Royal Lady Scarborough (between 1934 and 1938)

Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies

Links

Albums

Gallery

*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks ***

Home · Search · Register

Please note: The posting of negative scans is prohibited in FADU, except within the Help or Discussion Galleries when requesting help with negative faults or the like. Click for details.

Max image size: 1400 pixels per side and a maximum of 1MB in total file size

Home » FADU Galleries » Exchange Galleries » Print Exchange Gallery » February 2021 Round 126		Photo Options

Royal Lady Scarborough (between 1934 and 1938)

Click on image to view larger image

Photo Details
CambsIan Friend Registered: June 2011 Location: Cambridgeshire Posts: 1,326	Print from a negative which was taken by a family member while visiting relatives in Yorkshire sometime between 1934 and 1938). Unfortunately the negative has some damage to it, which has happened at some point in the last 85 years.
	· Date: Mon, 8, February, 2021 · Views: 2458 · Filesize: 81.4kb, 254.6kb · Dimensions: 1164 x 949 ·
	Additional Info
	Keywords: Royal Lady Scarborough (between 1934 1938)
	Film make, size & rating:: Unknown
	Film developer & temp:: Unknown
	Lens Focal Length, aperture: Unknown
	Tripod used Y or N:: Unknown
	Paper:: Scribble and Dot 300gsm
	Paper developer & temp:: 15 min under U.V. lamp and tea stained

Author

Thread

MikeHeller
Print Exchange Manager

Registered: October 2010
Location: North Wales
Posts: 1,287

Tue, 9, February, 2021 12:08pm

It is good to see prints produced by alternate techniques being sent in the Monthly Print Exchange.

I am not sure whether I prefer the straight print or the tea stained one. They are different and both both interesting.

Mike

Click here to Send this user a Private Message

Richard Gould
Friend

Registered: December 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433

Fri, 12, February, 2021 12:41pm

Like Mike, nice to see some alternative processes, both are nice, but the original cyanater for me has the edge
Richard

------------------------------
jerseyinblackandwhite.blogspot.com

photomi7ch

Friend

Registered: January 2009
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 2,516

Sun, 14, February, 2021 4:15pm

I am of the same opinion this is a good picture in it's own right

------------------------------
Mitch http://photomi7ch.blogspot.com/ If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth.

Tony Marlow
Friend

Registered: September 2008
Posts: 1,284

Fri, 19, February, 2021 3:44pm

Certainly a print which capyures the scene of a bygone age. I prefer this one to the blue one but that is just me.

Tony

CambsIan

Friend

Registered: June 2011
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 1,326

Mon, 22, February, 2021 7:11pm

Thanks to you all for your comments

------------------------------
Learn to live, live to learn

SanMiguel
Friend

Registered: June 2014
Location: Portstewart, Northern Ireland
Posts: 341

Thu, 25, February, 2021 4:33pm

I think I prefer this one to the blue one. When I saw it at first I thought 'Wow - there's a real vintage look and feel to this'...then I read the caption Smile

Always nice to bring an old negative back to life. Well done.
Michael

alexmuir
Friend

Registered: January 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,681

Thu, 25, February, 2021 8:52pm

I really like this version as well, Ian. I haven't tried toning Cyanotypes, other than the intensification you can achieve with Hydrogen Peroxide. This, and the others you have shown have inspired me to have a go.
Alex.

CambsIan

Friend

Registered: June 2011
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 1,326

Sun, 28, February, 2021 9:34am

Thank you both for your comments, much appreciated.

Still trying to get to grips with this process, but it really does (for me) fill any urge for instant prints.

Is Cyanotype the original polaroid ?

Ian

------------------------------
Learn to live, live to learn

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29 AM.