Why do so few people take part in the member organized functions?

[Don_ih]

Some peoples are very poor

That is a fact that can't be overcome. If you can't spend the money on it, and can't easily get a print made, even if you could spend the money, it's not the sort of thing that you could sign up for.

 

[Don_ih]

What happens after you send them around? Do people assess them, comment on them, critique?? Do they get posted electronically on the web here? (Where?) Have you thought of creating a tabletop photo book selecting a few photos from each photographer? That might be interesting. Offer it for sale - even more interesting.

There's no real critique. You acknowledge you receive the print (postcard or actual print) and maybe say something about it. "I like it" is about as much of an assessment you get. Or "I like the way the ____ is ____." They have not been posted on the forum (postcards or prints). I don't see any reason why they couldn't be - although you wouldn't want to upload someone else's photo. And I sent a different postcard to everyone, so that would've been a lot of photos to upload (some I don't have scanned).

I think the photo book is a different can of worms with a different range of problems and concerns.

 

[perkeleellinen]

A couple of times here we talked about an APUG photo book. I think what stopped progress was that some saw it as a community/hobby thing as others as a professional showcase.

I have come close to signing up to print exchanges a few times here but I've never been able to guarantee I can follow through with the work. It's time, really, and I hate letting people down so won't commit unless I'm absolutely sure I can do what I promise. I only get in the darkroom a couple of times a year at most presently.

 

[removed account4]

I did not like this process.

I thought the same thing about 15 years ago and since then, I have embraced it and it is one of my favorite processes! Making cyanotypes is the least expensive, kindest to the earth ( when you rinse the print after it is exposed only Iron is washed out ), it is child friendly, and about as archival as archival gets. ( and you can print on anything from glass to rocks to eggs to paper to cloth to ... )
I hate to be pushy , but you might try it, there are ways of removing the blue ( baking soda, ammonia, borax ) there are ways of making it a black and white print ( toning in print developer (DEKTOL) too, hand painting is ez too. I used to dislike the blue, but now I often use it as part of my color palette when I make images using the process .. you don't need many chemicals to make cyanotypes - just 2 and the "classic" formula invented by John Hershel works every bit as good as the new fangled ones (more chemicals more sophisticated) invented in the 20th Century... Intense sun where you live would make your exposures remarkably fast and beautiful, I know when I first did them in the summer sun of eastern France my exposures were like 20 seconds vs 20 mins where I live in Passwanquitte.
... AND, if you have a laser or ink jet printer, or a copy shop nearby that makes Xeroxes, and you have a cellphone that can take photographs, or a way to "import" images into a computer and "invert them" to be negatives you can make "hybrid negatives" using regular cheap thin Xerox / copy paper and a picture frame and it's glass to keep the negative flat .. no need to spend $$ on film and cameras and time and more $$ processing films. Personally, Im almost ready to give up the flock of enlargers and film cameras and just make cyanotypes for the rest of my life. LOL

im a sucker for fun and simplicity. of course your mileage may vary ...

 

[Don_ih]

I've never been able to guarantee I can follow through

You could use an existing print, though, if you have some.

@jnantz -- the cost of postage would be a problem for some, but, in the case of the blind print exchange, he would essentially get a print for the cost of postage to mail one.
Also - have you tried cyanotype chemistry mixed with gelatin? I'm thinking of trying that sometime.

 

[Dali]

I have come close to signing up to print exchanges a few times here but I've never been able to guarantee I can follow through with the work. It's time, really, and I hate letting people down so won't commit unless I'm absolutely sure I can do what I promise.

Here is an attitude that honors you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I did not like this process.

I never liked it either until I got into it. I use cyanotype as a base for gum overs. Printing wet cyanotypes are also pretty amazing. Don't knock it until you've really tried it.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Recently someone posted a cyanotype print from a paper negative on Facebook. He printed the digital negative on a 80g cheap printing paper and oiled the negative to make it a bit more transparent. Result was stunningly good and very inspiring. As @mohmad khatab does scan his 35mm negatives, he can perhaps try this cheap but effective way of making paper negatives and use them in cyanotype process.

 

[removed account4]

@jnantz -- the cost of postage would be a problem for some, but, in the case of the blind print exchange, he would essentially get a print for the cost of postage to mail one.
Also - have you tried cyanotype chemistry mixed with gelatin? I'm thinking of trying that sometime.

yeas! I love mixing cyanotype with gelatin. I use PE ( Ron Mowrey)'s recipe there is a magic % of gelatin which is 8%. ... (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/cyanotype-on-glass.20426/#post-283549 )
super easy lots of fun!

As @mohmad khatab does scan his 35mm negatives, he can perhaps try this cheap but effective way of making paper negatives and use them in cyanotype process.

exactly!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

yeas! I love mixing cyanotype with gelatin. I use PE ( Ron Mowrey)'s recipe there is a magic % of gelatin which is 8%. ... (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/cyanotype-on-glass.20426/#post-283549 )
super easy lots of fun!

Interesting! TFS. What is available in the name of Gelatin in my part of the world is either Agar Agar or Carrageenan. Do these substitutes or Gum Arabic work as well as Gelatin for Cyanotype or Cuprotype?

 

[MattKing]

Over the years I've received cyanotypes in the postcard exchange. I've also received just about everything else, including hand made colour prints, polaroid prints, polaroid transfers, instax prints, lith prints, kallitypes, carbon transfer prints (IIRC) and oodles of black and white contact prints and enlargements.
I tend to send black and white postcards that I've toned to taste.
Printing for a postcard exchange is a great way to learn about how to print consistently!

 

[mohmad khatab]

I thought the same thing about 15 years ago and since then, I have embraced it and it is one of my favorite processes! Making cyanotypes is the least expensive, kindest to the earth ( when you rinse the print after it is exposed only Iron is washed out ), it is child friendly, and about as archival as archival gets. ( and you can print on anything from glass to rocks to eggs to paper to cloth to ... )
I hate to be pushy , but you might try it, there are ways of removing the blue ( baking soda, ammonia, borax ) there are ways of making it a black and white print ( toning in print developer (DEKTOL) too, hand painting is ez too. I used to dislike the blue, but now I often use it as part of my color palette when I make images using the process .. you don't need many chemicals to make cyanotypes - just 2 and the "classic" formula invented by John Hershel works every bit as good as the new fangled ones (more chemicals more sophisticated) invented in the 20th Century... Intense sun where you live would make your exposures remarkably fast and beautiful, I know when I first did them in the summer sun of eastern France my exposures were like 20 seconds vs 20 mins where I live in Passwanquitte.
... AND, if you have a laser or ink jet printer, or a copy shop nearby that makes Xeroxes, and you have a cellphone that can take photographs, or a way to "import" images into a computer and "invert them" to be negatives you can make "hybrid negatives" using regular cheap thin Xerox / copy paper and a picture frame and it's glass to keep the negative flat .. no need to spend $$ on film and cameras and time and more $$ processing films. Personally, Im almost ready to give up the flock of enlargers and film cameras and just make cyanotypes for the rest of my life. LOL

im a sucker for fun and simplicity. of course your mileage may vary ...

I like your enthusiasm and your love for this fine art.
Please excuse me, I didn't mean to underestimate the value of this process.
All that matters is that I was and am still convinced that this process was based mainly on the existence of huge negatives measuring (8 x 10), and this is not available to me.
- Of course, there is an alternative trick to get out of this predicament, which is to print the negatives on a transparency sheet using a computer and an inkjet printer or the like.
But in fact, I am very convinced that the use of the computer and the inkjet printer in order to produce a large negativity so that there is an opportunity to use that negativity in printing Cyanotype, in fact all this story I see has lost the process the most important part of its philosophy,
It is unreasonable to have a socialist party calling for the sale of state-owned factories. This is not correct and I find it very surprising.

 

[removed account4]

Interesting! TFS. What is available in the name of Gelatin in my part of the world is either Agar Agar or Carrageenan. Do these substitutes or Gum Arabic work as well as Gelatin for Cyanotype or Cuprotype?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . I have no clue! I am sorry I can not be of more help!

I like your enthusiasm and your love for this fine art.
Please excuse me, I didn't mean to underestimate the value of this process.
All that matters is that I was and am still convinced that this process was based mainly on the existence of huge negatives measuring (8 x 10), and this is not available to me.
- Of course, there is an alternative trick to get out of this predicament, which is to print the negatives on a transparency sheet using a computer and an inkjet printer or the like.
But in fact, I am very convinced that the use of the computer and the inkjet printer in order to produce a large negativity so that there is an opportunity to use that negativity in printing Cyanotype, in fact all this story I see has lost the process the most important part of its philosophy,
It is unreasonable to have a socialist party calling for the sale of state-owned factories. This is not correct and I find it very surprising.

nooo. it is sad to think that alternative process images like cyanotypes have to be made from large negatives. But I can understand why you think that. when I was in school there was a great push to make photographs BIG. Truth be told, most of my prints, until my final thesis show, were small, maybe a 4x6 image printed on a 8x10 sheet. I am a big fan of small images, they are magical and precious; maybe I am showing my age, but wallet size photographs were wonderful, but truth be told no one has a wallet anymore! big images have their place too, and they can look beautiful and impressive as well, but one does not have to make big cyanotypes to enjoy the process
In fact, I am in the midst of creating a class to teach school aged kids how to make (small! ) cyanotypes from their favorite cellphone photographs .
I do not understand what you are saying in your final sentences, but I hope you purchase some Ferric Ammonium Citrate and Potassium Ferricyanide and give it a try, you might just fall in love with the process. PS. ( 6x6 negatives from grandpa's box camera or folding camera would make beautiful cyanotype images! )

 

[BrianShaw]

I’ve made some very successful cyanotypes as small as 6x6cm. Smaller than that doesn’t seem to work, though. Paper texture can become a distraction so at small sizes either hot- or cold-pressed seems to render best results. Although going through a bin of old photo gear the other day I was marveling at a 6x6 cyanotype on watercolor paper that I completely forgot about.

(I still carry a billfold and wear a wristwatch.).

 

[Don_ih]

I do not understand what you are saying in your final sentences

I believe @mohmad khatab is saying that taking a scan of a 35mm negative and using a computer and printer to make a transparency renders the process inauthentic - i.e., makes it a digital process. Well, it's at least kind of true - I can see why some people would be turned off by digital negatives.

But I have to say, it is a great deal easier to make a transparency enlargement digitally than it is with film. If you can manage to get a setup to copy using an 8x10 camera, that might be good. But enlarging to film is, well, a great way to ruin a lot of film. I have done it before, though. I made silkscreen positives on lith film (only ruined a few sheets). Those looked so much better than inkjet printed transparencies. The black of lith film is more impressive than inkjet black - at least the printers I've used.

Another way to make postcards would be to buy a pack of Ilford postcard paper, get a 4x6 frame, and make some lumen prints. You need fixer, too. No enlarger, though - just the good-old sun.

 

[MattKing]

Another way to make postcards would be to buy a pack of Ilford postcard paper, get a 4x6 frame, and make some lumen prints.

The Ilford Postcard paper itself is no more. You can still order 4x6 paper though. I just cut three 4x6 sheets out of a single 8x10, and use the bit left over for test strips (I've got a lot of test strip paper)

 

[Don_ih]

The Ilford Postcard paper itself is no more.

That's a darn shame.

 

[MattKing]

That's a darn shame.

Yes, but the back printing probably cost a relative fortune.
They may still have a template on the Ilford website for printing the back printing using an inkjet printer. I just use the mail merge function and a label template in my word processor.
The adhesive labels I use help make the cards more durable as they experience the travails of the postal services around the world.

 

[Don_ih]

The adhesive labels I use help make the cards more durable

I think everyone uses labels. Whenever you put postcards in the mail, you expect (at least a bit) that they'll never make it where they're supposed to go.

I have old postcard paper (as in, have no idea how old) that still works (when you have a grade 2 or 3 printable negative, which I have .8% of the time). That stuff is the old postcard size, which was 3.5x5.5, I think. I have a postcard camera, too, so maybe I'll try all that next time.

The postcard camera, incidentally, took blurry pictures because it was assembled wrong. There was a roll of film in the camera when I got it with only two images on it - both very out of focus. I imagine whoever owned it shot one roll, got the cards, looked at them, thought "this is junk", tossed it in the closet. It's focus scale was off by almost 3/8 of an inch - and that's where it was screwed down by the factory.

 

[mohmad khatab]

I believe @mohmad khatab is saying that taking a scan of a 35mm negative and using a computer and printer to make a transparency renders the process inauthentic - i.e., makes it a digital process. Well, it's at least kind of true - I can see why some people would be turned off by digital negatives.

But I have to say, it is a great deal easier to make a transparency enlargement digitally than it is with film. If you can manage to get a setup to copy using an 8x10 camera, that might be good. But enlarging to film is, well, a great way to ruin a lot of film. I have done it before, though. I made silkscreen positives on lith film (only ruined a few sheets). Those looked so much better than inkjet printed transparencies. The black of lith film is more impressive than inkjet black - at least the printers I've used.

Another way to make postcards would be to buy a pack of Ilford postcard paper, get a 4x6 frame, and make some lumen prints. You need fixer, too. No enlarger, though - just the good-old sun.

I totally respect your opinion.
But I find myself a man with a radical mindset when it comes to photography in particular.
This is how I am, and I really don't know if this is an advantage or a disadvantage.
I also categorically reject any modification to any image using Photoshop or any other computer application ((after scanning).
- I really have beliefs that seem very extreme in this context, and I do not find any opportunity for any solutions or compromises to circumvent those beliefs.
- I guess that these beliefs were built with me during the stages of upbringing and upbringing in childhood. I will give you an example.
Of course, everyone knows the Sphinx.
- When we went to visit and study this historical edifice on a primary school trip, I found that the statue's nose was broken, and when I asked the teacher, she said that the statue's nose was smashed on me by French artillery when Napoleon tried to invade Egypt,,
- I said to the teacher, why was that nose not repaired and another one installed?

The teacher said... By this, the statue will lose its most important characteristic, which is originality. If we do this, it will be a partial construction and a new modification that has been made to the body of the statue by a contemporary artist, while the statue belongs to a very old historical period and it is not permissible Making any modification to the body of the statue, except in cases of extreme necessity that may need to save the statue from collapse, for example, there was groundwater threatening the statue, and this problem was dealt with using highly advanced and modern methods and technologies, and Japanese universities were used, and so on And that problem was addressed.
- From that moment on, I completely believed that preserving authenticity is the supreme goal.
Some may disagree with me, I accept different points of view, there is no problem with that, and I respect everyone who disagrees with me, but these are my personal convictions and beliefs that I will not be able to get rid of.
Thank you

 

[BrianShaw]

Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face, Mo.

Being too rigid will eventually turn one into a process zealot at the expense of making good images.

 

[mohmad khatab]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . I have no clue! I am sorry I can not be of more help!


nooo. it is sad to think that alternative process images like cyanotypes have to be made from large negatives. But I can understand why you think that. when I was in school there was a great push to make photographs BIG. Truth be told, most of my prints, until my final thesis show, were small, maybe a 4x6 image printed on a 8x10 sheet. I am a big fan of small images, they are magical and precious; maybe I am showing my age, but wallet size photographs were wonderful, but truth be told no one has a wallet anymore! big images have their place too, and they can look beautiful and impressive as well, but one does not have to make big cyanotypes to enjoy the process
In fact, I am in the midst of creating a class to teach school aged kids how to make (small! ) cyanotypes from their favorite cellphone photographs .
I do not understand what you are saying in your final sentences, but I hope you purchase some Ferric Ammonium Citrate and Potassium Ferricyanide and give it a try, you might just fall in love with the process. PS. ( 6x6 negatives from grandpa's box camera or folding camera would make beautiful cyanotype images! )

Hello my dear brother ...
I'm sorry..maybe I misinterpreted the expression a little,,
I didn't mean that this process was devised to print only photos (8 x 10) -
I didn't mean that literally.
But it has been the norm that the pictures worthy of printing should be of a relatively large size, even if they are hung on any wall, they will be attractive to the eye, I did not understand that there are other uses for the printed picture other than hanging it on the wall, yes, you are right It can be a small size image and it can actually be exchanged and shared with others as souvenirs or the like,
Thank you for clarifying that wonderful idea that was missing from my mind.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I totally respect your opinion.
But I find myself a man with a radical mindset when it comes to photography in particular.
This is how I am, and I really don't know if this is an advantage or a disadvantage.
I also categorically reject any modification to any image using Photoshop or any other computer application ((after scanning).
- I really have beliefs that seem very extreme in this context, and I do not find any opportunity for any solutions or compromises to circumvent those beliefs.

On this we agree. I am against adding or deleting anything significant on the photograph. Dust removal or minor touch up is acceptable to me.

 

[removed account4]

I totally respect your opinion.
But I find myself a man with a radical mindset when it comes to photography in particular.
This is how I am, and I really don't know if this is an advantage or a disadvantage.
I also categorically reject any modification to any image using Photoshop or any other computer application ((after scanning).
- I really have beliefs that seem very extreme in this context, and I do not find any opportunity for any solutions or compromises to circumvent those beliefs.
- I guess that these beliefs were built with me during the stages of upbringing and upbringing in childhood. I will give you an example.
Of course, everyone knows the Sphinx.
- When we went to visit and study this historical edifice on a primary school trip, I found that the statue's nose was broken, and when I asked the teacher, she said that the statue's nose was smashed on me by French artillery when Napoleon tried to invade Egypt,,
- I said to the teacher, why was that nose not repaired and another one installed?

The teacher said... By this, the statue will lose its most important characteristic, which is originality. If we do this, it will be a partial construction and a new modification that has been made to the body of the statue by a contemporary artist, while the statue belongs to a very old historical period and it is not permissible Making any modification to the body of the statue, except in cases of extreme necessity that may need to save the statue from collapse, for example, there was groundwater threatening the statue, and this problem was dealt with using highly advanced and modern methods and technologies, and Japanese universities were used, and so on And that problem was addressed.
- From that moment on, I completely believed that preserving authenticity is the supreme goal.
Some may disagree with me, I accept different points of view, there is no problem with that, and I respect everyone who disagrees with me, but these are my personal convictions and beliefs that I will not be able to get rid of.
Thank you

hi again
I totally understand and respect where you are coming from. do you have a box camera or folding camera from the early 1900s ? they will make the perfect sized negatives for making cyanotypes if you ever venture to try this process.
While I understand and respect your opinion I do not see all photography as being a historic artifact. For decades I have worked as a documentary image maker who has photographed people, places and things for museums / archives / libraries. It shows reality, time and place, what is there, nothing else... what you propose is different, you suggests that your 35mm negatives should not be enlarged as prints? because inverting the print as a negative to be printed as a cyanotype is nothing more than enlarging the negative as you would enlarge your negative to make a print.
thanks
===

added soon after
===

sorry for our miscommunication and confusion! times like this I wish there was 1 common language all people speak

I think I understand what you believe .. "straight photography". " very little no manipulation to alter the image"

best
J

 

[Pioneer]

Wow. This has certainly stirred up the masses.

I decided to give it a try based on this thread but I certainly hope that no one is expecting a masterpiece. What I print is done for myself. I have been known to spend an entire day on one print but other times I make a print and go - "that's nice, I think I'll keep it." I am not sure I have ever produced a masterpiece and if I accidentally did so, and I recognized it as a masterpiece, I probably would not include it in the print exchange. Sorry.

But, all that said, I am actually looking forward to this. I have recently been working with Harman Direct Positive Paper so this is giving me a great excuse to get out and shoot more paper. One thing for sure, it is a bit hard to manipulate a Harman Direct Positive Print after it is made.

My only problem is that the darn stuff curls like crazy and I will need to find someone who will mount the print. I'm not too sure there is anyone around here who does this.