gotten my kallitype process down to a T which I would have thought to have been the harder of the two processes, but clearly I was mistaken. As long as I can get consistent coating and exposure then I can create my contrast curve calibration and be on my way, but I cannot for the life of me get consistent results.

Here are my problems listed out. I'm ranting out of frustration at this point, but if anyone has any advice your are welcome to chime in.

1. Sulfamic acid will not work for me without fogging highlights on both new and classic cyantypes. Freshly coated and unexposed paper (Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag {HPR}, Legion Revere Platinum {LRP}, or Arches Aquarelle cold press) will fog. Dilution of acid does not seem to matter, it will always form prussian blue despite the recommendations and direction provided by Chrinstina Anderson and Mike Ware. Citric acid does not produce fog for either new or classic formulas and, for certain formula and paper combinations, will produce nearly identical results for dmax.


2. Inconsistent exposure time! I have no explanation for this one. I can coat and expose one day and then do the same process the next day and get a different exposure. I just made a test sheet the other day on Arches Aquarelle using the new formula and got an exposure time of 18minutes for maximum black (blue?). I repeated the process again today and now my print is underexposed??? Also splotchy? I've also noticed some inconsistencies when trying to determine exposure time with other types of paper for both classic and new formulas. Relative humidity causing problems? Working in a basement which is 30-40% RH lately.


3. Inconsistent coating. Sometimes I can coat a sheet with no freckles or splotches and sometimes I cant. Doing it the same way will yeild different results. I've tried prehumidifying papers in my makeshift humidity chamber for a few hours which seemed to work, until it sometimes doesn't. I've gotten these splotches on all my papers using the new formula. The classic formula seems better, I think? But, depending on the paper the evenness of the coating leaves something to be desired. Just looks a bit rough.
Supposedly diluting the new formulation with water 1:1 helps with coating issues, but I have been hesitent to try that and determine new exposure times if I cannot even get consistent exposures to begin with.


4. Inconsistent grain. Sometimes my mid tones and highlights comes out smooth. Sometimes they have some grit to them. I thought this might be from a lack of humidity, but humidifying the paper pre exposure introduces other issues, such as inconsistent exposure across the sheet. Shows up as splotches or lines that transition from a darker color to a lighter color. This might be from some areas not absorbing the humidity as readily as other, but might be paper specific. I do this without issue after coating my kallitypes to promote even tones and less grain.


5. My exposure times seems way too long? My understanding is that UV florescence bulbs in an appropriate light box should net exposure times that are between 5-10 minutes for new cyanotype and about 30 minutes for classic. I'm using 395-400nm LED bulbs and a LOT of them. I know this isn't the most sensitive wavelength for Cyanotypes, but my exposures for the new cyanotype is around 18 minutes and 45 minutes for the classic formulation. This is though my vacuum easel vinyl and OHP transparency base. For comparison I get 70 second exposure times for kallitype on Legion Revere Platinum or 2m 15s for Arches Aquarelle when using sodium citrate developer (sodium acetate requires half the exposure). The classic formulation may be less problematic, but you can see the appeal for the new formulation with these times.

Again, I'm not sure how much humidity is playing a roll here. In one of my tests I humidified a piece of Arches Aquarelle prior to exposure (until the paper was cold and floppy to the touch) which seemed to shorten the tonal scale, but not change expsure required for dmax. Apparently the paper was still too wet as my sensitizer stuck to my negative hence why I haven't tried it again. Humidifying the paper too long prior to exposure will also fog the paper with new cyanotype.


6. Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag is the worst offender for some of these issues. I thought this paper was supposed to be the easiest to work with, but many of the outlined issues have been exasperbated by this paper. It is much harder to coat that Arches Aquarelle or Legion Revere Platinum and I think must be humidified prior to coating. Even with humidifiication I have had some consistency issues. Classic Cyanotype with citric acid development does not give good dmax and when I was doing my exposure tests, the piece of the paper that was not covered by the OHP film actually had lower dmax than the side of the paper covered by the OHP film (I got no explantion). The paper barely fogs with sulphamic acid when using new cyanotype, so at least it has that going for it.


I'm suspicous many of my issues are humidity related, but I don't know for sure. It's so hard to test for something when I can do something the same way twice and get two different results. I've spent hours upon days doing this. Not only has my wallet taken a toll, but my sanity. Those blues are stunning and the dmax on the arches aquarelle is incredible! I want it so bad, but maybe it isn't meant to be.

My other problem is I'm a perfectionist. Yeah cyanotype might be easy if you just want an image at the end of the day. Just throw the chemisty together and expose. Maybe that is why it is recommended as the first process to try? But if you want something that gives consistent results every single time with smooth gradations then you are asking for suffering? Or maybe some variable I'm introducing is just messing everything up. I'm inclined to believe it is a me problem.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

RH can be a big problem. If my room is between 50 and 70, I am fine. Higher? Trouble. I have to run my portable dehumidifier. I always put a drop or two of a surfactant into the sensitiser (I use photo-flo as I don't have Tween 20). I find it is necessary especially on papers straight out of the package (like Hahnemuhle PR and Revere)... if I have to pre-shrink the paper (for tri-colour gum where my blue layer is a Cyanotype), I don't bother with a surfactant.
What are you using Sulfamic Acid for? I only use it to acidify papers with alkaline buffering.
In regards to exposure, have you done a min time/max black test?

 

[cirwin2010]

RH can be a big problem. If my room is between 50 and 70, I am fine. Higher? Trouble. I have to run my portable dehumidifier. I always put a drop or two of a surfactant into the sensitiser (I use photo-flo as I don't have Tween 20). I find it is necessary especially on papers straight out of the package (like Hahnemuhle PR and Revere)... if I have to pre-shrink the paper (for tri-colour gum where my blue layer is a Cyanotype), I don't bother with a surfactant.
What are you using Sulfamic Acid for? I only use it to acidify papers with alkaline buffering.
In regards to exposure, have you done a min time/max black test?

I'm using tween20 at 10% solution. I add a drop per ml of sensitizer. Doesn't seem to help too much, at least at 30-35% RH.

The acid is for the first bath. Mineral acids are supposed to help maximize dmax and create a longer tonal scale. Citric acid works too, but maybe not as well as mineral acids for that purpose. Mike Ware recommends Nitric or hydrochloric acid. But that is too hazardous for my liking.

I've done so many min time/max black tests. And sometimes redoing it gives me a few minutes difference. Sometimes 15min is fine, sometimes 18min is better. Could be humidity changes?

 

[fgorga]

WARNING: This is a vent session

I've been trying to get cyanotype prints to work for a few weeks now and I'm on the verge of giving up. It has just been endless problems that I have been unable to solve for both the new Mike Ware cyanotype and the classic formula.

I've gotten my kallitype process down to a T which I would have thought to have been the harder of the two processes, but clearly I was mistaken. As long as I can get consistent coating and exposure then I can create my contrast curve calibration and be on my way, but I cannot for the life of me get consistent results.

Here are my problems listed out. I'm ranting out of frustration at this point, but if anyone has any advice your are welcome to chime in.

1. Sulfamic acid will not work for me without fogging highlights on both new and classic cyantypes. Freshly coated and unexposed paper (Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag {HPR}, Legion Revere Platinum {LRP}, or Arches Aquarelle cold press) will fog. Dilution of acid does not seem to matter, it will always form prussian blue despite the recommendations and direction provided by Chrinstina Anderson and Mike Ware. Citric acid does not produce fog for either new or classic formulas and, for certain formula and paper combinations, will produce nearly identical results for dmax.

Try other papers. I use HPR regularly (and the Legion Revere, occasionally) for salted paper and platinum/palladium but never for cyanotype. There are anecdotes 'out there' on the web that suggest to me that these 'fancy' papers don't play well with cyanotype (of any sub-type).

Two papers I use regularly for cyanotype are Fabriano Unica (an inexpensive 50% cotton paper) and Hahn. Bamboo Mixed Media (I use this because of its low staining when toning cyanotypes.)

I use, exclusively, traditional cyanotype chemistry except that both of my stock solutions (which are mixed 1:1) are 10% (w/v).

In the past week or so, I have been making nice cyanotypes on two lightweight papers: Arches Text Wove and Hahn. Biblio.

None of these papers are pre-treated with acid. However, I do use 14% vinegar to 'develop' my cyanotypes

2. Inconsistent exposure time! I have no explanation for this one. I can coat and expose one day and then do the same process the next day and get a different exposure. I just made a test sheet the other day on Arches Aquarelle using the new formula and got an exposure time of 18minutes for maximum black (blue?). I repeated the process again today and now my print is underexposed??? Also splotchy? I've also noticed some inconsistencies when trying to determine exposure time with other types of paper for both classic and new formulas. Relative humidity causing problems? Working in a basement which is 30-40% RH lately.

Inconsistent exposure times are very puzzling. What is the temperature in your basement and is it consistent day-to-day? It could be that your light sources output varies with temperature.

As for the humidity, I don't think that this is the problem. The RH in my basement dim room has been 31-35% during my recent work sessions. The temperature runs 55ish maybe pushing 60 F if the wood stove is cranked way up.

3. Inconsistent coating. Sometimes I can coat a sheet with no freckles or splotches and sometimes I cant. Doing it the same way will yeild different results. I've tried prehumidifying papers in my makeshift humidity chamber for a few hours which seemed to work, until it sometimes doesn't. I've gotten these splotches on all my papers using the new formula. The classic formula seems better, I think? But, depending on the paper the evenness of the coating leaves something to be desired. Just looks a bit rough.
Supposedly diluting the new formulation with water 1:1 helps with coating issues, but I have been hesitent to try that and determine new exposure times if I cannot even get consistent exposures to begin with.

Are you coating with a brush or a puddle pusher?

I might try using a bit more sensitizer per sheet. I would rather have to blot of a little excess sensitizer at the edges after coating that risk starving the paper of sensitizer.

4. Inconsistent grain. Sometimes my mid tones and highlights comes out smooth. Sometimes they have some grit to them. I thought this might be from a lack of humidity, but humidifying the paper pre exposure introduces other issues, such as inconsistent exposure across the sheet. Shows up as splotches or lines that transition from a darker color to a lighter color. This might be from some areas not absorbing the humidity as readily as other, but might be paper specific. I do this without issue after coating my kallitypes to promote even tones and less grain.

Try other papers. Worry about using too little sensitizer.

5. My exposure times seems way too long? My understanding is that UV florescence bulbs in an appropriate light box should net exposure times that are between 5-10 minutes for new cyanotype and about 30 minutes for classic. I'm using 395-400nm LED bulbs and a LOT of them. I know this isn't the most sensitive wavelength for Cyanotypes, but my exposures for the new cyanotype is around 18 minutes and 45 minutes for the classic formulation.

These times are waaaaay toooo long!

My current UV source uses 8 24" 9W 395-400 Barrina UV strips.

These are set 8 inches off the table. Thus, distance to the glass of my print frames runs roughly six inches.

My exposure time for cyanotype is 5 min.

This is though my vacuum easel vinyl and OHP transparency base.

I suspect that the vinyl of your easel might be the issue. Do you know how transparent the material is in the UV?

I would try a simple print frame with glass.

Unless you are making really large prints my feeling is that a vacuum frame is overkill. I routinely make 11x14 inch prints (of all types) in a standard split back frame. With my 16x20 frame I sometime 'boost' the pressure by adding a sheet or two of thick paper to the frame.

For comparison I get 70 second exposure times for kallitype on Legion Revere Platinum or 2m 15s for Arches Aquarelle when using sodium citrate developer (sodium acetate requires half the exposure). The classic formulation may be less problematic, but you can see the appeal for the new formulation with these times.

Again, I'm not sure how much humidity is playing a roll here. In one of my tests I humidified a piece of Arches Aquarelle prior to exposure (until the paper was cold and floppy to the touch) which seemed to shorten the tonal scale, but not change expsure required for dmax. Apparently the paper was still too wet as my sensitizer stuck to my negative hence why I haven't tried it again. Humidifying the paper too long prior to exposure will also fog the paper with new cyanotype.


6. Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag is the worst offender for some of these issues. I thought this paper was supposed to be the easiest to work with, but many of the outlined issues have been exasperbated by this paper. It is much harder to coat that Arches Aquarelle or Legion Revere Platinum and I think must be humidified prior to coating. Even with humidifiication I have had some consistency issues. Classic Cyanotype with citric acid development does not give good dmax and when I was doing my exposure tests, the piece of the paper that was not covered by the OHP film actually had lower dmax than the side of the paper covered by the OHP film (I got no explantion). The paper barely fogs with sulphamic acid when using new cyanotype, so at least it has that going for it.

Again, try other papers.

I have never found reason to add acid to cyanotype sensitiser. If I were to add acid, I would use citric acid. Sulphamic acid is a very strong acid (on par with the strongest mineral acid) and might cause problems with consistancy by interfering with the proprietary additives (sizing, floculation modifiers, etc.) included in commercial paper.

I'm suspicous many of my issues are humidity related, but I don't know for sure.

Possibly, but I make cyanotypes with the RH anywhere between 30% and 80% without issue. Cyanotype is one of the least sensitive to humidity of all the alt processes I use regularly.

It's so hard to test for something when I can do something the same way twice and get two different results. I've spent hours upon days doing this. Not only has my wallet taken a toll, but my sanity. Those blues are stunning and the dmax on the arches aquarelle is incredible! I want it so bad, but maybe it isn't meant to be.

I feel your pain!

My other problem is I'm a perfectionist. Yeah cyanotype might be easy if you just want an image at the end of the day. Just throw the chemisty together and expose. Maybe that is why it is recommended as the first process to try? But if you want something that gives consistent results every single time with smooth gradations then you are asking for suffering? Or maybe some variable I'm introducing is just messing everything up. I'm inclined to believe it is a me problem.

One other thing to try in the search for 'perfect' cyanotypes is to 'develop' them in dilute acid. I use 14% vinegar (which works out to about 0.4% acetic acid). Others use roughly 1% citric acid. This really helps with smoothness of the tonality.

Hope this helps...

 

[Peter Schrager]

Try other papers. I use HPR regularly (and the Legion Revere, occasionally) for salted paper and platinum/palladium but never for cyanotype. There are anecdotes 'out there' on the web that suggest to me that these 'fancy' papers don't play well with cyanotype (of any sub-type).

Two papers I use regularly for cyanotype are Fabriano Unica (an inexpensive 50% cotton paper) and Hahn. Bamboo Mixed Media (I use this because of its low staining when toning cyanotypes.)

I use, exclusively, traditional cyanotype chemistry except that both of my stock solutions (which are mixed 1:1) are 10% (w/v).

In the past week or so, I have been making nice cyanotypes on two lightweight papers: Arches Text Wove and Hahn. Biblio.

None of these papers are pre-treated with acid. However, I do use 14% vinegar to 'develop' my cyanotypes



Inconsistent exposure times are very puzzling. What is the temperature in your basement and is it consistent day-to-day? It could be that your light sources output varies with temperature.

As for the humidity, I don't think that this is the problem. The RH in my basement dim room has been 31-35% during my recent work sessions. The temperature runs 55ish maybe pushing 60 F if the wood stove is cranked way up.



Are you coating with a brush or a puddle pusher?

I might try using a bit more sensitizer per sheet. I would rather have to blot of a little excess sensitizer at the edges after coating that risk starving the paper of sensitizer.



Try other papers. Worry about using too little sensitizer.



These times are waaaaay toooo long!

My current UV source uses 8 24" 9W 395-400 Barrina UV strips.

These are set 8 inches off the table. Thus, distance to the glass of my print frames runs roughly six inches.

My exposure time for cyanotype is 5 min.



I suspect that the vinyl of your easel might be the issue. Do you know how transparent the material is in the UV?

I would try a simple print frame with glass.

Unless you are making really large prints my feeling is that a vacuum frame is overkill. I routinely make 11x14 inch prints (of all types) in a standard split back frame. With my 16x20 frame I sometime 'boost' the pressure by adding a sheet or two of thick paper to the frame.



Again, try other papers.

I have never found reason to add acid to cyanotype sensitiser. If I were to add acid, I would use citric acid. Sulphamic acid is a very strong acid (on par with the strongest mineral acid) and might cause problems with consistancy by interfering with the proprietary additives (sizing, floculation modifiers, etc.) included in commercial paper.



Possibly, but I make cyanotypes with the RH anywhere between 30% and 80% without issue. Cyanotype is one of the least sensitive to humidity of all the alt processes I use regularly.



I feel your pain!



One other thing to try in the search for 'perfect' cyanotypes is to 'develop' them in dilute acid. I use 14% vinegar (which works out to about 0.4% acetic acid). Others use roughly 1% citric acid. This really helps with smoothness of the tonality.

Hope this helps...

I've only used peroxide after washing...is the vinegar ot c.a. the same??

 

[cirwin2010]

Inconsistent exposure times are very puzzling. What is the temperature in your basement and is it consistent day-to-day? It could be that your light sources output varies with temperature.

As for the humidity, I don't think that this is the problem. The RH in my basement dim room has been 31-35% during my recent work sessions. The temperature runs 55ish maybe pushing 60 F if the wood stove is cranked way up.

My working conditions sound about the same as yours. So my room temp and RH may not be it.

Are you coating with a brush or a puddle pusher?

I might try using a bit more sensitizer per sheet. I would rather have to blot of a little excess sensitizer at the edges after coating that risk starving the paper of sensitizer.



Try other papers. Worry about using too little sensitizer.

I'm using a brush and I make sure to push out the edges more than I need to ensure no pooling or inadequate "thickness" in the image area. I bush until the surface looks even and just starts to look a little matte. The Arches Aquarelle paper applies easily, absorbs well during brushing. I end up using about 2ml of solution per 8x10 and 4ml for 11x14. A little more for the thirsty Arches Aquarelle paper. I wet the brush before use to avoid sucking up too much solution into the bristles. I've got the technique down for kallitypes well enough.

These times are waaaaay toooo long!

My current UV source uses 8 24" 9W 395-400 Barrina UV strips.

These are set 8 inches off the table. Thus, distance to the glass of my print frames runs roughly six inches.

My exposure time for cyanotype is 5 min.

I'm using the same lights, but twice as many! So something sounds very wrong here. I have 16 of the 24" Barrina UV strips packed together to cover a 20x24" area. These are mounted inside a wooden box where the inside has been painted white. The lights are about 6-8" away from the paper. It is extremely bright.

Something I've noticed, at least with the Arches Aquarelle paper, is it takes a non linear amount of exposure to get maximum blacks. I can get almost there with far less exposure, but I can get ever so slightly more with a few more minutes of time. The effect is I am getting a lot of toe in the shadows that can be calibrated out with ink curves. Maybe I'm adding a lot of time for a tiny amount of additional density?

On a related note, I had an interesting finding. The areas of my test prints that are not covered by the OHP film base (the borders) will appear to have more density only when backlit by a bright light. Otherwise the areas that are covered by the film and uncovered look the same when dry under normal viewing conditions and I cannot detect any difference after adequate exposure.

I suspect that the vinyl of your easel might be the issue. Do you know how transparent the material is in the UV?

I would try a simple print frame with glass.

Unless you are making really large prints my feeling is that a vacuum frame is overkill. I routinely make 11x14 inch prints (of all types) in a standard split back frame. With my 16x20 frame I sometime 'boost' the pressure by adding a sheet or two of thick paper to the frame.

I am using a vacuum easel made by Dennis Ramos. He claims that the vinyl has better UV transmission than glass, but I don't have any data to back that up. I know glass will block UV proportional to its thickness and the vinyl is quite thin, but different materials. I'm only making up to 11x15" prints right now, but I have everything set up in such a way to scale up to 16x20" prints. I don't have any glass or contact frames available for testing.

Dennis's website appears to be down, but I did find a forum post where he states the material is "4-gauge clear polyvinyl chloride plastic" https://groups.io/g/carbon/topic/portable_vacuum_frame/69983453

What sort of negative are you using for your prints? Film, OHP, something else?

I have never found reason to add acid to cyanotype sensitiser. If I were to add acid, I would use citric acid. Sulphamic acid is a very strong acid (on par with the strongest mineral acid) and might cause problems with consistancy by interfering with the proprietary additives (sizing, floculation modifiers, etc.) included in commercial paper.

I think you misunderstood. I am not adding sulfamic acid to the sensitizer. That is for the first "development" bath. Sulfamic acid development is causing fogging issues for me. Citric acid is not. I am adding citric acid to the sensitizer solution for the new cyanotype formula however to aid in highlight clearing and paper compatibility.

Possibly, but I make cyanotypes with the RH anywhere between 30% and 80% without issue. Cyanotype is one of the least sensitive to humidity of all the alt processes I use regularly.

Again, sounds like RH may not be my issue per your account.

One other thing to try in the search for 'perfect' cyanotypes is to 'develop' them in dilute acid. I use 14% vinegar (which works out to about 0.4% acetic acid). Others use roughly 1% citric acid. This really helps with smoothness of the tonality.

Hope this helps...

Sulfamic acid issues aside, I am using a 1% dilution of citric acid for new cyanotype and 0.25% citric acid dilution for classic cyanotype. Just going off Christina Anderson's numbers, I have tried other dilutions of citric acid yet. Nor have I tried acetric acid.



Thanks for your reply!

 

[cirwin2010]

I've only used peroxide after washing...is the vinegar ot c.a. the same??

The acid (vinegar, citric, sulfamic, etc.) is for the first wash bath. It aids in the formation of prussian blue and binding it to the paper. The effect is less washout resulting is much deeper blacks and a longer tonal scale. The dilution and type of acid matters. Mike ware recommends a mineral acid for his new formulation such as nitric or hydrochloric acid. But those types of acid must be handled with great care. Vinegar (acedic acid) appears to be the most popular acid for classic cyanotype.

The peroxide speeds up the oxidation of prussian white -> prussian blue.

 

[gbroadbridge]

The acid (vinegar, citric, sulfamic, etc.) is for the first wash bath. It aids in the formation of prussian blue and binding it to the paper. The effect is less washout resulting is much deeper blacks and a longer tonal scale. The dilution and type of acid matters. Mike ware recommends a mineral acid for his new formulation such as nitric or hydrochloric acid. But those types of acid must be handled with great care. Vinegar (acedic acid) appears to be the most popular acid for classic cyanotype.

The peroxide speeds up the oxidation of prussian white -> prussian blue.

I think you're making it all way too complicated.

Cyanotype is not a complicated process.

Go back to basics - make new sensitiser solutions, use Canson watercolor paper, a simple sheet of glass over the negative, and run a wedge test again.

 

[fgorga]

I am using a vacuum easel made by Dennis Ramos. He claims that the vinyl has better UV transmission than glass, but I don't have any data to back that up. I know glass will block UV proportional to its thickness and the vinyl is quite thin, but different materials. I'm only making up to 11x15" prints right now, but I have everything set up in such a way to scale up to 16x20" prints. I don't have any glass or contact frames available for testing.

Dennis's website appears to be down, but I did find a forum post where he states the material is "4-gauge clear polyvinyl chloride plastic" https://groups.io/g/carbon/topic/portable_vacuum_frame/69983453

What sort of negative are you using for your prints? Film, OHP, something else?

To do a quick test, I would just remove a piece of glass from a picture frame and make an exposure under that.

It is easy to estimate a good exposure by watching the part of the paper not covered by the negative. They should be a greenish-gray when properly exposed.

I use negatives printed on generic OHP most of the time and on genuine OHP rarely.

I think you misunderstood. I am not adding sulfamic acid to the sensitizer. That is for the first "development" bath. Sulfamic acid development is causing fogging issues for me. Citric acid is not. I am adding citric acid to the sensitizer solution for the new cyanotype formula however to aid in highlight clearing and paper compatibility.

OK... got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Thanks for your reply!

You are welcome.

The more I think about it, the more I think that your issues, other than exposure times, are due to the paper. If you don't want to try some of the papers mentioned in my original reply, I would seriously consider hitting your local Michael's, etc. and buying some inexpensive watercolor paper. Cyanotype often works quite well in such paper.

 

[koraks]

The more I think about it, the more I think that your issues, other than exposure times, are due to the paper.

Yup.
I've not tried most of the (what I consider 'fancy') papers @cirwin2010 mentions. I've always gone with the brute force approach of buying some of pretty much every paper I could from my local arts supplies store, try them all out and stick with the one or two that worked the best.
Having said that, I've never had much trouble at all getting classic cyanotype to work. In fact, I recall only the very cheapest papers to sometimes produce problems with it.

Freshly coated and unexposed paper[...] will fog.

How long do you keep it for it to still be considered 'fresh'? I can confirm that many papers fog within a short period of time. I personally coat, dry with hot air (hairdryer) and print immediately. I do not add anything to the sensitizer. No wetting agent/surfactant, no citric acid, no dichromate - nothing. Additions IME complicate matters and most of the time can only go a little way in masking an underlying problem that should really be addressed.

3: The inconsistent exposures are likely due to paper problems. It will make a difference which side of the paper you print on, it can even make a difference whether you're using a sheet from the top of the pack or one that has remained sealed from the air by sheets on top of it, etc. Suitable papers don't show this kind of unpredictability.

4: grain; paper problems.

5: long exposures: paper problems, potentially exacerbated by an unsuitable printing setup. Glass works perfectly fine for the wavelength you're exposing with. Just use a regular picture frame for testing. See @fgorga's remarks. I use glass with a thickness of 1-5mm depending on what size I'm printing at. Just plain float glass. Works just fine, even for 365nm, which is much more challenging than 395nm in terms of transmission.

6: can't comment; never tried it. I like cheap stuff. I steer clear of expensive, fancy papers. There's a risk I'd like them and that would get me into trouble, LOL!

I never monitored humidity, nor have I run into issues that seemed to relate to it with this process. I'm sure there's an effect of the moisture content of the paper base during exposure, but if you use a hairdryer to blast the paper dry and then print immediately, this moisture content will be quite low and quite consistent.

My other problem is I'm a perfectionist.

This always ups the ante, of course. But cyanotype can be done in such a way that it's possible to make an inkjet printer/linearization profile for it and pump out one print after another with good consistency. I did that for a while. It worked so well that I got bored of it.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I've gotten my kallitype process down to a T

Iron Blue toning of Kallitype is worth considering and gives beautiful results. Moersch has a product MT7 that he recommends for prints made using iron-silver processes including Kallitype. However, it is easy to make your own using Cyanotype chemicals.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Just my 2c and if I missed it, apologies, but acidifying the paper no matter what paper and also acidifying the sensitizer will together stabilize the results. It will also speed up your exposures. Sulfamic works great for acidifying paper. I use citric acid for acidifying the sensitizer.

 

[gealto2]

My suggestion is to try and iron out one or the other, New vs Classic. Classic is much less sensitive to paper problems, so fix that first.

How old are your sensitizer solutions? I would mix fresh, but a lesser amount just for testing. Personally, I mix only enough sensitizer for a single sheet of paper at a time, to ensure fresh solutions. I live in a humid place where FAC solutions last for only a few weeks, Potas Ferricyanide solutions last a few months.

Then coat and dry with a small fan and no heat, and use the paper immediately without storage. This is to rule out bad sensitizer or paper. Bad paper will turn greenish blue after a few hours of dry storage.

After getting Classic to work, then go after same on New with more attention on the paper. The paper you mention should work OK.

 

[fgorga]

Just my 2c and if I missed it, apologies, but acidifying the paper no matter what paper and also acidifying the sensitizer will together stabilize the results. It will also speed up your exposures. Sulfamic works great for acidifying paper. I use citric acid for acidifying the sensitizer.

It is interesting to me how many ways to success there are in alt process printing. Alas, though there are probably even more ways to fail.

My process for cyanotype is more-or-less opposite of Patrick's. I use a lot of different papers for cyanotype and never pre-treat them with acid. I do however, 'develop' all of my cyanotypes in 14% vinegar. I think that the reason I can 'get away' with no pre-treatment is that the vinegar (acetic acid) neutralizes any carbonate buffer in the paper quickly enough that there is little hydrolysis of the Prussian Blue. I also do not add citric acid to my sensitiser. I do, however, use my coated paper with a hour or two of coating it.

Bottom line for the original poster... keep at it, many have succeeded before and you will eventually find a path to success.

 

[fgorga]

My suggestion is to try and iron out one or the other, New vs Classic. Classic is much less sensitive to paper problems, so fix that first.

Agreed!

How old are your sensitizer solutions? I would mix fresh, but a lesser amount just for testing. Personally, I mix only enough sensitizer for a single sheet of paper at a time, to ensure fresh solutions. I live in a humid place where FAC solutions last for only a few weeks, Potas Ferricyanide solutions last a few months.

Also agreed, but for a different reason. It can't hurt to make new stock solutions in the unlikely case that you made a mistake or have contaminated one of them.

In my long (20+ years) experience of making cyanotypes, I have never had a stock solution of either component go bad. I have, on occasion, used solutions that are way more that a year old without issue. My normal practice is to make enough solution for about six months, but I just use them until they are finished. I never throw out stocks because they are 'too old'.

Yes, the FAC solution will eventually grow mold. However, one can filter out the mold using a paper towel and it continues to work just fine. You can also avoid growing mold by adding 1 drop of 10% (w/v) thymol in rubbing alcohol per 100 mL of the stock. The ferricyanide solution is perfectly stable.

It is critical to ensure that you do not cross contaminate the two stock solutions if you want them to last.

Then coat and dry with a small fan and no heat, and use the paper immediately without storage. This is to rule out bad sensitizer or paper. Bad paper will turn greenish blue after a few hours of dry storage.

Agreed. Although the fan is, in my estimation, overkill. Even in the most humid summer weather coated paper dries in about an hour in my basement dim room without using a fan. The paper I coated this afternoon was dry in half an hour. (Maybe less, I did not look before then.)

After getting Classic to work, then go after same on New with more attention on the paper. The paper you mention should work OK.

 

[nmp]

Lots of wisdom above!

My two cents....

Try Canson XL watercolor paper and use it without any treatment for Classical (not for New) cyanotype.

Also important to remember that Dmax and Dmin (stain/fog) are correlated, i.e. one can not keep increasing the exposure to gain incremental Dmax without causing fog. A better criteria for standard exposure time would be not just Dmax but DR (Dmax-Dmin.) This can be achieved by laying on top of the paper a piece of transparency that is printed half with full ink so you get both Dmax and Dmin data for each step of exposure. Pick the exposure time that gives the best combination of both Dmax and Dmin. There is always going to be a compromise between the two.

Another thing one a try is instead of all acid development or all tap water develop, do a combination - give a quick (half a minute to one minute) with tap water followed by citric acid (I use 0.3% w/v as I saw no benefit above this concentration.) First step will clear out density from the highlights without an appreciable loss in Dmax. Second step will make sure the Dmax is preserved.

:Niranjan.

 

[VinceInMT]

I've been using the Mike Ware formula that I mix from scratch. For paper I am using a Bockingford watercolor paper. I have used other papers. With all papers, I soak them in a 5% citric acid solution for 3 minutes or until it stopped bubbling. Then a wash for 3 minutes and then dry. I coat with a foam brush. For exposure, I am using several stips of LED lights (5050 SMD 395-405nm) powered by 12 V. These are mounting in a box that is about 12 inches above the paper when exposing. Expsure times depends on the subject. I do photograms with various objects or negatives from sheet film. Times range from 8 minutes to 25 minutes. For the film negatives I've been using litho film that I develop in a weak Dektol that gives good contrast and some middle tones. For developing the cyanotype, the exposed print is placed in a 10% sulphamic acid solution for 5 minutes. It then gets washed for 15 minutes. I get good, relatable results, most of the time. Sometimes I think that the position of the stars in the universe might have something to do with things. I've never thought about humidity. Where I am the is very little of it.

 

[srated]

Step #1: Confirm quality of chemicals (esp. FAC).
#2: Remove all variables, then re-introduce only one at a time.
#3: Take methodical notes (environment, material, process).

 

[imgprojts]

I had a ton of problems getting it to work with tap water until I found that it had a ph of 8 to 9. Papers also gave me a ton of problems. Here is the paper I am using: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9H7N8TB?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_1&th=1 its cheap These guys have a variety of 100% cotton water color paper: https://www.amazon.com/stores/page/...tore_ref=bl_ast_dp_brandLogo_sto&ref_=ast_bln This paper is ph neutral and you don't need to treat it. Use it, get some experience with the process and then venture out to more expensive papers.

 

[cliveh]

Why on earth are you using Sulfamic acid? Expose under sunlight, develop in water. The process is very simple.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Why on earth are you using Sulfamic acid? Expose under sunlight, develop in water. The process is very simple.

That logic would not work, especially if there is little sunlight this time is year, such as where I live Not all tap water is the same. My Cyanotypes benefit from a splash of vinegar in the clearing bath.

 

[cirwin2010]

I'm still working on this. Slowly...

So first, I tried what some have suggested and gave some other paper a go using the classic formula. I tried some Canson XL Watercolor paper using a 10% FAC and 10% PF solution. This seems to work with no fuss. I have not dialed in my exposure time (25 minutes was way too much) and contrast curve for this, but I am not a huge fan of this combination. Dmax is not very substantial and the paper is a bit gritty. I didn't notice a difference in dmax when using citric acid, acetric acid (vinegar), or sulfamic acid wash. Interestingly though the sulfamic acid did not fog highlights unlike everything else I've tried so far.

I may try the Canson XL Watercolor paper again using a 20% FAC to 10% PF solution instead to see if that gets me more dmax and a more pleasing shade of blue.


I went back to trying the Arches Aquarelle again using the new Mike Ware cyanotype formulation again since I'm stubborn and I want this paper to work. I think I figured out some of my issues.

1. The paper should be humidified prior to coating and the paper must be bone dry before exposure. This eliminates the light spots I was getting. Damp paper seemed to cause some issues with uneven exposure too.

2. The addition of citric acid may make a difference to the exposure time and contrast curve (at least with this paper). This is likely where much of my inconsistency was coming from due to slight variations of how much citric acid was present. The addition of citric acid may be giving more dmax with slightly longer exposure times required. More testing needed. It also may be causing some grittiness and splotching. Again, more testing needed. So far a sheet I exposed with no citric acid looks the cleanest, but the dmax is slightly less.
Edit: Citric acid may be the cause of some of the splotches/grit. Does not seem to affect dmax after some further evaluation. May produce very slight changes to contrast curve. Dmax changes may be due to coat thickness.

 

[nmp]

I may try the Canson XL Watercolor paper again using a 20% FAC to 10% PF solution instead to see if that gets me more dmax and a more pleasing shade of blue.

Another way to increase Dmax is to use more concentrated versions of A and B - for example use 40% FAC and 20% KFi and add them 1:1. This way overall ratio remains the same as 2:1 but with more concentrated sensitizer at 30% w/v instead of 15%. This will keep more of the sensitizer closer to the surface rather than go inside the fibers of the paper, while increasing the spatial density at the same time. Of course, the flip side is that it will have greater tendency for the newly formed Prussian blue to get washed out during development. Might have to optmize it for a given paper. Moisture in the paper before coating and use of wetting agent will also play a role.

:Niranjan.

 

[Cor]

This is how I do Cyanotype:
Make a 10% AFC + 4% KFeCN solution (so already mixed and ready to go, enough for one session)
Double coat (2* ~3 ml for a a 8*10 inch negative), foam brush (dry completely between coats)
Clear: place print face down on a tray with water plus some citric acid (check for trapped air bubbles)
Gently rock, lift and lower, and when highlights are visually cleared, flip paper over, rock, and to a fresh tray with water plus citric acid. Wash until there is no yellow in dripping of water print (takes quite some time !)

Good luck,

Cor

 

[cirwin2010]

I have determined the source of much of my problems with the new Cyanotype formula. After eliminating many variables and fixing other issues, the problem comes down to coating issues (or paper compatibility issues). Specifically paper absorbancy!

What I am finding is that with papers such as Legion Revere Platinum (LRP) or Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag (HPR) is the solution does not evenly disperse into the paper no matter how well I think I coat the sheet. What appears to be happening is the water in the solution is readily absorbed by the paper, but the contents tend to get deposited on the surface. The result is a sparkly, crystal like finish when dry. The is in contrast to using the classic formula or when using the new formula on Arches Aquarelle when dry. Those tend to a matte finish.

This "sparkly" finish has a direct correlation with the properties of the final product.
-The more "sparkly" the finish, the lower the dmax and the more run-off in the wash water.
-The dmax improves with pre-humidification and the sparkly appearance diminishes.
-"Sparkly" surface papers loose much, if not most, of their denisity in plain or a citric acid first wash. Using a mineral acid such as sulfamic acid is a must. This retains the image.
-"Sparkly" surface papers appear to have much of the prussian blue sit atop the paper surface! You can feel the difference between areas of shadow and uncoated areas. The dense areas have a rough texture and tend to leave blue residue on your fingers.

I attached a test image I made using Legion Revere Platinum and the new cyanotype formula. The paper was not humidified prior to coating and was "developed" in 1% sulfamic acid. This combination seems to coat mostly well enough in the image areas, but doesn't have the best dmax.

I want to point your attention to the borders of the print. Note the water stain looking ring. Depsite coating to the best of my ability and not leaving any solution pooling at the edges, it created a bit of ink bleed effect. Prior to exposure, the paper had a dense green ring along the borders. I believe this is evidence of the paper absorbing the solution and leaving its contents deposited on the surface. Additionally the image area has a very gritty, chalk like surface. Again, likely the prussian blue sitting above the paper's surface.

This is likely a paper compatabiliy issue and also likely would be reduced with a diluted solution of the new cyanotype formula.

For now I'm working on the classic formula and doing what I can to get good dmax on HPR. So far a 20% FAC to 10% PF has good promise and surprisingly short exposure times. Tween20 and pre-humidification seem to give the best results.