My first Cyanotype :D

Ok, so I have now got myself some inkjet transparencies and have created some digital negatives, I knew that the exposure time would be different but its like night and day!

Oiled paper = around 10 minutes
Transparencies = around 1 minute

Yes thats right, 1 minute per print, I tried a print at 10 minutes and 5 minutes and both were overexposed massivly, I have put the timer on basically the minimum that the face tanner can go on and its pretty much spot on, I will take a photo of one of the prints, its amazinly sharp, high contrast, really nice colour and no mess or contamination on the print.

The inkjet transparencies aren't that cheap, but printing 4 on an A4 sheet its not too bad, I think it works out at something like 25p a sheet but these negatives will last and they really are amazing to look at - this would still be cheaper than a large format negative so I am happy

I might get myself one of those exposure timers that cuts the power off making it slightly easier to get the exposure right, I might also create a colour chart with a gray scale and then expose it at different times to see at which point the best contrast is attained.

I am amazed at the sharpness of the print though, its even on rough watercolour paper but you can tell its sharp.

Right, here is the comparison between a basic oiled paper print and a more expensive inkjet transparency:

Oiled on the left, transparency on the right, exposure time for paper was around 10 minutes, transparency was around 1 minute:

Oiled paper printed ok, but you can see some loss of sharpness in some parts due to the oil not evenly soaking in and some contamination (spots) at the top. What is also obvious is the lack of detail in the sky, the negative image would have had this quite dark and this might have basically blocked all of the UV out as there is also the layer of paper.

This is the transparency, it is sharp across the image and you can see definition such as the thin lamp posts and sharp edges on the bridge structure, you will also notice the sky is actually there this time - this is the same image just printed on an inkjet transparency and printed using a very cheap old printer! The print is slightly over exposed, this would be due to the much much shorter exposure time due to it not having a paper layer to have to go through, its quite a bit more expsensive to print like this with the transparency being the main cost of the whole print, but at least the negative can be used over and over again without issue. In general the overall toning is much better with the buildings being rendered in shades of blue rather than white, again the transparency image is overexposed, however it shows the difference.

Good work! I am running into the same issues with lack of mid tones from oiled paper negatives. I don't have a printer at the moment, so if I can convince someone to let me run off a couple images I might try the transparancies.

Thanx for keeping up the work!


-Xander

The next thing on the list is to print off this zone system and then do timed exposures - ie print say 10 of these down a page and gradually uncover them at timed intervals so I can check the exposure on my setup.

Maybe you should consider a step tablet negative such as Stouffer's T3110 or the PDN version of it. Much more easier and reliable... Plus, since many others has this types of negatives, the test results (made with these) that you're going to share will be much more telling to others (for instance, it will definitely tell if the process is behaving as expected...), therefore, you'll have a higher chance of getting the right answers.

Regards,
Loris.

Hi m1tch,
I thought you might be interested in the transparency sheets I used... they are very inexpensive (100 sheets for $20) from ebay:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Hammermi...151?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43bd6efc17
best regards,
mark (dinosaur cyanotype guy)

I'd like to thank the OP for sharing his technique. It opened my eyes (for the first time) to the possibility of making paper negatives with a laser printer (as opposed to inkjet on transparency). With access to an 11x17 laser printer/copier at work, I can suddenly make 11x17 negatives (without buying an expensive large format ink jet printer).

Doing a little more research on this, I found this very informative video which uses white beeswax instead of oil. I'm passing it along in case anyone else finds it enlightening.

[video=youtube_share;n7Fo8seMrFo]http://youtu.be/n7Fo8seMrFo[/video]

I find the idea of the beeswax a little more appealing than the oil method. For one thing, it seems like you avoid the longer drying time of oil and it seems a lot less "messy". Also, while you can certainly do this on regular 20 lb. bond paper, I plan to try loading the copier with 16 lb 11x17 vellum (hopefully you can use vellum with the beeswax technique). The Vellum is thinner and more transparent (even without the oil/beeswax) and so should result in an even more transparent negative.

Thanks, i'm glad that its helped someone out, I am aware that you can wax the paper instead of oil it, I thought I would just try oiling it as it was to hand, I like the process because you can make cheap prints and with the modern technology of printers its now easy as you don't need an enlarger or inter negative to get a large image.

I am going to hand coat some more paper tomorrow I think, I still have loads left, hopefully it hasn't gone off!

I might also look into using some sort of filter as some of the exposure times on negatives that aren't as dense are getting quite quick, I am tempted to get a photographic timer which will turn off the UV much more predictably.