Cyanotypes

[Akki14]

Hi Steve!

Feel free to ask me any questions on the cyanotype stuff (um as long as it's traditional formula. I don't work with the cyanotypeII stuff).

[Tom Kershaw]

Heather,

Is there a particular reason you work with the traditional cyanotype formula over Mike Ware's formula?

Tom

[Akki14]

Why "fix" it if it's not broken?

[Akki14]

Okay, If you really really want a full explanation... I shall add my personal experiences against what Dr. Ware says are "disadvantages" in the traditional process.

I usually have exposure times in the 4-10minute range - not 30 minutes as Dr. Ware suggests UNLESS using a base-fogging developer like Caffenol (coffee developer). It was a pretty dark negative. Also exposure time is totally dependant on how far away the light source is. Mine is quite close. No problems with banding from the tubes.

The Ammonium Ferric Citrate solution does grow mould after a while but it forms a nice, neat, fluffy gray floating island, easily swiped out with a disposable wooden chopstick. If you really want you can filter it through a coffee filter. Generally any bits of mould that get wiped onto the paper coating does not affect the final image. This is from personal experience as well.

I may have discovered why Dr. Ware then goes on to complain about solution sitting on the surface of the paper. After talking to someone about Dr. Ware's opinion that double coating doesn't work any better than 1 thick coating, it suddenly becomes apparent. Paper is an organic material that needs a little while to soak and swell with the solution so double coating with a slight rest period in between means the paper happily soaks up the solution and you do not get sticky puddles. This is something I've learned from many many coatings.

I develop my cyanotypes "face down" in a sinkful of tap water. This means the soluble Prussian blue floating around, drops down and does not "infect" the highlights. Hence I keep my beautiful white highlights which I love so dearly.

So there ya go. Dr. Ware can have his formula and its longer/wider tonal range. I like my slightly compressed tonal range of cyanotype (which actually depends highly on the paper I've discovered. I get more range out of Arches Platine than I would out of cheap Fabriano paper).

Next?

[Dave]

Thanks Heather for a comprehensive post, whilst reading it I was working up to asking you which paper you used, and then I got to the last sentence! Arches Platine seems to be most peoples favourite, but have you had any success with any other, or is it not worth trying them?

[Trevor Crone]

Heather, how to you present/exhibit your cyanotypes?

[Akki14]

I find there's a cheap, student-y grade of Fabriano that works okay for proofs but kind of lacks tonal range. I've not tried Fabriano Artisico which is suppose to work well. There's Atlantis Silversafe which is amazing and if you get the 60gsm weight stuff, you can make cyanotypes on basically tissue-paper-weight paper - translucent and floppy stuff but it's strong enough to hold up to coating (though you have to peel the brush off of it practically as it likes to stick) and translucent.
Strangely I've not had luck with Arches Aquaelle paper which is suppose to be good. Something seemed to go horribly wrong and the yellow wouldn't wash out of the paper so I ended up with a green nude on blue background which was rather unattractive.

Also it's worth noting that you should buy Arches Platine from Silverprint not from a certain fine papershop in London who charge 3times as much per sheet...

Paper testing is all part of the fun of printing cyanotype. I've found most coloured papers seem to work quite well and have printed on bright red paper which gave the appearance of black on red.
http://www.stargazy.org/photos/cyanotypes/altexchange6-rose/tn/rose2printdetail-thumb.med.jpg

Stuff you should probably avoid is inkjet papers never seem to work right. Gives very weak blues even with double coating and lots of speckles etc. You'd think if they're up to having ink sprayed on them that they'd work for this purpose but they don't. They're also quite expensive. You're better off spending your money on a single large sheet of art paper to test out first which usually is around the £2-£3 cost.

[Akki14]

Heather, how to you present/exhibit your cyanotypes?

Honestly I haven't. I've only recently started putting them in frames since I moved to a flat that has hooks on the wall for such a purpose.

But if you mean do I over mat to show or hide the brush strokes I'd leave the brushstrokes usually. I've only masked for two things, one of which is above and it screwed up because i was trying to paint over a paper mask on the paper and some got underneath the edge of the paper. The other was this
http://www.stargazy.org/photos/cyanotypes/artdecoproject/tn/artdecoproject1aug.med.jpg
It was kind of annoying to do because I was using masking tape instead of drafting tape so the tape stuck to the paper.

I've not really tried much overmasking after coating but before exposure. I don't think it'd come out as neat and tidy. I've misplaced my roll of expensive drafting tape at the moment so I've not been playing with it recently.

[Trevor Crone]

Have you tried Fabriano 5? It's a lovely heavy weight paper (300gm). It is said to work well with Pt/Pd but not tried it for this yet. So far I've only used it as a backing paper to mount silver chloride contact prints which gives them a nice wide white boarder. It is reasonably priced.

PS. Love the architectural work.

[Akki14]

I think I have tried it but it wasn't that good or at least not memorable apparently. BFK Rives used to be excellent - I printed a little series of 3 images on that stuff for B&W Photography readers gallery, but alas the last time I used it (recently bought a few new sheets) it came out absolutely horrible. As horrible as cheap cartridge/inkjet paper. So sad as it felt like a really nice paper - almost cottony felt-like and it used to be very good but something's changed in the production and they're adding too much buffering or something.

[Michael]

Strangely I've not had luck with Arches Aquaelle paper which is suppose to be good. Something seemed to go horribly wrong and the yellow wouldn't wash out of the paper so I ended up with a green nude on blue background which was rather unattractive.

If that happens, it's always worth trying the 1% acid bath (citric works) before washing. I should think that it would be all right to use it after the wash instead, if necessary - though a second wash would be needed in that case.

I'm a bit out of the loop here, as I use i****t negatives for most of my blueprints; but Bockingford seems to me to be a reasonably good paper and I've had half-decent results with the various Langtons. The Bockingford 5x7 size is convenient for 5x4 contacts.

The red paper looks like a most interesting base.

[Akki14]

Never got along with Langton paper. Bockingford is okay... still not as outstanding as Platine :)
I had tried the acid washing previously with the Aquaelle. I've given up and I'll use the paper for something else (and luckily I bought it in the US when visiting, where it's half the price of the UK price. Then had a 50% off coupon so it's actually quite affordable :))

[j8kkb]

Hello Heather ...lovely work....can I ask how long you wash the prints for ...I recently washed for a few minutes and have noticed that as it was drying the highlights started to get a mottled look or is this natural ...thanks
jack

[Akki14]

Hello Heather ...lovely work....can I ask how long you wash the prints for ...I recently washed for a few minutes and have noticed that as it was drying the highlights started to get a mottled look or is this natural ...thanks
jack


I put them facedown in a sinkful of (still, not running) water, no peeking, for 10 minutes. I think I've had the mottled look before when an image has been overexposed and underwashed (taken out too soon, should leave it a bit longer). It might also be something to do with your paper.

I suppose I should do a cavet saying that I've been told that one sinkful of water isn't enough washing... but it gets the yellow out and it's bigger than a tray, so whatever...

[j8kkb]

Thanks for the reply .and tips.....certainly have not been washing them for that amount of time .....was wondering about the paper as it is very textured

[Akki14]

Have looked at your picture. I think you only need another few minutes of wash to "bleach back" that high light. You can even do that now with it, if you want to try it out. Obviously works better with hard water with high pH than with soft/distilled water too. I still print slightly dark if I can because you can fix that more easily than printing too light. Longer wash means it kind of reverses back to where it should be.

Also it's a little hard to judge when it first comes out of the water because it'll look light until it fully oxidises and "age" a bit once it's dry. Lately I've noticed mine go from a lighter blue to an almost purple-black then back to the normal cyanotype blue. So it's kind of a skill to realise at what point you stop the exposure and the developing(washing) in the water to get the right print at the end.

With my tap water and paper I'd put that back in some water for another 2-5 minutes... check it after 2 and see if it's cleared that highlight enough for your liking.

[PaulD]

Heather, Do you have any experience coating the paper and holding it for a period of days before exposure? If so how do you store it and how long can it be held? I am going to be doing a demo and it will not be possible to do the coating that day. Should I drop the idea?

Thanks,

Paul

[Akki14]

Should be okay for a few days in the dark after being dried. Sometimes you'll get a colour shift in the coating so it goes more green/blue which makes exposures harder to judge if you're doing the split-back frame thing. If you base your exposure off of time under a UV light it's not such an issue and if the highlights look hazed over, you can usually just leave the cyanotype soaking in (hard, high pH) tap water for an hour to help it clear.

[PaulD]

Thanks, Heather!

Paul