Paper for Cyanotypes - An (Incomplete) Survey

[Jerevan]

Hmmm... interesting! Did you try exposing the orange paper anyway, just to see what happens?

I did a slapdash, very non-scientific test of one of the orange papers this evening.

I have no idea if this happens when one is laying down too much sensitizer, but the middle of the sensitizer blob stayed a blob, while the outer edges which I had coated more thinly, showed up as blue when exposed to my UV lamp. I am not sure either if the cyanotype solution itself is acting up, since it is out of date.

I am going to do another test, and get the sensitizer on a bit thinner. Perhaps it is a matter of getting less on there, and keep off flooding it, since the solution just bled through to the back of the paper. Anyways, I enjoy the surface, and I'll keep at it for a bit to see if I can get it to work. If it doesn't work, I'll draw funny birds on it instead.

 

[fgorga]

Anyways, I enjoy the surface, and I'll keep at it for a bit to see if I can get it to work. If it doesn't work, I'll draw funny birds on it instead.

Yes, the surface is quite different from most. It is not for all or even most images, but with the right image it is wonderful.

I probably shouldn't say this here, but you can make very nice inkjet prints on Johannot as well; see https://theonlinephotographer.typep...her/2020/05/print-crit-then-i-said-uh-oh.html

Hope you figure things out.

 

[jrhilton]

You are all more adventurous than me when it comes to trying different paper! Here in the UK you used to read of a lot of people recommending Arches Platine for alt processes including Cyanotypes.

Personally I always had trouble getting hold of it, and found that Arches Aquarelle was easier to find, cheaper and worked better for me. HP version, traditional cyanotype formula, coated well with a wide foam brush. Sometimes one ever so slightly acidic wash during the overall wash process to bring the deep blues out quicker (i'm sometimes impatient). No apparent issues with ageing/fading on prints which are 15+ years old and not all stored in perfect conditions.

The best images were with Epson heavyweight Matt, but unfortunately it was too hard to wash all the yellow out fully. Pity, the detail and the tones from a negative that were retained in the print were stunning. Never seen such a good image on any other paper.

 

[nmp]

Yes, the surface is quite different from most. It is not for all or even most images, but with the right image it is wonderful.

I probably shouldn't say this here, but you can make very nice inkjet prints on Johannot as well; see https://theonlinephotographer.typep...her/2020/05/print-crit-then-i-said-uh-oh.html

Hope you figure things out.

Good stuff, Frank. With one photograph, you traversed 200 years worth of photography evolution.

 

[fgorga]

You are all more adventurous than me when it comes to trying different paper! Here in the UK you used to read of a lot of people recommending Arches Platine for alt processes including Cyanotypes.

Personally I always had trouble getting hold of it, and found that Arches Aquarelle was easier to find, cheaper and worked better for me. HP version, traditional cyanotype formula, coated well with a wide foam brush. Sometimes one ever so slightly acidic wash during the overall wash process to bring the deep blues out quicker (i'm sometimes impatient). No apparent issues with ageing/fading on prints which are 15+ years old and not all stored in perfect conditions.

The best images were with Epson heavyweight Matt, but unfortunately it was too hard to wash all the yellow out fully. Pity, the detail and the tones from a negative that were retained in the print were stunning. Never seen such a good image on any other paper.

Can't say anything about the UK, but on this side of "the pond", watercolor papers are the easiest to find, most art supply places carry them in many sizes. Traditional printmaking papers are a bit harder to find, some places carry pads of small sizes of the most common types, but if you want large sheets or a large selection only the biggest stores have them. Papers designed for alternative processes, such as Platine, are essentially unavailable in stores and must be ordered via the web. Of course the largest selection of surfaces is always found from the big guys on web.

I was interested in hearing that you experimented with a paper coated for inkjet printing. I've never been tempted to try an inkjet paper. However, I am not surprised to hear that it was less than satisfactory as an inkjet paper is optimized for something very different than cyanotype.

 

[fgorga]

Good stuff, Frank. With one photograph, you traversed 200 years worth of photography evolution.

Thanks! I've been enjoying adventures with the camera obscura for a couple of years now. My wife say that it keeps me off the streets and mostly out of trouble!!!

 

[Jerevan]

I am going to try to get the coating technique down a bit better, so I am going to rip through a bit of the Johannot, using the classic cyanotype for practice, and when I am getting a bit better results (the sensitizer just drops into the paper, makes a large blob and what is left, is not enough to cover even a 6x6 sometimes) I am going to continue onwards with the New Cyanotype stuff.

 

[fgorga]

I am going to try to get the coating technique down a bit better, so I am going to rip through a bit of the Johannot, using the classic cyanotype for practice, and when I am getting a bit better results (the sensitizer just drops into the paper, makes a large blob and what is left, is not enough to cover even a 6x6 sometimes) I am going to continue onwards with the New Cyanotype stuff.

How are you coating? Puddle pusher or brush?

I use a hake brush to coat.

My notes suggest that Johnannot might need a bit more sensitizer than the average paper but I don't remember thinking it was excessive.

 

[Jerevan]

How are you coating? Puddle pusher or brush?

I use a hake brush to coat.

I have tried both with a brush (synthetic) and a coating rod. I am perhaps doing things incorrectly, but with the brush I have the sensitizer in a small cup, pour it over the paper and try to spread it as quickly as possible, with a light touch. From the pouring I get an area that has much more sensitizer in the image.

With the coating rod, I put the sensitizer right in front of the coating rod, with the help of a dropper, and then try to spread it out, with the result that I get more solution where I start and much less where I end, and often streaks of paper white. I can't remember it being so hard to avoid that the solution just drops into the paper and "disappears".

 

[nmp]

I have tried both with a brush (synthetic) and a coating rod. I am perhaps doing things incorrectly, but with the brush I have the sensitizer in a small cup, pour it over the paper and try to spread it as quickly as possible, with a light touch. From the pouring I get an area that has much more sensitizer in the image.

With the coating rod, I put the sensitizer right in front of the coating rod, with the help of a dropper, and then try to spread it out, with the result that I get more solution where I start and much less where I end, and often streaks of paper white. I can't remember it being so hard to avoid that the solution just drops into the paper and "disappears".

If I understand it correctly, this paper is not designed for watercolor so it may have a different sizing profile (probably only internally sized but not surface sized,) making it much more hydrophilic than a typical gelatin-sized watercolor paper would be. If you are using tween-20, that might exacerbate it as well. Higher humidity in the paper would do the same thing. You could try heat-drying the paper just before coating. Or you can try sizing it with gelatin + hardener - a little messy. Other thing I have experimented myself is make the sensitizer solution more concentrated (hence more viscous) from the typical 15-17.5% of the classic formula to, say, 20-25%. This has its own problems so it is a delicate balance to strike.

:Niranjan.

 

[fgorga]

I have tried both with a brush (synthetic) and a coating rod. I am perhaps doing things incorrectly, but with the brush I have the sensitizer in a small cup, pour it over the paper and try to spread it as quickly as possible, with a light touch. From the pouring I get an area that has much more sensitizer in the image.

With the coating rod, I put the sensitizer right in front of the coating rod, with the help of a dropper, and then try to spread it out, with the result that I get more solution where I start and much less where I end, and often streaks of paper white. I can't remember it being so hard to avoid that the solution just drops into the paper and "disappears".

I guess that Johannot is sized differently than the more usual papers and is thus more absorbent.

I put sensitizer is a small dish, dip the brush into the liquid and paint it on as you would watercolors. The brush is dipped multiple times to coat the paper.

I own a coating rod, but do not use it for cyanotype as the sensitizer is not expensive.

 

[Jerevan]

Thanks for the suggestions! I hope I am able to get a few pieces of paper coated during the next few days. I was thinking of getting the Hake brushes out, the ones I bought 15+ years ago and never used.

 

[Jerevan]

@fgorga - do you do double coated cyanotypes or just a single layer?

My first impressions using the hake brush, putting the paper on a tile and taping it down makes for a less stressful experience. I am now able to keep the paper from getting too soaked. I'll report back on the Johannot within a few days.

 

[fgorga]

@fgorga - do you do double coated cyanotypes or just a single layer?

My first impressions using the hake brush, putting the paper on a tile and taping it down makes for a less stressful experience. I am now able to keep the paper from getting too soaked. I'll report back on the Johannot within a few days.

Glad to hear that you are making progress!

I single coat all paper, including Johannot.

 

[Jerevan]

Glad to hear that you are making progress!

Indeed did I make some good progress, made a few prints (4x5 and 6x12) yesterday on Johannot, and on the Awagami Masa.

The Johannot I managed to coat on the "wrong" non-smooth side (looks like a weave pattern) and at first I was thinking there was something up with the sensitizer since the print looks sort of grainy. Works fine but I need to back off a bit on the amount of solution brushed on. Very bright paper base. Holds up well in water.

The Awagami Masa (86 gsm weight) was easy to coat, keeps flat. Good wet strength up to 8x10 size, but probably works for bigger print sizes. Dries quickly after being wet, not much curling. I'd say its finish (more off-white, satin) and its weight makes for a "non-technical" paper, i.e. it may not show very fine details. Very pleasing to the eye, soft shadows. At less than half the price of the Johannot, it is worth trying.

In short, both papers work well (at least my batches) are worth exploring. Eventually I am going to do a few Van Dyke prints on the Masa, but that's for the future.

I'll keep you posted on the progress and show some examples when I have gotten them a bit more under control.

 

[fgorga]

Indeed did I make some good progress, made a few prints (4x5 and 6x12) yesterday on Johannot, and on the Awagami Masa..

Glad to hear it.

As for the "graininess"... it may just come with the territory of a textured paper.

Here are a few scans of one of my images on Johannot... the foggy background clearly shows some grain, which in this case (I think) adds to the print by proving a bit of interest in an area otherwise devoid of detail.

All three of these 4x5 inch prints are nominally the same exposure. The third was toned with tannic acid and ammonia.

I'll keep you posted on the progress and show some examples when I have gotten them a bit more under control.

Please do! I look forward to seeing your prints.

 

[Jerevan]

Yes, I see the same graininess on my prints (and I suppose it is somewhat exaggerated through scanning). Good to know that the sensitizer isn't to blame. I'll see if I am able to get some more results this week.

 

[Sara S'Jegers]

I love printing cyanotypes on Bristol paper. I am afraid it will not stand the test of time though... Could anyone recommend a better quality paper that is just as smooth? I also love that cyanotypes on Bristol tend to be more 'bright' blue, whereas on Arches paper the blue becomes more 'dull' somehow... Any other thoughts on the archival quality of Bristol paper appreciated...

 

[fgorga]

Sara,

I'm no expert but I do have some thoughts!

First off, I think that you are right to be suspect of the archivalmess of bristol board. I suspect that most of bristol board sold is made with relatively cheap pulp which is not archival.

In my view, if a paper does not say that it is made from alpha-cellulose or from cotton (rag) then your can be pretty sure that it is made from pulp containing lignin and therefore it is not particularly archival even if it is labeled "acid free". Paper made from lignin free pulp is a selling point and manufactures never forget to mention this in their descriptions. Thus if a papers description doesn't say it is made from alpha-cellulose or cotton (rag) then it is not likely archival. The only cotton (rag) bristol board I know of is Strathmore's Series 500.

An additional factor against the archival-ness of bristol board is the fact that it is made by gluing sheets of thinner material together. The glue used is an unknown in terms of archival-ness.

Also an unknown factor related to archivalness is the likely presence optical brightening agents (OBAs) in most (all?) bristol board. OBAs are compounds added to paper to make them appear very bright white. These compounds decay under exposure to light causing paper containing them to yellow over time. Thus papers containing OBAs are not considered archival. I imagine, but do not really know, that the difference in the blue tones you note are related to the difference in the "paper white" between bristol containing OBAs and a good paper such as Arches which does not contain OBAs.

As for other smooth papers to try, I would take a look at the many hot pressed watercolor papers available. They are all pretty smooth although many (especially the cotton papers) have much softer surfaces than bristol board. In general papers of the same weight made from trees (both cheap sulfite pulp and alpha-cellulose) will feel somewhat stiffer than cotton papers. You can get some watercolor papers in very heavy weights if you are interested in replicating the "heft" of bristol board.

Specifically, you might take a look at Fabriano Studio hot press watercolor paper it is a mixture of alpha-cellulose and cotton and has a very smooth, fairly hard surface, not unlike bristol board. It comes in both 200 gsm and 300 gsm and is very reasonably priced. I get mine from these folks... https://www.acuitypapers.com/Studio-Watercolor-p/119-0670.htm (no connection to these folks other than as a satisfied customer).

Additionally, you might take a look at the papers designed specifically for platinum printing... Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag, Bergger COT and Arches Platine. These papers are all quite smooth, 100% cotton and fairly heavy. They are not inexpensive though!

One last paper to consider is Cranes 90 LB cover (wove), again very smooth with a fairly hard surface. The natural white is fairly warm but OBA-free. This is a fairly hard paper to find, but it works well for alt process printing.

Hope this helps!

 

[JBrunner]

Arches Platine
Bleached in sodium carbonate
Toned back in winemakers tannin

My favorite paper for alt anything

 

[nmp]

View attachment 266169

Arches Platine
Bleached in sodium carbonate
Toned back in winemakers tannin

My favorite paper for alt anything

Wow...that's a wonderful image....thanks for sharing.

:Niranjan.

 

[nmp]

Sara,

I'm no expert but I do have some thoughts!

First off, I think that you are right to be suspect of the archivalmess of bristol board. I suspect that most of bristol board sold is made with relatively cheap pulp which is not archival.

In my view, if a paper does not say that it is made from alpha-cellulose or from cotton (rag) then your can be pretty sure that it is made from pulp containing lignin and therefore it is not particularly archival even if it is labeled "acid free". Paper made from lignin free pulp is a selling point and manufactures never forget to mention this in their descriptions. Thus if a papers description doesn't say it is made from alpha-cellulose or cotton (rag) then it is not likely archival. The only cotton (rag) bristol board I know of is Strathmore's Series 500.

An additional factor against the archival-ness of bristol board is the fact that it is made by gluing sheets of thinner material together. The glue used is an unknown in terms of archival-ness.

Also an unknown factor related to archivalness is the likely presence optical brightening agents (OBAs) in most (all?) bristol board. OBAs are compounds added to paper to make them appear very bright white. These compounds decay under exposure to light causing paper containing them to yellow over time. Thus papers containing OBAs are not considered archival. I imagine, but do not really know, that the difference in the blue tones you note are related to the difference in the "paper white" between bristol containing OBAs and a good paper such as Arches which does not contain OBAs.

As for other smooth papers to try, I would take a look at the many hot pressed watercolor papers available. They are all pretty smooth although many (especially the cotton papers) have much softer surfaces than bristol board. In general papers of the same weight made from trees (both cheap sulfite pulp and alpha-cellulose) will feel somewhat stiffer than cotton papers. You can get some watercolor papers in very heavy weights if you are interested in replicating the "heft" of bristol board.

Specifically, you might take a look at Fabriano Studio hot press watercolor paper it is a mixture of alpha-cellulose and cotton and has a very smooth, fairly hard surface, not unlike bristol board. It comes in both 200 gsm and 300 gsm and is very reasonably priced. I get mine from these folks... https://www.acuitypapers.com/Studio-Watercolor-p/119-0670.htm (no connection to these folks other than as a satisfied customer).

Additionally, you might take a look at the papers designed specifically for platinum printing... Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag, Bergger COT and Arches Platine. These papers are all quite smooth, 100% cotton and fairly heavy. They are not inexpensive though!

One last paper to consider is Cranes 90 LB cover (wove), again very smooth with a fairly hard surface. The natural white is fairly warm but OBA-free. This is a fairly hard paper to find, but it works well for alt process printing.

Hope this helps!

Nice primer on bristol boards...I always wondered what the difference was from regular watercolor papers.

Regarding speciality papers, I don't see Revere Platinum being mentioned too much. There were some good reviews earlier. I saw some cyanos printed on them in a gallery that made me want to try. They are not widely available, may be that's why. Any experience with them?

:Niranjan.

 

[fgorga]

View attachment 266169

Arches Platine
Bleached in sodium carbonate
Toned back in winemakers tannin

My favorite paper for alt anything

Beautiful!

And I agree Arches Platine is a very nice paper.

 

[fgorga]

Nice primer on bristol boards...I always wondered what the difference was from regular watercolor papers.

Regarding speciality papers, I don't see Revere Platinum being mentioned too much. There were some good reviews earlier. I saw some cyanos printed on them in a gallery that made me want to try. They are not widely available, may be that's why. Any experience with them?

:Niranjan.

Niranjan,

I have never tried Revere Platinium. As you say, it is a bit difficult to get hold of.

I'll have to look into it more... no promises though... too many papers, too little time!

 

[Sara S'Jegers]

Thank you so much @fgorga for your elaborate reply! All of what you wrote is really very helpful for me at this point!

As for Bristol paper, I have been using the Strathmore 300 Series (the yellow pads), which probably has brighteners in it, but thank you so much for telling me about the 500 Series! The Strathmore website says that it is 100% cotton.

And thanks @JBrunner for suggesting Arches Platine! I'll go ahead and try out a bunch of different papers, to have a better idea going forward...

Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

PS My work is here: www.sarasjegers.com // insta: sara_sjegers