Kallitype: Your Wisdom

[Franswa]

It's going to take a lot longer and cost more in materials than you ever expected, before you get to a reasonable print.

I’ve done what I can to mentally manage this expectation.

 

[Franswa]

The best nugget of wisdom I can offer you is this: buy the Kallitype book by Don Nelson. There will be no unanswered questions if you follow this bit of advice.

Thanks, I’ve seen a handful of various videos by Don and am considering his book

 

[Franswa]

When I proposed to start Kallitypes along time ago, I was advised to start with VDB's, that I did and never progressed any further. VDB is easier and more affordable and so far I haven't seen anything in Kallitype or for that matter P/P to make me want to try either.

Honestly, I’ll most likely end up exploring that and other processes because I’m very curious by nature. But, who knows

 

[Franswa]

I second VDB as the preferred path, if it's feasible. Kallitype is more flexible in terms of contrast, which makes it a better choice for film negs. With digital negs, VDB is the way to go.

My single nugget of kallitype advice: stick with sodium citrate developer. Clearing will be you biggest problem, and citrate developers are your best. option on that front.

No problems there…I’ve got sodium citrate on its way!

 

[Franswa]

As Andy has pointed out, it is critically important to engineer a negative of the correct density/contrast to work well with Kallitype. You can either make a digital negative (you have to work with Epson printer tech for this) or work out a process to create an in-camera negative, which requires special processing. (For this I recommend Ellie Young's pdf, which goes into considerable detail about achieving the correct negative density) Your best option for in-camera alt process negatives is FP4+, which is ideally suited to making Kallitype (and Salt) negs because of its low base + fog density. Ellie explains the choice of FP4+ in the pdf, so do yourself a favor and take a look at it.

Andy's recommendation to stick to an appropriate paper is also excellent advice. To his list of Revere and Hahnemuhle I would add Bergger's COT 320 paper, which has been my favorite for Salted paper and Kallitype printmaking.

Tone your prints before fixing. Gold chloride toning is considered the best for archival and aesthetic purposes. You can buy a gram of Gold chloride for about half what it would cost you to buy gold toner pre-made: go to ArtCraft Chemicals. The Thiocyanate toner version of Gold toner is simplest and very easy to make yourself.

Fine tuning my digital negatives has been a top priority for me as I’ve learned is a critical foundation for good print results. Is the density/curve process far different than for cyanotypes? As for toner I’ve already ordered platinum toner

 

[retina_restoration]

Is the density/curve process far different than for cyanotypes?

Yes!!! You will need a negative with much greater density in the highlight values.

 

[Franswa]

Yes!!! You will need a negative with much greater density in the highlight values.

Thank you. Let's take this cyanotype for example(toned)

This is what the negative looks like. Are you saying that the blacks(highlights) need to be more dense(blacker) here? Or are you referring to having more ink laid down on the transparency in those areas? You can visit this link here if you'd like to zoom in: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54797812411_042c1a4f4b_k.jpg

 

[koraks]

Are you saying that the blacks(highlights) need to be more dense(blacker) here?

No density measurement is given for your negative, so it's hard to say, also because the cyanotype chemistry isn't specified and the requirements vary wildly between the different approaches, from around 1.5logD for classic cyanotype to ca. 2.1logD for New Cyanotype, with Simple Cyanotype being capable of accommodating different negatives within a certain range.

If that print was a classic cyanotype, then the blacks in the negative are most definitely too weak for a good kallitype. If it was a New Cyanotype print, they may be too dense.

If you're using digital inkjet negatives, you need to calibrate/linearize the negatives to the printing process. Likewise for silver camera negatives of course, but we generally don't speak of calibration/linearization in that case.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you are using the traditional Cyanotype recipe, then the negative will be too flat for a Kallitype. Yes, the highlights on the negative will have to be denser...The negative density range is longer.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Toning Cyanotype prints with coffee/tea/tannic acid etc has the nice effect of reducing the harshness of blown out highlights, reducing contrast and sometimes making such highlights very attractive due to the stain imparted by the toner. Kallitype will be less kind with detail-less highlights and increasing density of highlights in the digital negative won't help much in this case. This is of course assuming that the highlights are detail-less as hinted by a cursory check of highlight values of the negative image shared above.

 

[fgorga]

The whole point of applying a curve while preparing a digital negative is to tailor the negative to 'fit' the process. Thus, each process needs its own curve, more-or-less.

A good starting point for obtaining a curve for a new process is one of the curve 'libraries' that can be found on-line. I say a good starting point because one can sometimes tweak a generic curve to better match your working methods.

The library at Bostick & Sullivan (https://www.bostick-sullivan.com/digital-negatives/) has a kallitype curve.

Another good library, in general, is the one at Alternative Photography (https://www.alternativephotography.com/curve-corner-photoshop-curves/) but they do not have a kallitype curve.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...or just download Chartthrob, and make your own. And that is as far as I'll go mentioning digital here, as this is 100% analogue thread

 

[Franswa]

Thanks Frank, Raghu and Andrew. I used chart throb for my foundation curve for my classic cyanotypes so I’ll be creating one for Kallitype to see how that goes. I’ll also give the B&S a try as well just so I can have something to compare

 

[Franswa]

Toning Cyanotype prints with coffee/tea/tannic acid etc has the nice effect of reducing the harshness of blown out highlights, reducing contrast and sometimes making such highlights very attractive due to the stain imparted by the toner. Kallitype will be less kind with detail-less highlights and increasing density of highlights in the digital negative won't help much in this case. This is of course assuming that the highlights are detail-less as hinted by a cursory check of highlight values of the negative image shared above.

Absolutely, toning can impact the print as you stated. The highlights contain details in the cyanotype print as well. This was a second print but from the same negative.

 

[Franswa]

Dove into it this weekend and my first few prints were not great(as expected!), but learning as I go, learning and moving forward. Example taken on my phone, and some thoughts..

• Dichromate and emulsion are like oil & vinegar, and as a result I ended up with lots of streaking
• Made a print without any dichromate at all and it was flat as heck
• I didn't use tween and ended up with quite a bit of grain
• My chosen image was ultimately not ideal for the process as the original photo/negative was already at the boundaries of its latitude and adding an additional curve wasn't going to produce an acceptable result(shame I'm having to abandon that photo but will have to go back to the location and shoot it again some day)
• I was using way too high a ratio with my toner as there was some conflicting information about this on the B&S site. I was literally throwing $ down the drain, but have since rectified that.

Second round(will get that scanned and posted later)

• Mixed the dichromate with the developer instead.....much better result
• Made a 10% tween solution and again....much better result
• Exposure times are FAST, at least for the new image/negative I chose

 

[koraks]

When I started doing Van Dyke (which is conceptually similar to Kallitype), I tried dichromate as well to boost contrast. Long story short - I find (like many others) that the best way to fix the contrast of the print is in making sure the negative is suitable for the process, and then to not use anything in the chemistry to raise contrast.

Exposure times are FAST, at least for the new image/negative I chose

I would recommend working the other way around:
1: Determine the minimum exposure time needed to render a good dmax/black through your printing frame and a blank strip of your (inkjet/silver gelatin) film. Then use this exposure time, and nothing shorter, for consecutive prints.
2: Now determine the contrast you need to print paper white with the exposure time determined in #1. This can be done e.g. with a stouffer step tablet if you're shooting camera negatives, or print a step tablet with your inkjet printer using different ink loads and perhaps ink channels to determine the ink load & combination that gives the required coverage.
3: If you're using inkjet negatives, linearize the curve by printing a step tablet and using measurements from the print to build a compensation curve.

I know it's seductive to do things differently; e.g. create a negative that looks OK to your eye and then try and make the best print from it. We generally get away with this in regular darkroom printing where we can use variable contrast paper and all manner of tricks & tweaks to control contrast. But with processes like kallitype, we have a lot fewer tricks at our disposal and the tricks we do have, too often come with severe implications for e.g. the density of the maximum black you can print or image hue/tone.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Best to have a negative that is calibrated to the process, rather rather than monkeying around with additives, such as dichromate. You are using a digital inkjet negative, so obtaining the best DR is easy peasy.

 

[retina_restoration]

When I started doing Van Dyke (which is conceptually similar to Kallitype), I tried dichromate as well to boost contrast. Long story short - I find (like many others) that the best way to fix the contrast of the print is in making sure the negative is suitable for the process, and then to not use anything in the chemistry to raise contrast.


I would recommend working the other way around:
1: Determine the minimum exposure time needed to render a good dmax/black through your printing frame and a blank strip of your (inkjet/silver gelatin) film. Then use this exposure time, and nothing shorter, for consecutive prints.
2: Now determine the contrast you need to print paper white with the exposure time determined in #1. This can be done e.g. with a stouffer step tablet if you're shooting camera negatives, or print a step tablet with your inkjet printer using different ink loads and perhaps ink channels to determine the ink load & combination that gives the required coverage.
3: If you're using inkjet negatives, linearize the curve by printing a step tablet and using measurements from the print to build a compensation curve.

I know it's seductive to do things differently; e.g. create a negative that looks OK to your eye and then try and make the best print from it. We generally get away with this in regular darkroom printing where we can use variable contrast paper and all manner of tricks & tweaks to control contrast. But with processes like kallitype, we have a lot fewer tricks at our disposal and the tricks we do have, too often come with severe implications for e.g. the density of the maximum black you can print or image hue/tone.

Using dichromate to boost contrast is a kludge that involves compromise, as kodaks points out. Creating a negative that is optimized for the process will deliver much better results. That said, your print is very respectable!

 

[Franswa]

Thanks, guys. I will get there eventually, I'm sure. Rome wasn't built in one day! There is a lot to learn and consider. The truth is, that the first image had no business being an option for this process. I did make my own step wedge, with half covered in a blank transparency, to determine dmax.

Here's my second print:

 

[koraks]

That looks pretty good, really. Nicely done!
You converted it to B&W digitally I assume?

There's a minor issue with your contact printing frame you might want to look into.

 

[Franswa]

That looks pretty good, really. Nicely done!
You converted it to B&W digitally I assume?

There's a minor issue with your contact printing frame you might want to look into.

Thank you, Koraks! No digital conversion to B&W, this is how the print appears after toning with platinum. I bought the Kallitype kit from B&S to test how I feel about this process, and if I end up enjoying it I'll skip the dichromate and mix up my own developer and clearing solution. For now I am in the discovery phase.

I'm not certain what caused that at the bottom of the print, as my print(of the same negative) prior didn't suffer from that.

 

[koraks]

There's very little to improve, I'd say! Keep at it; if you're having fun to boot, I know what you'll be doing a lot this winter!

I'm not certain what caused that at the bottom of the print, as my print(of the same negative) prior didn't suffer from that.

This is usually imperfect contact between the negative and the paper during exposure. What kind of contact frame/setup are you using?

 

[Franswa]

There's very little to improve, I'd say! Keep at it; if you're having fun to boot, I know what you'll be doing a lot this winter!


This is usually imperfect contact between the negative and the paper during exposure. What kind of contact frame/setup are you using?

Ah yes, winter......and then I will have to compensate for the lack of humidity in the house. What I am using now are kit items I got from B&S and I would like to change to a sodium citrate developer that I can mix myself to save on cost. Are all sodium citrates available online, say on Amazon, essentially the same? I'm also reading that 3% citric acid solution may perform better at clearing than the EDTA found in my kit. Wanting to find a balance of being able to easily mix things up on my own, lower costs and also get desirable results!

For this particular print I am using Photographers' Formulary 8x10 frame and perhaps one of the locking mechanisms came loose when walking out to the garage, and I hadn't noticed. This is the first time I've seen that happen.

 

[koraks]

Are all sodium citrates available online, say on Amazon, essentially the same?

As long as it's specified as (reasonably) pure sodium citrate, yes. Some may be labeled as sodium citrate trihydrate, you may also find (more rarely and at somewhat higher cost) anhydrous. The trihydrate has a little water embedded in it. As soon as it's in solution, it's all the same thing. You can easily make sodium citrate by mixing citric acid and sodium hydroxide (lye) in an appropriate ratio. This is usually cheaper.

I'm also reading that 3% citric acid solution may perform better at clearing than the EDTA found in my kit.

I can't comment on that; I do know that citric acid is a reasonably good chelating agent. Whether it's necessarily better than EDTA in this application I couldn't say.

A mishap with the frame locking mechanism is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that soft spot.

 

[revdoc]

EDTA can bleach your print to some extent. (This isn't really the EDTA, but ferric EDTA, which forms as residual iron is removed.) I've had this happen, but it took a few minutes. My advice would be to keep the print in EDTA for no more than a minute. Better still, use a sodium citrate + citric acid developer. It's unlikely you'll need much additional clearing after that. A 1% citric acid solution will be enough.

I buy sodium citrate in bulk, from whichever eBay or Amazon vendor has the best price. If it's food grade, it's the right stuff.