YES!!! I DID IT!!! Cyanotype Success!!!

[ChristopherCoy]

I thought my previous CT was a success, and it some form it was. However, I continued to get more and more frustrated trying to get good tonality in my cyanotypes. Add to that a pack of nearly wasted and very expensive Bergger paper, I was ready to cut ties with this process and try something else. After all, that is my nature - when something gets complicated, abandon it for something easier. But I stuck with it. I wrote my frustrations down in my journal, and spent a few days thinking about it.

After deciding to stick with it no matter what, I did some research and reading online. I found Mrhar's website and read about printing negatives in the best UV blocking color. So that's just what I did. I printed his color blocker, scanned it, and ran the analyzer. Turns out my negatives are better at blocking UV when their a funky, nearly lime green color.

Additionally, thanks to Christina Anderson, I found a cheaper alternative for experimentation, which I think I actually like better than Bergger. The Canson XL Bristol Recycled is about $9 a pack for 25 sheets, holds up to multiple baths, and prints a deeper blue than Bergger. It will be my paper of choice for the foreseeable future. As well, I found that applying the coating with a glass rod is much better than a foam brush.

I told a friends last night via email that if feelings were fireworks, I'm sure all of you could see them from here. I was incredibly excited to knock this print out. The first test left a little too much to be desired in the highlights, so I fogged this paper for about a minute before laying down the negative. To say that I am THRILLED with the results is an understatement.

I'll be attempting this one again later today and trying to tweak a few things that I think could be improved, but I am simply overjoyed with this result.

And the icing on the cake is that I didn't need any ChartThrob curves, or anything.

 

[removed account4]

beautiful photograph ! and great story about problem solving and having a blast
can't wait to see how far down the road (or should I say out to sea . ) you travel with this fun process
John

 

[glbeas]

Well done and thanks for the lead on the paper!

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Kudo’s!

 

[Máx Arnold]

Awesome! Congratulations!
It's always good to see some good experiences in problem solving. The "Aha!" moments never stop being good!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hard work and determination paid off! I'm not familiar with this paper as I've always used acidified Stonehenge, and Hahnemuhle platinum rag (awesome paper!). Have you tried acidifying your paper?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Hard work and determination paid off! I'm not familiar with this paper as I've always used acidified Stonehenge, and Hahnemuhle platinum rag (awesome paper!). Have you tried acidifying your paper?

I haven’t but it’s on the experimentation list. I have to research it first.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I haven’t but it’s on the experimentation list. I have to research it first.

Citric acid, vinegar, and my favourite, sulfamic acid 10%.

 

[fgorga]

Hard work and determination paid off! I'm not familiar with this paper as I've always used acidified Stonehenge, and Hahnemuhle platinum rag (awesome paper!). Have you tried acidifying your paper?

Andrew,

Have you done a direct comparison of Stonehenge with and without acidification?

If you have I'd be interested in the results.

I use Stonehenge Warm and Light as my standard cyanotype paper without pretreatment. I do, however, develop cyanotypes with 25% vinegar. I'm pretty satisfied with the results but always looking to get better!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew,

Have you done a direct comparison of Stonehenge with and without acidification?

If you have I'd be interested in the results.

I use Stonehenge Warm and Light as my standard cyanotype paper without pretreatment. I do, however, develop cyanotypes with 25% vinegar. I'm pretty satisfied with the results but always looking to get better!

Yes, I did...years ago. Stonehenge is unusable unless acidified, at least in my experience. Non-acidified is anemic and spotty. I prefer the heavier papers like Arches Platine, or Hahnemuhle PR. If you do try Stonehenge, it is better to use a proper brush rather than sponge brush. The latter roughs up the paper's surface if you're not careful. For that reason, I do not use it anymore.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Citric acid, vinegar, and my favourite, sulfamic acid 10%.

so just straight up white kitchen vinegar?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

so just straight up white kitchen vinegar?

Yes. As I'm not familiar with the paper you are using, try soaking it for at least five minutes, then give it a good rinsing. Once dry, coat. You should notice a difference to the look of the coating...but then again I'm only guessing as I don't know that paper. If you ever try sulfamic acid, you can buy a small container of it at any hardware store. Use a ten percent solution.

 

[fgorga]

Yes, I did...years ago. Stonehenge is unusable unless acidified, at least in my experience. Non-acidified is anemic and spotty. I prefer the heavier papers like Arches Platine, or Hahnemuhle PR. If you do try Stonehenge, it is better to use a proper brush rather than sponge brush. The latter roughs up the paper's surface if you're not careful. For that reason, I do not use it anymore.

The differences in results/experiences when doing alt processes never cease to amaze me.

I use both Stonehenge Light and the heavier Stonehenge Warm for cyanotypes routinely and with very nice results. I have never pretreated either paper with acid.

I develop my cyanotypes using 25% vinegar (i.e. 250 mL white vinegar + 750 mL water) rather than just with water.

I wonder if that might be the difference in our experience with these papers.

With regard to brushes, I totally agree ... foam sponge brushes are to be avoided for coating paper.

 

[nmp]

The differences in results/experiences when doing alt processes never cease to amaze me.

I use both Stonehenge Light and the heavier Stonehenge Warm for cyanotypes routinely and with very nice results. I have never pretreated either paper with acid.

I develop my cyanotypes using 25% vinegar (i.e. 250 mL white vinegar + 750 mL water) rather than just with water.

I wonder if that might be the difference in our experience with these papers.

With regard to brushes, I totally agree ... foam sponge brushes are to be avoided for coating paper.

From what I understood, it is the new ware cyanotype that benefits from pre-acification, not so much the classic. Does Andrew do the new cyanotype?

I could be wrong though.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

The differences in results/experiences when doing alt processes never cease to amaze me.

Agreed. I think it's finally set in that if I want to learn to do this, I need to take advice simply as a starting point, and form results on my own. And the only way to do that is simply to, just do it.

 

[jim10219]

The thickness of the paper will effect the need for acidification. Thicker paper has more room to hold more calcium carbonate. I've found that when using the same paper in different thicknesses, often times the thicker paper will require acidification, while the thinner paper will not. Whenever I'm doing 4 color gum with a cyanotype base I almost always have to pre-acidify the paper due to the thickness of the paper required to get it through that many washes. And that's usually not an issue since I have to preshrink it anyway. I just drop a bit of hydrochloric acid in the prewash bath.

I also did the UV blocking color trick on my computer, but while I was able to get slightly more density, I lost the smoothness of the transitions across the spectrum of density levels. I never could figure a way to keep the ratio of printed ink pigments consistent as you transversed from lighter to darker areas. I could control it in the software, but never at the printer level. And even my attempts to correct for the conversions at the printer driver level proved too inconsistent to be useful. That lead to flat spots and spikes in my curves. I eventually landed on just black, and even though my printer uses 3 different kinds of black ink, the transitions between them were a lot smoother.

That was just my experience with my equipment. Not all printers will react the same way. That's the problem with following the advice of others when it comes to alt. processes. Their advice can be useful for giving you ideas and inspiration, but to really know what works best for you, your equipment, and your style, you just have to try it out for yourself. It's a lot less rigid of discipline than silver gelatin. And that's why keeping your own notes and strict controls are so important.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

From what I understood, it is the new ware cyanotype that benefits from pre-acification, not so much the classic. Does Andrew do the new cyanotype?

I could be wrong though.

Old

 

[ChristopherCoy]

And then... you tone it in this mornings left over coffee, and it only gets BETTER!!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well done!

 

[NedL]

Good job, and it looks like you are having fun!

There is a long thread here about sulfamic acid that you can probably find and read through. I'll put in my 2 cents... I found that on some papers it can affect the surface sizing ( in fact, my memory is that it might have been Andrew that got me to try a weaker 2% solution... which lessened the problem but didn't completely solve it ). With cyanotype, if you want the solution to sink into the paper, this might not be a problem, but with some processes it's better to keep things up closer to the surface of the paper, away from internal sizing and where washing can be more effective. In any case, if you feel the surface of the paper before and after acidification, you might notice a difference -- I'm sure it depends a lot on the paper and I've never used the Canson XL bristol. Also, some thin papers will have less wet strength after acidification.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Good job, and it looks like you are having fun!

There is a long thread here about sulfamic acid that you can probably find and read through. I'll put in my 2 cents... I found that on some papers it can affect the surface sizing ( in fact, my memory is that it might have been Andrew that got me to try a weaker 2% solution... which lessened the problem but didn't completely solve it ). With cyanotype, if you want the solution to sink into the paper, this might not be a problem, but with some processes it's better to keep things up closer to the surface of the paper, away from internal sizing and where washing can be more effective. In any case, if you feel the surface of the paper before and after acidification, you might notice a difference -- I'm sure it depends a lot on the paper and I've never used the Canson XL bristol. Also, some thin papers will have less wet strength after acidification.

You're absolutely right about the surface of the paper feeling different after acidifying..especially when I was using Stonehenge. A 2% solution will do the trick...With the 10% solution, it will allow one to do a lot of paper without having to keep mixing up solution. Another con of using such strong solution is that it ate the brass connection to my sink drain. So it's best to dilute the crap out of it before discarding. I haven't acidified any papers since I started using Hahnemuhle PR. I tend to do it more for my students at school as we are using Stonehenge and some other cheapy, no-name paper for cyanotypes.

 

[nmp]

Old

Is pre-acidification for removing the alkali to help in longevitiy of the cyanotype or inhibiting hydrolysis that might occur in the process giving rise to red/yellow stains of ferric hydroxide? Or does it aid in improving the image some other way? I am trying to understand what I should be looking at on the print to decide to acidify or not.

 

[ProfessorC1983]

I also found that after acidifying Stonehenge White, it led to the paper pilling (if this is the right word?) when applying the sensitizer, whether I used a hake or a foam brush. Those little bits dried and lifted off during post-exposure washing which caused white spots on the image. I haven't tried it non-acidified given the many warnings about it. Had much better luck with Strathmore 500 Bristol Plate, and am about to try my first exposure with the Hannehmuhle Platinum Rag.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

That was just my experience with my equipment. Not all printers will react the same way. That's the problem with following the advice of others when it comes to alt. processes. Their advice can be useful for giving you ideas and inspiration, but to really know what works best for you, your equipment, and your style, you just have to try it out for yourself. It's a lot less rigid of discipline than silver gelatin. And that's why keeping your own notes and strict controls are so important.

You are entirely correct. I'm using a very cheap ($49) Epson XP-5100 all in one home office printer from WallyWorld. It's taken a lot of testing to get to this point with this very printer. And when you combine expectations with equipment limitations things can get frustrating extremely quick.

I wan't all that sure that I was going to enjoy the alt processes, but now that I'm getting better results, I'm starting to appreciate all the variables that go into it that allows you to make it your own.

Once I finish this chemical kit that I got from B&S, I want to order the raw chemicals for the "new" formula and start experimenting with formulations. I also want to look into "extras" like waxing etc, and maybe substrates other than paper.