The negative

[Pkarmatic]

Hi all!

I am getting ready to dive into cyanotype and Van Dyke processes. I've been reading and gathering information on every aspect, but the one area that still has me confused is the negative.

I've read some use digital prints on transparency paper, but can you create a negative in photoshop and print it on matte paper or photopaper and get good results? Also, when putting the negative on the treated paper in the contact frame, what is the correct placement? Treated paper-then negative (face down or face up)...towards glass?

Appreciate all thoughts and comments!

J~

 

[removedacct1]

Ideally, you want to create a negative by printing the image on Pictorico film. The process is well-documented if you do a web search for Cyanotype negatives and Pictorico.

Start with this, perhaps?
http://faculty.cooper.edu/willia/pages/digital_negatives-compilation.html

 

[removed account4]

Hi all!

I am getting ready to dive into cyanotype and Van Dyke processes. I've been reading and gathering information on every aspect, but the one area that still has me confused is the negative.

I've read some use digital prints on transparency paper, but can you create a negative in photoshop and print it on matte paper or photopaper and get good results? Also, when putting the negative on the treated paper in the contact frame, what is the correct placement? Treated paper-then negative (face down or face up)...towards glass?

Appreciate all thoughts and comments!

J~

hi pkarmatic

i have gotten OK results for printing cyanotype negatives on xerox paper, never done VDB
i followed the instructions made by someone on flickr
https://www.flickr.com/groups/61907246@N00/discuss/72157624882653671/

the link i included has a set of videos that show how its done.

with regards to placement ...
flip your negative when you print it ( using whatever negative you want )

i uploaded a cyanotype i made this way ... its printed on something about 8x10
the colors aren't blue because i bleachback and paint my cyanotypes.
i can't remember the time it took to expose, it was winter and there was a lot of reflected UV from
the snow on a sunny day ... i've printed a lot of things this way as a cyanotype using paper negatives

++ added later ++

i have also made hand coated paper negatives ( on something like butcher's paper )
using liquid emulsion, and coating it the same way with wax. i'd suggest RC paper too but sometimes
it takes too long for the light to pass through ( even waxed ) rc paper and some have writing on the reverse
and there are very few if any sw fiber papers around and regular weight fiber paper waxes easy,
but still is thick, maybe will take a long time to make a cyanotype &c.
to get a paper negative you enlarge to whatever size you want and make a
print ( positive ), and make a contact print of that image onto a 2nd sheet of paper, like you would with film
making a contact sheet. you can get both sheets of paper wet put them together and squeegee the water out of them on a
piece of glass to assure a tight seal ... waxing the paper makes a little more see-through to transmit light
but it isn't necessary in the darkroom unless you just want to do it ...
butcher's paper is thin, coats easy and waxes easy and doesn't curl but any photo paper will do, and can be turned into a negative easily
and printed through as a cyanotype if you don't want to deal with a xerox machine or any other modern technology ....

good luck !

 

[Pkarmatic]

Thank you both! I'll check out your links!

 

[nsurit]

Some books you may find helpful: "The Book of Alternative Processes" Christopher James now in the third edition," Jill Enfield's Guide to Photoographic Alternative Processes", "Gum Printing and other amazing contact printing processes" Christina Anderson.

 

[removedacct1]

+1 on the Christopher James book!

 

[MDR]

Since this is Apug and not DPUG or the Hybrid Forum I have to mention that you can also create an enlarged negative or use an in camera negative to create cyanotypes. You can create negatives suitable for silver Gelatine printing and alt process printing by developing them in Pyrocat or some other pyro developer. Making a paper negative is another possibility and usually cheaper than using film just takes a lot longer to expose. The Christopher James book is superb and always a good choice for beginners. If you absolutely must use a digital neg you can find some curves for photoshop and or Gimp on the alternativephotography Website www.alternativephotography.com. They have also tested several papers on their usefulness for the cyanotype process the test can be found on the site. The curves should be tweaked to your workflow.

Good Luck

 

[Pkarmatic]

Nice... Christopher James' book is exactly what I'm looking for.. now to find a copy less than $60! lol
Thanks again!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This is not the forum for discussing the process of making digital negatives. That said, the process of exposing them is identical. Inside the contact printing frame, you'll build a sandwich with the glass on top, then the negative, emulsion down, then the sensitized paper, emulsion up, then the pressure plate at the bottom of the frame. See the attached diagram-

 

[nsurit]

James third edition available first week of February. $66. http://www.amazon.com/Book-Alternat...he+book+of+alternative+photographic+processes

I have the first two and look forward to getting the third edition in February. Bill Barber

 

[Pkarmatic]

This is not the forum for discussing the process of making digital negatives. That said,

Sorry if it was OT but isnt the negative a big part of contact printing?

the process of exposing them is identical. Inside the contact printing frame, you'll build a sandwich with the glass on top, then the negative, emulsion down, then the sensitized paper, emulsion up, then the pressure plate at the bottom of the frame. See the attached diagram-

Thank you for this info!

 

[Pkarmatic]

James third edition available first week of February. $66. http://www.amazon.com/Book-Alternat...he+book+of+alternative+photographic+processes

I have the first two and look forward to getting the third edition in February. Bill Barber

Thank you! I think I'll hold out for this edition! Cheers!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Sorry if it was OT but isnt the negative a big part of contact printing?

A negative is a very big part of contact printing. Making digital negatives is off-topic here at APUG. Over on DPUG/Hybridphoto or on any number of other sites like Unblinking Eye or Alternativephotography.com, it's a perfectly legitimate topic. APUG can seem like a bit of a purist's haven for insisting on a strict no-digital policy, but APUG is perhaps the only website devoted to purely analog photographic discussion. Allowing discussions of digital negative making, while seemingly benign, leads to a slippery slope of analog vs. digital arguments and soon you end up with a polarized, inhospitable community. APUG is all about being supportive and encouraging of analog photography, not digital-bashing, not D vs. A arguments, or any other generally negative (pardon the pun) attitude.

I know that making digitally enlarged negatives may be the only way for some folks to participate in the alternative process world - they don't have darkroom space, or they don't have an enlarger, or they don't have the budget for shooting in-camera original large or ultra-large format negatives. Feel free to ask questions about the alt processes themselves, or the mechanics of making an alt process print. But there are plenty of places to ask questions about making digital negatives (which is a subset of inkjet printing, which is off-topic on APUG).

On another note, welcome to the forum, please stick around, read, and participate!

 

[pdeeh]

Allowing discussions of digital negative making, while seemingly benign, leads to a slippery slope of analog vs. digital arguments and soon you end up with a polarized, inhospitable community. APUG is all about being supportive and encouraging of analog photography, not digital-bashing, not D vs. A arguments, or any other generally negative (pardon the pun) attitude.

the inhospitable polarised parts of the community seem perfectly capable of maintaining a high level of anti-digital-everything threads (including digital photographers) full of divisiveness and contempt without anyone posting a word about digital negatives.

the community would be a lot nicer if as much effort was given to treading on anti-digital ranting as to that given to keeping non-purely-analogue threads policed.

 

[Pkarmatic]

Making digital negatives is off-topic here at APUG.

I didn't ask HOW to make a digital negative... I asked about the type of paper and the outcome: "I've read some use digital prints on transparency paper, but can you create a negative in photoshop and print it on matte paper or photopaper and get good results?" I thank those who have answered my question...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I didn't ask HOW to make a digital negative... I asked about the type of paper and the outcome: "I've read some use digital prints on transparency paper, but can you create a negative in photoshop and print it on matte paper or photopaper and get good results? "

That's still part of HOW to make a digital negative. But as I said, welcome to the forum. I'm not trying to be hostile or rude here, just gently explaining the rules.

As a general principle, going all the way back to the first ever negatives (which were made on paper sensitized with silver salts), paper negatives are not as sharp as negatives on a transparent base. You need a pretty transparent paper to make a negative, and even then, the fibers of the paper used for the negative show in the final print (if you ever get a chance to see exhibits of photos taken in the 1840s-1850s, mostly by English photographers, you'll see pretty clear examples of this). Look at a Henry Fox-Talbot photo and compare it to a wet-plate collodion image printed on albumen paper.

I've never tried using modern inkjet paper for a negative substrate, but I would suspect it to be a poor medium because the paper is too heavy and opaque. IF it worked, it would be a very very long exposure, which would cause other problems, like reciprocity failure in the alt-process emulsion and/or drying of the emulsion to the point of losing contrast and/or sensitivity (many if not all alt-process emulsions are humidity sensitive, and will degrade in undesirable ways when they dry out).

 

[Pkarmatic]

paper negatives are not as sharp as negatives on a transparent base.

Thats all I wanted to know.

 

[removedacct1]

A negative is a very big part of contact printing. Making digital negatives is off-topic here at APUG. Over on DPUG/Hybridphoto or on any number of other sites like Unblinking Eye or Alternativephotography.com, it's a perfectly legitimate topic. APUG can seem like a bit of a purist's haven for insisting on a strict no-digital policy, but APUG is perhaps the only website devoted to purely analog photographic discussion. Allowing discussions of digital negative making, while seemingly benign, leads to a slippery slope of analog vs. digital arguments and soon you end up with a polarized, inhospitable community. APUG is all about being supportive and encouraging of analog photography, not digital-bashing, not D vs. A arguments, or any other generally negative (pardon the pun) attitude.

I know that making digitally enlarged negatives may be the only way for some folks to participate in the alternative process world - they don't have darkroom space, or they don't have an enlarger, or they don't have the budget for shooting in-camera original large or ultra-large format negatives. Feel free to ask questions about the alt processes themselves, or the mechanics of making an alt process print. But there are plenty of places to ask questions about making digital negatives (which is a subset of inkjet printing, which is off-topic on APUG).

That makes me very sad.
I've been a darkroom image-maker since I was fourteen (IE: since 1973), working at that time in the family bathroom, washing my prints in the sink! From 1985 through 1997 I made my living as a B&W darkroom technician to support my own photography, but by 1997, having logged literally thousands of hours of darkroom time, I felt I had endured enough exposure to the chemistry and sold my equipment, opting to buy in to the "digital revolution". In 2011, however, I felt a growing dissatisfaction with the cold, "craftless" technology of digital cameras and started building new pinhole cameras (and bought a few as well!) and brought out my film cameras once again. It was like finding an old friend I hadn't seen in fifteen years and realizing I was still in love with this incomparable technology!

However, I still feel I must avoid the darkroom and its chemistry (I believe a person can tell when their body has had enough exposure to such things, and mine has had enough) so I have what you folks now call a "hybrid workflow" involving a scanner and inkjet printer. (Both very high quality, I assure you) So here I am - stuck in a kind of limbo between two worlds, feeling like I have to explain my choice of technologies, or - worse yet - explain why I am not "as pure" as some would choose to be. In short, I feel somewhat discriminated against.

I'm just expressing how I feel about the nature of the discussion regarding the technologies we use to make photos. I'm not asking anybody to change their minds about their choice of materials and methods. I'm not asking anyone to grant me special permission to discuss "off topic" practice. But I feel disappointment that there has to be such a clearly defined line drawn in the sand, and that participants have to be shown periodically where that line is.

I've only very recently come to APUG, having avoided the discussion forums because of the tendency for conversations on the Web to become adversarial and hyper-dramatized. Because of my reservations, I am hesitating at this very moment to even bother pressing the Submit button. I mean, you've probably all heard these things expressed a billion times already and are sick of hearing it. For that I apologize in advance. I believe my wealth of experience and skill set is potentially of value to a community like this. But if there isn't a place for me here, I 'd like to know that now.

 

[Sean]

Going to close this thread before it turns into a 30 page discussion of a topic that has been discussed here countless times already..