Which Alt process to choose?

[optique]

I am interested in trying out an alt process but I am confused as to which one to try. I have been reading from the book Historic Photographic Processes by R. Farber and enjoying it a lot.

I went to Amon Carter Museum in Ft Worth and saw Albumen and Platinum prints which looked very nice. I know I should spend more time looking at actual prints to learn what I like. I mean, why try a process if you don't like the look, right? Plus, I know one can not look at online galleries alone to pick the look you want, right?

Another problem I have is that I do not have a LF camera, only MF and 35mm. (I do see a 5x7 or 8x10 LF in my future, though.) I have some ideas of some shots whoose 6x7cm negatives when contact printed together would be nice. Maybe this will be enough of a start to see if I like it or not. Of course, I have no print frame, or UV source other than the sun, but I do have a darkroom (RC paper gelatin silver). At first I was interested in Bromoil for obvious reasons, but I think not, now. I would prefer to shy away from any process that requires more precaution than gloves and goggles. I also think I would like POP more than developing out but I am open to both.

I would be interested in hearing from any of you, what drew you to a particular alt process.

Please indicate which of these processes do you think is a suitable for a beginner.

Could you include comments on these processes as well:
Albumen-I really like the looks of these prints, but maybe another process is more appropriate to me?

Cyanotype-don't like the "blue" look, but I know it's cheap and easy.

VDB-I like the fact it's cheap to try, but I am not sure I like the "brown" tone. Is toning an option to get it more cool?

Palladium (ziatype)-I like the look of the few prints I have seen in person, and those in my book. I know Pt and ziatype is not cheap but I feel drawn to these.

I hope I have not been too rambling in this.

Have a great day and thanks in advance.
Steve.

ps
I love apug!

 

[ann]

altho you mention you don't care for cyanotype blue color, it is cheap and would be easy to learn coating techniques, that and vandyke prints can give you some experiences that will transfer over to the more expensive types of processes.

yes, you can change the tones of the vdb with toning, either gold or selenium.

jump in and have some fun.

and yes a larger negative would be wonderful, but i have seen some wonderful lovely prints made with using 120 film so i wouldn't let that stop me from trying out a process to see if i enjoy it.

alternative processes are slow by their nature, but that isn't all bad, as i find the rhythm very soothing and relaxing.

 

[Akki14]

VDB can be more neutral in tone, depending on toning I think. I've always wanted to try cyanotyping so that's what i started with, happy that it is cheap and cheerful; I'm still using the same chemicals I mixed up in April this year and I've coated hundreds of sheets. Cyanotype can be very picky about what paper you use, though, so in some ways it's not just a beginners medium, in my opinion. The one good thing is that you can be a little sloppy in your coating without too much worry there. You can tone Cyanotype with coffee or tea or tannic acid to make a more sepia&black picture.
Don't worry about the large format stuff, I've done medium format negs (from my Brownie No.2 box camera 6x9cm format) quite a lot. As you have a normal darkroom setup, you could always try your hand at enlarged negatives. Lith film is quite cheap in the US but since it's not very cheap here in the UK, I just go for extra blackouting and work in pure darkness with panchromatic 4x5 sheet film at the moment. It's a little fiddly, more so because I'm having a hard time getting good contrast than the working in the dark aspect, but it will get you there eventually.
I'm not quite sure where I'm going to go next as far as alt stuff but I'm looking into VDB, salt prints and albumen. That whole little family are quite similar as far as chemicals involved if you want to look into those.
Basically, go for what you want to try first. Albumen isn't as expensive as pt/pd so it's probably worth looking into just to learn coating and such. You might want to look into Kallitype too as that gives a Pt/Pd look but it's another silver-iron process so might be more affordable.

I ramble more than you Just get stuck in there, ask here as you run into troubles and we can help you learn from there. Don't do anything you don't want to.

(example of medium format grouping of cyanotype toned in coffee and an example of enlarged negative cyanotype attached)

 

[walter23]

I second the idea that you start with cyanotype and van dyke. I still haven't got past that stage yet (though I've got some materials on order for a very different process). The experience is invaluable and much cheaper than anything else. I got my supplies from Bostick & Sullivan - they were offering a combined Cyanotype & Van Dyke kit with pre-mixed solutions and paper samples that were very useful (you don't lose any experience by getting the pre-mixed solutions, assuming you're smart enough to measure out some powder and dissolve it in water ). One of the things I think it's important to learn is contrast control on your negatives. After a few van dykes & cyanotypes you'll get a feel for what you need to be doing in camera and during development to get the right kind of negative for these processes. It would be a shame to waste exhorbitantly expensive platinum / palladium salts on these initial trials, and I think you'll be shocked by just how much contrast you need in your negative to get suitable results!

BTW, that "very different process" I'm talking about is bromoil. I accidentally ran into a book on it and I'm fascinated by the possibilities of the process. While there is kind of a standard "look" to it, if you look through enough people's portfolios you'll realize that there is actually a lot of variability possible - it's a pretty flexible medium. Oh, and it doesn't require UV or contact printing - you start with an ordinary enlarged silver-gelatin print!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd NOT start with Albumen or salt, because their coating method is quite different. Cyanotype and VDB are easy starters because they're relatively cheap, but if you think you have an interest in platinum/palladium, I'd say just dive right in. The cost will seem high up front, but once you get a basic handle on the methods, the cost is actually quite reasonable per print. Plus, you'll find once you get a handle on the process that your first print is usually right on, and rarely will you need a second. All these processes will require that you make negatives tuned to that process - a good negative for an albumen print is a terrible negative for cyanotype, and a good platinum neg is a mediocre VDB neg. The Farber book will give you some pointers in that direction, but I recommend getting some of the specific publications aimed at just one process to learn more about the requirements.

 

[JBrunner]

I recommend cyanotype, cheap and easy. As mentioned, some papers don't like it, but it isn't that hard to research. Seeing as you don't like prussian blue, it should be pointed out that a cyanotype needn't be blue. You can bleach the print in diluted household ammonia and then tone it with a variety of things, tea being one example. Cyanotypes treated in such a manner can be quite elegant.

You can see a larger version of the thumb, read about the process, and follow links to more detailed information from this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Vaughn]

I suggest you start with carbon printing, that way you'll give up any further ideas of doing any alternative process again (just joking, of course!)

I'll second the ideas of cyanotype (toned if you don't like the blue) and Van Dyke -- but also with flyingcamera's suggestion of diving into palladium printing (using the kit from B&S). Look through your negatives for nice beefy ones that have too much contrast to easily print with regular silver gelatin paper...they'll be the ones easiest to print with palladium (and prpbably the van Dyke process, also). Even still, it might be good to try cyanotype first, just to get use to coating and handling the paper.

Vaughn

 

[walter23]

Make sure you have the right paper for the process, whatever you choose. You can likely find this out from Bostick & Sullivan or ask here. Using the wrong paper is a disaster. I've tried a lot of likely seeming papers from local stores and none of them have worked except for some kind of Arches Hot Pressed paper I found. Bostick & Sullivan has a nice variety of papers and textures that work for different processes.

 

[roy]

Cyanotype is a good route to go down initially. I did not even worry about an image made in camera to start with as I laid an object on a piece of sensitised paper and exposed it to light. This works well with foliage like a fern and is known as a photogram. I had a dislike of the colour and that prevented me from making more. Since then however, I do not find the colour so out of place for certain subjects and I am looking at the possibility of trying to print in a more subtle shade of blue. I have never related to landscapes in that colour. It is a relatively easy process and I know of teachers who find the process suitable for teaching children to make images.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Whatever process you decide to play with, call Bostick & Sullivan, and spend some time on the phone with them. They're extremely helpful, and more than willing to talk you through any issues you might have, from paper selection (another vote here for yes, this is critical to enjoying whatever process you print with!) to chemistry to process controls.

Another process control not mentioned nearly as often as it should be is humidity. It's something we take so totally for granted when printing silver, that is we never think about it at all. Having proper humidity for your paper, wether it is platinum, van dyke, salt or albumen is important. Alt processes don't like dry paper. As a general rule, dry paper does two things - extends (exponentially) your exposure times, and kills your contrast.

 

[gandolfi]

"At first I was interested in Bromoil for obvious reasons, but I think not, now. I would prefer to shy away from any process that requires more precaution than gloves and goggles."
well - you don't need anything else... Just normal precaution and the urge to try it out.. (Addictive, mind you!)

I'll not mention the cyanotype.. (I think I already did..) . but you can alter the tones a lot, if you don't like the blue..

If you would explore something totally non toxic, then look at photopolymer gravure... (or solar plates, I think some call it)

 

[optique]

cyanotype and vdb kit from bostick?

I really appreciate the replies! This is what makes apug so great.

Ok, due to popular demand, I am thinking about Cyanotype and VDB from a Bostick kit at http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/product.php?productid=691&cat=52&page=1 which is only $38 or so. What do you think about this kit?

I think I will eventually get to pt/pd, but I will try the coffee/tea staining first on cyanotype, then maybe selenium on vdb later.

How about this paper? Crane Kid finish white 32lb at http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/product.php?productid=487&cat=25&page=1

What is the consensus on brush vs rod for coating paper? Appears the rod is a lot cheaper than the magic brush at least. The brush method seems more intuitive though.

Now about the split back printing frame. I know it makes it easy to monitor POP progress and maintain registration, but the frame is over $100. Would the glass plate route be good enough? Or, is it a losing battle to maintain registration?

Again, thanks for replies.
Steve.

 

[bruce terry]

Steve, you'll not regret springing for a decent oversized POP frame. You're headed into contact LF in the same manner I was nine years back – I can smell it!

If you end up experimenting with zias – often rewarding, often frustrating – I'd be happy to exchange PMs with you anytime.

BTW, 8x10 is very sensible, what I easily went straight into from 35mm. 5x7 though, is more 'sensual', a very sweet format for 'small' contacts, and an easier 'carry' when hunting. Truth be told, I've often wished I went that route.

Just my thoughts.

 

[photomc]

Steve, I can only relate my own journey and what I would do the same and what I would different. I started with POP Palladium prints (Ziatypes) using 4x5 negatives - not a bad start. Then went to experiment with VDB (the kit from B&S was a great way to start along with the article over on Unblikingeye. Toned the VDB in some LiPd to see how I like that process then went headlong into DOP Plt/Pld.

What I learned (and this is just how things worked for me) is this - the DOP (read traditional) Plt/Pld were much easier for me. I love the colors possible with Ziatypes, but not the control issues. You can get those same colors using a mix of LiPd, CSPd and a mix of developers - Potassium Oxalate (warm or room temp changes the color). I would recommend picking up the Sullivan and Weese Plt/Pld book, as well as Chris James and Dick Arentz books. I used both a coating rod and brush (started with a 1 1/2inch "magic" brush) the brush works better for how I coat - the rod works for others. Buy the best paper you can afford, this again is a personal preference. If a new split back frame is out of reach, look for a used one on the auction site, they can often times be picked up for much less than a new one.

As Bruce mentioned above, a 5x7 negative is really nice - I still have and shoot with 5x7 and went to a 7x11 camera in place of 8x10 because of the ratio - again it fits how I see.

You really do not have to spend a lot to get started, and try to add a little of the extra stuff as you go on. I started off using the sun to print with, then built my own UV box (that really made life much easier - Hey I could print after the sun went down and it was much more consistent).

What ever you decide, have fun.

 

[walter23]

1. Great kit.

2. Crane kid finish works. My favorite is bergger cot 320 (tough, thick, expensive) for cyanotypes, and some of the fine textured arches stuff for van dyke. The hand made japanese paper looks really nice with cyanotype too. There are lots of papers I haven't tried though.

3. Brush, and you can just buy a $1 crappy one from an art store. Get something wide (2" at least). I've never had much trouble getting nice coatings; there are many other variables to make your life miserable!

4. The printing frames are probably very nice but I've just been using glass plates and doing a couple of text exposures to get my final exposure down.

I really appreciate the replies! This is what makes apug so great.

Ok, due to popular demand, I am thinking about Cyanotype and VDB from a Bostick kit at http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/product.php?productid=691&cat=52&page=1 which is only $38 or so. What do you think about this kit?

I think I will eventually get to pt/pd, but I will try the coffee/tea staining first on cyanotype, then maybe selenium on vdb later.

How about this paper? Crane Kid finish white 32lb at http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/product.php?productid=487&cat=25&page=1

What is the consensus on brush vs rod for coating paper? Appears the rod is a lot cheaper than the magic brush at least. The brush method seems more intuitive though.

Now about the split back printing frame. I know it makes it easy to monitor POP progress and maintain registration, but the frame is over $100. Would the glass plate route be good enough? Or, is it a losing battle to maintain registration?

Again, thanks for replies.
Steve.

 

[optique]

1. Great kit.

2. Crane kid finish works. My favorite is bergger cot 320 (tough, thick, expensive) for cyanotypes, and some of the fine textured arches stuff for van dyke. The hand made japanese paper looks really nice with cyanotype too. There are lots of papers I haven't tried though.

3. Brush, and you can just buy a $1 crappy one from an art store. Get something wide (2" at least). I've never had much trouble getting nice coatings; there are many other variables to make your life miserable!

4. The printing frames are probably very nice but I've just been using glass plates and doing a couple of text exposures to get my final exposure down.

Walter, what is your advice about where to get the glass plates? I know I don't want UV glass!

thanks.
Steve.

 

[Vaughn]

Just get regular 1/8" plate glass from your local glass shop -- have them sand the edges (safer to handle and less likely to crack)

Vaughn

 

[walter23]

IAt first I was interested in Bromoil for obvious reasons, but I think not, now. I would prefer to shy away from any process that requires more precaution than gloves and goggles. I also think I would like POP more than developing out but I am open to both.

A lot of processes have their nasty chemicals. Silver Nitrate (albumen, salt prints, van dyke, kallitype, others) is poisonous, as is the potassium oxalate used in platinum/palladium.

Dichromate is pretty damned bad because it's also got that annoying cancer risk associated with it, but you can work with it if you're careful.

 

[walter23]

Walter, what is your advice about where to get the glass plates? I know I don't want UV glass!

thanks.
Steve.

I just pulled apart a $2.00 8x10 clip-mount photo frame from a crappy photo store.

 

[JBrunner]

I just pulled apart a $2.00 8x10 clip-mount photo frame from a crappy photo store.

If you want thicker (heavier) glass, you can get any size custom cut in varying thickness at a glass shop. Look in the phone book under glass. Ask them to sand the edges. Pretty economical too.

Or buy a springback frame. As said before, you will never regret it.

 

[Akki14]

If you've only got medium format negs to start with, you can find vintage medium format-sized splitback printing frames on ebay pretty easily and cheaply. I have a small stockpile of them around, even one that easily takes cheap postcard paper (so about 3x5inch ish) which is actually a nice format for 6x9cm negs. The only problem is you tend to need to cut your negatives up into individual frames to use these frames which I didn't find to be a problem with 6x9 but it might be more of a problem with 6x6 or 6x7. Some frames do allow you to leave a "tail" of negative, though.

I use a wide hake brush for my cyanotype coatings. The fancy brushes are less of an issue with the cheaper alt processes... you want a fancy brush (or coating rod) when you get into pt/pd because you don't want to leave any precious metals stuck in your brush! It's more of an economy issue than a coating issue usually.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

There is a qualitative difference with the Richeson "magic brush" brushes. They do something to the bristles that make them smoother than any other brush. They form a better edge when wet, and they are less abrasive to the paper and emulsion. That difference is worth the extra money.

 

[Ian Leake]

The brush quality is important if you're using an expensive process. Hake brushes can shed like a moulting dog, but they're cheap. The Richeson brushes are extremely good as Scott said, and although they're expensive they'll save you money in the long run. Oh, and don't use the same brush for two processes

 

[Ian Leake]

I forgot to add that for those of us in the UK who may balk at the thought of importing Richeson brushes, I think the blue handled "Cotman" Winsor & Newton wash brush is just as good.

 

[walter23]

Hmm, never thought about the economy issue. I can see using coating rods or non-shedding, less-absorbent brushes for Pt/Pd now that you mention it. For cyanotype or van dyke I don't care if I lose a few drops of solution when coating up my papers. As for the brush shedding, I haven't had much trouble with my cheap brushes though I do lose the odd bristle (which I can usually brush off or otherwise remove without incident).