- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,300
- Format
- 35mm RF
You mean aesthetically or chemically?
Great cyanos by the way....love the curvy shadow.
:Niranjan.
Hi, awty:
Is that like the parchment paper as it is known in the US. At least the one I have is very non-absorbent to water (I think it is silicone coated.) Is yours similar and if so, did you have to do anythig to make the paper take the sensitizer well? Also is it translucent enough for the gold foil to come through or did you have to apply some wax or similar to make it more so?
:Niranjan.
@awty is this the same as your grease proof paper? Without the printing, of course.
Hi, you need semi transparent paper that will hold the emulsion. This was done a few years ago and from memory most wont. I think I found a cheap paper that kinda worked. You cant size it cause it goes all crinkly. The next thing is that you dont want it falling apart when washing, so be careful. Once processed, you need to apply gilding glue to the back and apply the gold leaf. Then iron it flat, then spray the front with varnish. The process is a PITA, but cheap to do if you have the time and patience.
Thanks..
I knew they all used silver but didn't know why they were different. I did a dive last night so now I know the sensitizers are different. I guess the only real way to know is to buy some chems and have at it.
Hi, awty:
Is that like the parchment paper as it is known in the US. At least the one I have is very non-absorbent to water (I think it is silicone coated.) Is yours similar and if so, did you have to do anythig to make the paper take the sensitizer well? Also is it translucent enough for the gold foil to come through or did you have to apply some wax or similar to make it more so?
:Niranjan.
I'm not sure what paper awty is using, but I've done gold leaf on vellum before.
View attachment 347961
Vandyke Brown.
8x10 contact print on cotton rag.
Orbit 8x10 camera, Linhof 210mm lens. orange filter.
rollie 100 iso. pyro hd 2+2+100
Not sure why but this last batch of cyanotypes I did turned out meh. I think I added too much LFN or something. Dmax was terrible. Then the toning just dulled them right out which was odd too. Oh well. Onwards and backwards I guess. I think I'll try some cuprotypes this weekend. Or maybe some gumovers.
On Canson XL Bristol.
View attachment 348534
Not sure why but this last batch of cyanotypes I did turned out meh. I think I added too much LFN or something. Dmax was terrible. Then the toning just dulled them right out which was odd too. Oh well. Onwards and backwards I guess. I think I'll try some cuprotypes this weekend. Or maybe some gumovers.
On Canson XL Bristol.
View attachment 348534
Despite your complaints I liked this print a lot - what did you tone it with? Interesting - I was also doing some cyanotypes after a couple of weeks layoff. While mine were generally OK, my Dmax seems to have dropped off compared to past prints. My chemicals were only a about 2 months old - don't think that contributed. Perhaps I need more solution - was using about 3 ml per 8.5x11 on Arches WC. BTW what is LFN?
Thanks for posting
Dave
David Najewicz Photography
All Images © David Najewicz 2010-2022, all rights reserveddavidnajewiczphotography.tumblr.com
Gave cuprotypes a try over the weekend thanks to the easy peasy instructions that Frank wrote (https://www.alternativephotography.com/cuprotype-process/). It took me a while to wrap my head around the aesthetics of them but I redid some negs and eventually ended up with this. It is a 30 minute exposure through a neg that if it was suntan lotion would be rated at spf10000. Then toned in Ferri and citric acid. I'm satisfied with it for a first go.
View attachment 348781
Not sure why but this last batch of cyanotypes I did turned out meh. I think I added too much LFN or something. Dmax was terrible. Then the toning just dulled them right out which was odd too. Oh well. Onwards and backwards I guess. I think I'll try some cuprotypes this weekend. Or maybe some gumovers.
On Canson XL Bristol.
View attachment 348534
Very nice... especially for an early attempt.
And yes, the aesthetics (pinkish highlights and red-brown hue) don't work with every image but they do work well for some, including this one.
I am about to revisit the iron toning described in my article. It gives a really nice blue-black tone that is a generally more useful color for many images. I really just barely scratched the surface of this toning method previously.
Interestingly, I think that I recently found what is probably the first reference to the iron toner in a 1894 article by J. Vincent Elsden in "The British Journal of Photography" (p 249). There is not any real detail (as is often the case with old articles) but it clearly refers to toning cuprotype with a mixture of ferrous sulfate and ferric chloride.
Very nice... especially for an early attempt.
And yes, the aesthetics (pinkish highlights and red-brown hue) don't work with every image but they do work well for some, including this one.
I am about to revisit the iron toning described in my article. It gives a really nice blue-black tone that is a generally more useful color for many images. I really just barely scratched the surface of this toning method previously.
Interestingly, I think that I recently found what is probably the first reference to the iron toner in a 1894 article by J. Vincent Elsden in "The British Journal of Photography" (p 249). There is not any real detail (as is often the case with old articles) but it clearly refers to toning cuprotype with a mixture of ferrous sulfate and ferric chloride.
I can see that working pretty well for some images, good for you!Gave cuprotypes a try over the weekend thanks to the easy peasy instructions that Frank wrote...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?