Real Cyanotype in-camera photographs!!!

[crystalclear]

I know most people think its either impossible or highly impractical due to extreme exposure times, but I did find one person who has successfully produced cyanotype photgraphs with a camera. Most are full day exposures, but they are interesting.

Heres the link!

http://www.tompolk.com/hobbies/cyanotype/cyanotype.html


CrystalClear

 

[removed account4]

hi

i think they are what he suggests.
they are not traditional cyanotypes,
but they seem to be sun print-prints.

very nice indeed!

john

 

[Vaughn]

There is a process, recently 'rediscovered" by Terry King of the Royal Photography Society that is actually fast enough for in-camera use (and not the 3+ hour exposures the fellow above is using.) One has to order the CD from King to get the how-to, but from what I have read, it involves coating the paper with the Ferric ammonium citrate, then exposing in-camera, and then developing the latent image in the Potassium ferricyanide...or something along those lines.

The process is called Cyanotype Rex.

Vaughn

 

[crystalclear]

Heres another photographer who is using a similar cyanotype technique with a camera to produce negatives. One of the secrets of the process is to use a fast lense that doesn't block UV. In this case, a magnifying lense. Check it out.

http://www.dianaludwig.com/studio/cyano-john.html#cameras


CrystalClear

 

[keithwms]

CC, this is somewhat off topic, but I made an instant polaroid quasi-cyanotype by mistake once, I think part of the pod didn't rupture on development and the result was an image with something like cyanotype tonality, but very sharp. I've been meaning to try it again.

 

[Schlapp]

There is a flickr group for this but what puts me off bothering is that the final print would inkjet or similar. Surely?

 

[Akki14]

If you can get it to work via the rather obscure "pellet process" cyanotype process, you can produce direct positives. I think the pellet process is slightly more toxic in chemicals but I've forgotten exactly what it is now...

 

[crystalclear]

I've heard that you can produce positives by simply putting two cyanotypes face two face in a contact print. I'm not sure if that'll ruin the original negative though. Anyone ever try that?

Crystalclear

 

[crystalclear]

keithwms,

How would you go about reproducing the result? You would almost have to do it by hand, right? Sounds interesting. To bad the exposure times are so long, otherwise, with a few modifications, you could use cyanotype paper in your polaroid camera. I'm planning on building a completely homemade camera with magnifying lense to test the whole in-camera concept. I'm not expecting much detail, but the negatives I've seen other people make have an almost erie artistic quality to them. If I can get any results, later on I might actually try hacking a polaroid. Probably an old super shooter or big swinger. Might be worth a try now that it seems no one is going to produce film for these cameras.

CrystalClear

 

[keithwms]

CC this is the result I got last time I saw this effect. Haven't tried to refine it. If it appeals then I could think about how to do it reproducibly. Probably just a matter of snipping off part of the developing goo pod or short-developing or developing cold. Something like that. You could probably just slap a cyan filter over the lens and shoot straight polaroid and get the same effect.

But... what would we call it? A cyanoroid?

Keith

 

[crystalclear]

Cyanoroid, hmmmm. Maybe. Or maybe, Polatype. I wonder what would happen if you coated the actual polaroid film with the cyanotype emulsion before exposure. Would it interfere with the process or would it come out with a blue tint? Of course, it might not have enough time in the exposure to change, plus you might still have to rinse it which wouldn't be good for the polaroid. The color definitely gives your photo a nice aged look.

CrystalClear

 

[crystalclear]

And yet another link. This one is an entire gallery of photos taken with cyanotype camera techique. Most are very reminicient of the earliest known photo by Joseph Nicephore Niepce.

http://www.dianaludwig.com/photo/cyano.html

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=115508



CrystalClear

 

[crystalclear]

Heres my first cyanotype image. It was taken with a homemade camera looking out of a second story window of my house. The exposure was one hour, although I'm sure it could have used a much long exposure. The image shows how under exposed it is. You can make out the outline of trees on the right hand side and the light area that was open to the sky. I scanned the the negative, created a positive, and then did a little contrast enhancement. Its actually two images. I only have 4x4 inch sunprint paper so I had to use two. The lens for my camera is a magnifying glass. Its difficult to focus, so I'm not expecting any sharp images with this camera. I already have a better one on the drawing board.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=vxuubsge0wn&thumb=4

CrystalClear

 

[keithwms]

CC, that's very cool, keep it up!

Why not just make a pinhole cyanocamera? I mean, it's not a very sharp medium anyway and a pinhole might give you more UV exposure.

 

[crystalclear]

Thanks for the complement!

Everything that I've heard about pinhole cameras involving cyanotype is that they take extreme long exposures. That doesn't mean I won't try though. Another thing to do is build a camera thats sized right for my 4x4 paper. I'm going to do one more exposure today. This time for about three or four hours.

CrystalClear

 

[crystalclear]

Well, my last attempt for the day failed. I sat the camera outside and pointed it at the back of my house. The sun shines on that part of the house most of the afternoon. I left it out for about 4 hours. Only thing that developed was a few tiny purple blotches. The whole sheet was still blue. Only thing I can think of is that maybe the sun shined right into the lens at some point and exposed the entire sheet. I'm gonna build a camera specifically for my 4x4 paper tomorrow. I'm gonna need a smaller magnifier though. My current lens is 3 and 1/2 inches in diameter. Its probably too big. I bet its not focusing very well in such a small area. The makeshift camera I'm using is 11" deep so I bet the focal length is way off. I'm happy that my first picture produced results though.

CrystalClear

 

[crystalclear]

Well, I was surprised to find out today that my negatives from yesterday actually showed twice as much contrast as yesterday. I do remember reading somewhere that the constrast would get higher if they were left in a dark place but I didn't expect as much as I got. I'm posting a picture of the two photos to compare them. The first one had to be contrast enhanced to the point where the image was completely black and white in order to show the treeline. The second image is a scan of the same negative today. It didn't take near as much enhancing to get the picture, plus you can see a few other areas where the light is shining thru the trees that didn't even show up yesterday. A photo that I took of my house yesterday should almost nothing when I scanned it the first time. But when I scanned it again today, the contrast was high enough where I could just make out the siding and roof line. You have to really look for it though. My lens must be super slow. I'm guessing that it would take a few day exposure to show anything of detail. In the meantime, I'll be looking for a faster lens. Anybody know what I should be looking for? I need a fast lens with no UV coating.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=0yjxmcdtjbi&thumb=4

CrystalClear

 

[movieperson44]

my first in camera negative

I took this about a week ago in 2 hours of full sun & I shaded my lens. I was quite surprised at the detail.

 

[bjorke]

The lighting is the coolest part of these -- three hour (or all day) exposures given them a sensability that is surprisingly like the first photos. It's an aspect of those processes that I hadn't thought of before -- exposures long enough that the sun moves a lot.

 

[Steve Smith]

It's an aspect of those processes that I hadn't thought of before -- exposures long enough that the sun moves a lot.

There was an article in one of the UK photo magazines a few years ago about a photographer who set up pinhole cameras (around New York I think) which were fitted with very dark neutral density filters which allowed him to expose over several weeks/months.

Due to the changing position of the Sun relative to the Earth over this time, the Sun appeared as a series of overlapping curved lines almost totally covering the sky area.



Steve.

 

[Akki14]

Solargraphy http://www.alternativephotography.com/articles/art108.html

There was an article in one of the UK photo magazines a few years ago about a photographer who set up pinhole cameras (around New York I think) which were fitted with very dark neutral density filters which allowed him to expose over several weeks/months.

Due to the changing position of the Sun relative to the Earth over this time, the Sun appeared as a series of overlapping curved lines almost totally covering the sky area.





Steve.