• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

The Ferroblend Process

How lightsensitiv is this ferrolbland?

I wonder how light-sensitive this method is? More so than cyanotype methods (traditional and new)?

Is an in-camera application conceivable?
 
Theodor Bader said:
How lightsensitiv is this ferrolbland?

I wonder how light-sensitive this method is? More so than cyanotype methods (traditional and new)?

Is an in-camera application conceivable?
Click to expand...

The inventor of the process @Raghu Kuvempunagar would be able to answer this better than me...but even if you could do it, why would you want a ferroblend negative?
 
Theodor Bader said:
How lightsensitiv is this ferrolbland?

I wonder how light-sensitive this method is? More so than cyanotype methods (traditional and new)?
Click to expand...

In the same ball park as Cyanotype.


Theodor Bader said:
Is an in-camera application conceivable?
Click to expand...

No, at least as far as I can see. For FerroBlend, Ferricyanide needs to be present in the sensitiser which invariably slows down the exposure. Even Cyanotype isn't really useful for in-camera application unless one keeps Ferricyanide out from the sensitiser (as done in Cyano-Rex type processes).
 
Thanks for your answers!

The idea of using cyano-blend comes from me and my Facebook page "The Fascination of Black and White Negatives," which so far only shows black and white negatives. I myself only have one in-camera cyanotype print so far.
 
Following Andrew's video, I've made several ferroblend prints. I get the best results using ink jet paper, where the shadows remain blue and the midtones & highlights go copper. Results on all sorts of watercolor paper have been generally poor and very inconsistent. My biggest issue is fog. Areas that should be white (where no exposure took place) are copper colored, creating an effect that looks similar to making a cyanotype on colored paper.
 

Which ink jet paper? It never crossed my mind to use inkjet paper...
 
jmoche said:
I get the best results using ink jet paper, where the shadows remain blue and the midtones & highlights go copper.
Click to expand...

Congratulations!


Watercolour papers in general contain Calcium Carbonate, an alkaline material, as the buffer for archival purposes and this unfortunately interferes with all iron-based printing processes. In the specific case of FerroBlend, complexation of Cupric ions in the developer is critically dependent on pH. Presence of Calcium Carbonate in the paper affects complexation and results in general stain. For the developer to work as intended, the paper must be free of buffer. That's why it is best to neutralise the buffer in watercolour papers with either Sulphamic Acid or Citric Acid before using the paper for FerroBlend (or any other iron-based process).

Inkjet papers might or might not be buffered. But they have a coating for better ink absorption. No idea if this coating is helping in your case.
 
Well, this Epson watercolour inkjet paper I just tried doesn't have a coating...I just tried it and the sensitiser went right through it. Luckily I had more than enough sensitiser to cover the negative area. It worked well, but tone is much more subtle compared to other papers that I use. I only let it develope for a minute. Maybe next time I'll let it sit there longer.
A note about Copper Sulphate... Be careful where you source it. Do not get it from Amazon. It's poor quality...at least the product that I got is. Get lab grade.
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
Well, this Epson watercolour inkjet paper I just tried doesn't have a coating...I just tried it and the sensitiser went right through it. Luckily I had more than enough sensitiser to cover the negative area.
Click to expand...

What you observed is the feature of inkjet papers. They have an inkjet coating that is microporous for faster absorption of ink. The only inkjet coating formula I have used myself is dated and is a mix of Polyvinyl Alcohol and Laponite JS. Techonlogy has advanced rapidly but all use some or the other kind of silica like material. That's why inkjet papers absorb liquids fast and require more sensitiser than general watercolour papers.

Andrew O'Neill said:
It worked well, but tone is much more subtle compared to other papers that I use. I only let it develope for a minute. Maybe next time I'll let it sit there longer.
Click to expand...

Nice!

Andrew O'Neill said:
A note about Copper Sulphate... Be careful where you source it. Do not get it from Amazon. It's poor quality...at least the product that I got is. Get lab grade.
Click to expand...

+1
 
...and humidity. If my darkroom goes beyond 65RH, my Ferroblends fail miserably. When that happens, I fire up the dehumidifier, and Bob's your uncle!
 

Thank You for Your advice and information.
I 'll repeat some cyanotypes on watercolour papers. Now with a Citric Acid bath before. Starting with a 3% solution and a pH controll of the bath. Do You have other experiences?
 

I ran some of my watercolor paper through a citric acid bath. I'll give those a try this Thursday night at school. I can't really get any information about one of the inkjet papers I'm using (Kodak Professional glossy), but I verified with the manufacturer of the other two (Red River and Arista) that they do not contain any buffers.
 

Thanks for the warning on the copper sulfate. I just happened to have a pound of lab grade left over from when I taught science. I didn't know that there were any uncoated papers sold for use on inkjet printers. I go through a lot of Red River Aurora Natural which is probably the closest thing to watercolor paper I've ever run through my printer, but it does have a coating.
 

If the papers you're using are not buffered, I think they should be good to use though I am not very sure about the interaction, if any, between the coating and photochemistry. I have used only watercolour papers, marker papers, and bond papers for making FerroBlend prints.
 
Here are a couple from my experimenting session 2 weeks ago. The theater is printed on Red River metallic gloss inkjet paper. The shot of Bayeux, France is on some noname brand of watercolor paper that I acidified in citric acid.
 
Thanks for posting these.

I assume that the neutralisation of the buffer in the watercolour paper was carried out till the paper stopped fizzing and also that the acidified paper was rinsed in normal water to remove residual acid.

The theater print seems to have blue vertical streaks. Any idea when exactly in the process they appeared?

I would suggest consider switching to an economical paper that's known to work well. For example, Canson XL, the one that Andrew uses.
 

Yes, the watercolor paper sat in the citric acid for a few minutes after the bubbling stopped and was washed in running tap water for 10-15 minutes. Unlike the previous week when the coating was going blue prior to exposure, the acidified paper had a lemon yellow emulsion prior to exposure. That theater image is one that I use frequently to evaluate papers for cyanotype use. I have one negative that's curved for cyanotype and a second that's curved for kallitype (based on Andrew's vido comment that suggests a kallitype curve works well for ferroblend.) The blue streaks occur after I brush on the developer. I think it's a matter of technique, since I've produced some prints where my application of developer was clearly incomplete. I've also been hitting the prints with a citric acid clearing bath about a minute after brushing on the developer, so I might be rushing that part of the process. I do have a small supply of Canson XL that I used last Thursday. I'll pick them up from school sometime next week and post some samples here. Thanks, Raghu, and everyone else who is part of this thread. You're all both helpful and inspiring.
 

I treated my watercolor paper with a 3% citric acid solution for about an hour. The pH value rose from 2.78 to 3.50. The paper only fizzed very slightly. So my question is, what percentage citric acid solution did you use?

It's possible I just got lucky buying a generic brand.
 

I used 5%. Total time of the paper in the acid was no more than 5 minutes.
 
Two steps forward, one step back... I'm still experimenting with ferroblend. On Canson XL watercolor paper, precoating with ammonium chloride does not seem to have much of an effect. Precoating the Red River metallic inkjet paper causes some mottling. It is very hard to get an even coating of emulsion on this paper. It's a shame, because the paper produces a really nice dual-toned print. While is is not as obvious in these scans as it is in the original print, the development seems quite uneven. I have to assume that it's poor brushing technique. Has anyone tried developing in a tray and, if so, can you run multple prints through the developer?

Prints are as follows:
#1 - Canson XL precoated with ammonium chloride.
#2 - Red River Metallic precoated with ammonium chloride.
#3 - Canson XL no precoat.
#4 - Red River Metallic no precoat.
#5 - Red River Metallic no precoat.
#6 - Canson XL no precoat.

 
Tray processing works fine but requires considerably greater volume of developer than brush development. Use at least 50 ml of developer and rock the tray continously to to move the developer around. The developer can't be reused after one or two uses due to Copper Ferrocyanide building up in it. One shot development should be fine.

Your results are very nice and I must say the #4 (Red River Metallic no precoat_ looks quite artistic to me. Thanks for sharing.
 

Thanks! The chemicals are cheap enough to use them one shot. I think I'll use the brush method and, when I find a print that looks particularly good with ferroblend, make a second copy and tray develop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register