RC Paper negative to Cyanotype print

Heyo!
Has anyone tried printing cyanotypes from paper negatives? As you might have seen in other forums, I've recently dominated the paper negative process with the expectation that I could print on cyanotype rather than another sheet of silver gelatin paper.
My experience so far was that my highlights weren't clear. There was a significant highlight staining even when the sensitizer was new and the paper was tediously kept from light before and after exposure. I tried underexposing, but the detail got lost and the staining didn't go away, so I realized my negative shouldn't be blocking uv light correctly.
I made a "test", I placed my negative on a window, looking at the image through the paper base and blocked light on the highlights with my finger. I could then appreciate that the density doesn't block light completely. Is there a get-around for this?
Thanks.

It might be possible to raise contrast by toning or bleach/redevelop intensification. You could also gain some UV density by developing or redeveloping in a staining developer like ABC Pyro or Pyrocat.

Máx Arnold said:

Heyo!
I made a "test", I placed my negative on a window, looking at the image through the paper base and blocked light on the highlights with my finger. I could then appreciate that the density doesn't block light completely. Is there a get-around for this?
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Might not be the best way to check the density. You are looking at the visible light whereas the process uses only the UV.

How about over-developing the negative?

Increasing the contrast of your sensitizer? Some people use dichromate. Or if you use the "Simple Cyanotype" sensitizer, it has a way to dial up/down the contrast by using different quantities of ammonia.

I am assuming you are not using acidic wash water - plain water will give whiter whites. Perhaps you can play with longer wash times and see the highlights get clearer. Of course, this will be at the cost of reducing the Dmax. Same can be sped-up with a dilute/weak bleach bath. I have tried 1% sodium bicarboanate in a short experiment - what I found was it did clean up the highlights but also lightened the mid-tones (even more substantially) and shadows stayed more or less the same. Could be something worth a try.

:Niranjan.

hi max

I have been making cyanotypes from paper negatives for a few years, not rc paper regular photo paper ( double weight ) but sometimes single weight azo paper .. I tend to wax the paper with paraffin on the stove ( super easy not messy ). It works pretty well. I also use crappy computer paper ( read cheap and thin ) that I make a inverted ink jet print on, and I have gone to the Xerox shop and gotten cheap xeroxes on similar paper ...
works great !

also works OK for salt prints, albumen, and gum prints... ( and printing onto azo and. traditional photo paper )
have fun !
John

Very, very interesting ideas...
Donald is right into the use of Pyro Developers, though I'm not ready for trying new chemicals yet... I first need to get my hands on some FB paper (Or what is called regular).
nmp gave an interesting advice as well. Although my cyanotype formula is quite different from the classic one, I'll try my hand at ammonia, which I could (finally and thankfully) find at my local supermarket. I may add one or two drops and see what happens...

jnantz said:

I also use crappy computer paper ( read cheap and thin ) that I make a inverted ink jet print on, and I have gone to the Xerox shop and gotten cheap xeroxes on similar paper

Click to expand...

jnantz, I have thought of this for a while now. It'd be interesting to make a xerox copy of the original negative, but the problem is that the quality of the image gets reduced: contrast increases, gran increases, detail gets lost sometimes... The thing is that, if this is desirable or the photographer, then it's all good. (But I'm still deciding if I want it.. I might say yes, but I have to try it to be able to tell...) What's also interesting is that most photocopiers can amplify the image in question. This is normally used in my country for when copies of identity documents are made, so that they can be read more easily. I'm normally shooting negatives of a size of 4cm x 4cm (around 1.5in x 1.5in), which is quite tiny, so it'd be interesting to get them a little bit bigger.

Thank you all, Max.

There is a spray "TRANSPARENT 21" from Kontakt Chemie see which does the trick...after drying paper has no stains.

From Kontakt Chemie there is a other spray, too: Positiv 20 a "Liquid photo-positive resist based on o-naphto-chinon-diazide and Novolack, used in the production of printed circuit boards." https://www.tme.eu/Document/b7a6a16ed14d2aa6149ed9a14fb1b03d/TKC3 POSITIV20.DTE.PDF
Used it for etching a copper plate with a picture: https://illumina-chemie.de/viewtopic.php?p=78127#p78127

bj68

Máx Arnold said:

I tried underexposing, but the detail got lost and the staining didn't go away

Click to expand...

This sounds like you're having trouble with the sensitizer interacting with substances in the paper, causing fogging. Try a different paper for the cyanotypes. Are you using the New Cyanotype formula of Mike Ware, or the classic formula? They have totally different requirements in terms of negative contrast/scale and the New Cyanotype variant is also much more fussy in terms of the paper it will work with.

I'm not an expert by any means on this subject, but the first thing that came into my mind was to do what many do when making positives from paper negatives, and that is to use a soft pencil on the back of the negative, to add a bit more depth to the highlights and block them out a bit more on the final cyanotype.

Would this work, or is this too easy an approach that can be dismissed straight away?

Terry S

koraks said:

This sounds like you're having trouble with the sensitizer interacting with substances in the paper, causing fogging. Try a different paper for the cyanotypes. Are you using the New Cyanotype formula of Mike Ware, or the classic formula? They have totally different requirements in terms of negative contrast/scale and the New Cyanotype variant is also much more fussy in terms of the paper it will work with.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to bring that up myself. Easy to check if this is due to inherent property of the paper interacting with sensitizer and not lack of negative density - coat, dry, let it sit for the time it would take for a typical exposure and then develop normally. Less than ideal paper will result in a blue stain. Alternately, expose thru the paper negative with a portion of the print covered with an opaque material (like aluminum foil, my favorite) and develop. Stain on covered portion means the problem is not because of lack of UV density in the negative.

:Niranjan.

Máx Arnold said:

jnantz, I have thought of this for a while now. It'd be interesting to make a xerox copy of the original negative, but the problem is that the quality of the image gets reduced: contrast increases, gran increases, detail gets lost sometimes... The thing is that, if this is desirable or the photographer, then it's all good. (But I'm still deciding if I want it.. I might say yes, but I have to try it to be able to tell...) What's also interesting is that most photocopiers can amplify the image in question. This is normally used in my country for when copies of identity documents are made, so that they can be read more easily. I'm normally shooting negatives of a size of 4cm x 4cm (around 1.5in x 1.5in), which is quite tiny, so it'd be interesting to get them a little bit bigger.

Click to expand...

Hi Max Arnold
What I have done (and still do) is make a very good scan using a nice scanner ( mine is 15 years old but still nice ) I do all my adjustments so the image looks beautiful, then I make it b/w ( if it was color ) and invert it, save it is a jpeg and have the copy shop make a print from it. I've done large and small images this way, ( large being like a huge files ( close to 6 feet tall ) cut into 8x11 Xerox pages ). I've made contact prints on photo paper in the sun ( black and white paper ) cyanotypes and other alt process images. the Xerox copy does not look too different than an ink just print, and you can also have it printed on overhead projector film if you want to bypass the paper. where I live ( use ) Xerox copies are like 15¢ each and a 8x10 Xerox OHP film is 80¢, not sure about where you live, but it is a small investment to see how it works. super ez to coat with paraffin too... and paraffin costs like $4 at the grocery store.

goodluck !
John

Hello.
You've all been very nice and helpful. But I think the problem I'm having is another.
I made some prints utilizing xerox copies from negatives and it worked farewell. It is just that the problem is not that the negatvie's density is not enough, but rather that it doesn't matter what I do my highlights aren't clear.
I think this might be fogging on my sensitizer or a weir reaction by the developer, so we might be out of luck. BUT, I've read all your advice and I'm going to try all of them, maybe it works.

Regards,
Max.

Hi again Max
I have been thinking of your paper negative>cyanotype project
Do you have a way to buy or have shipped to you liquid emulsion? I know you were thinking of making your own but pre-made works great too ( and sometimes a wicked-deal sold "expired/clearance" through places like freestyle off their website! ) ... the light farm has great tutorials that show how easy it is to coat paper with emulsion, and once you start, well. ...
You can coat a thin sheet of paper with emulsion and make your interpolative ( rc paper > hand coated photo paper ) with that. you will see rich details &c. THEN, make your contact print onto your cyanotype coated material. some thin papers, if they are waxed ( like some thin Japanese papers, or even cheap tracing paper ) turn clear as glass when waxed, so you only have the image on it and it looks like FILM .. THEN you can make your contact print with that. I have found that conventional photo paper is sometimes too thick and dense, and blocks too much light to be quick and fun for cyanotypes. Some folks have had good experiences peeling the emulsion off of the backing of RC paper, but I found that to be difficult and a real chore ( and I was never able to do it well ). Another thing you might attempt is getting sheets of Litho Film from Photo Warehouse ( ultra fine ). and making an internegative on that. It is able to be developed in conventional film developer to give a tonal ( not high contrast litho ) negative ( I wouldn't have believe it if I hadn't seen it myself because I always heard of people's struggles using it in camera and developing in print developer with all sorts of restrainers to reduce fog &c ) but it might be a simple, and inexpensive way to transfer a print you like from paper, contact print it on litho and use that as your internegative.

have fun !
John

Jnantz, you're full of ideas!
Of course, making an emulsion by myself is such a difficult thing (because of the equipment needed) that I'd prefer to buy a pre-made one instead, at least for the first time. Some people suggest Liquid Light, other say the Foma liquid emulsion is good enough given it's price. I think this is farewell!
I haven't tried to see if the people on these lovely stores could ship overseas because I have this (hopefully wrong) idea that they won't. But I think it is worth trying.
Nevertheless, my photography has taken another approach. I personally like RC paper a lot and it is good enough for what I do. I don't have a need, yet, to coat paper or film myself. When the time arrives, I'll be ready, though.
The problem I had with highlights in cyanotype was a matter of proportion between the sensitizer and developer, as Niranjan Patel (user nmp) helped me devise, or rather discovered, on a separate thread. We could have never EVER imagined! haha
I'm taking your advice, and I really appreciate it.

hi max,
thanks ! yea I fool around sometimes and have fun. I don't use special equipment just what I have handy.
I'm glad you were able to figure things out with your cyanotype, they are so much fun, im surprised its legal
glad you're having fun, that's what its all about
John