Question About The New Cyanotype Process

[Dan Dozer]

My thoughts here on this. While I don't do a lot of Cyanotype anymore I have done both with the old and the new process. The new process produced much better looking tones and color of cyanotype prints for my taste, but it was much more "sensitive" to the actual paper used. Some papers I thought would work just didn't work well at all. The give away is after you coat with the new process emulsion, if it ends up kind of greenish looking when it dries instead of yellow, you will likely have problems with things like blochiness in the print and bad looking final results. I found that the the higher quality papers used in alt processes like Hahnamuele Platinum Rag work very well, but they are more expensive. The old process seemed to be much more forgiving. I've shopped around before for different papers to experiment with. Some of those I thought would work for things like Bromoils (which needs to endure very long soaking times in water) don't hold up well, but were fine for Cyanotype because the time in the water isn't nearly as long. Water color paper isn't expensive. Just buy some and try it out. However, try to get smoother paper rather than highly textured water color paper or you might be disappointed with the results.

 

[F4U]

Well I finally got off my duff and ordered some Ferric ammonium citrate to go with the Ferrocyanide I already had plenty of..I'm not going to spend any more money buying fancy expensive watercolor paper. I've got 200 sheets of ordinary photographic paper that so horribly outdated it just turns black in 5 sec in Dektol. I'm just going to use the back side of that, for the better or worse of it. At the very least i should expect to be able to contact print years of 35mm negative pages just to see what I've got here and never printed. I'm not expecting any "fine arts" out of it. Good enough will do just fine for this.

 

[BrianShaw]

As long as the paper is fiber and not resin coated it should work for you in that application. Enjoy the process; you can always buy other paper later if you so desire.

 

[koraks]

the Ferrocyanide I already had plenty of

You're aware that you need ferricyanide for cyanotype, yes? Ferrocyanide also exists and will not work in this application! Maybe you just made a typo, in which case there's nothing to worry about, but you wouldn't be the first to end up with the wrong chemical.

contact print years of 35mm negative pages

You'll likely find that the best contrast for a cyanotype is significantly lower than a regular 35mm negative. Thin negatives tend to print the best.
I briefly used New Cyanotype as a contact sheet process because I could work in room light, but that process has a much longer tonal scale. Classic cyanotype will show you the images, but not really the entire tonal scale on all the negatives.

 

[F4U]

I meant potassium ferricyanide or however it's spelled. the orange stuff in the Kodak jars that you use to bleach prints with. I know the new process will give a longer sale, but the old process needs just the 2 chemicals to see something on the paper. I believe the new process takes a chemical named oxalate instead of citrate, and as I recall the new process also takes a third chemical I forgot the name of. Once i start generating some 8x10 negatives this spring and sumer, I'll likely get into the new process. But for now it's sill winter. I don't go out shooting in the winter when everything looks so blah. Since posting his thread i saw about another method that is not the "new process", which does even better. but it required a bunch of chemicals. As I started studying this and investigating supply costs i discovered some of these fancy watercolor papers are practically as expensive as just buying ordinary silver photographic paper. Half he fun of is suppose to be the economy of it. I'm not paying $30 for 12 sheets of some fancy 9x12 watercolor paper. I'm no "fine artist." If I ever made a photograph that looked like a museum piece, it would be a complete happy accident like making a hole-in-one.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

My experience is that 'new cyanotype' is worth pursuing. If new cyanotype emulsion gets enough sunlight it can get to a very dark, almost black, color.

To get a long tonal range you need a negative with very high contrast -- you don't want to mute the highlights when you pile on the exposure to get dark shadow tones.

Example: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/clover-cyanotype.17903/

As usual, YMMV. It is the differences of opinion that make the thread.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s not about being a fine artist vs being a hack (for lack of a better term); it’s about getting the result you desire. Investigate whatever tools get you there in whatever order you choose.

How are you going to expose… sun?

 

[F4U]

It’s not about being a fine artist vs being a hack (for lack of a better term); it’s about getting the result you desire. Investigate whatever tools get you there in whatever order you choose.

How are you going to expose… sun?

Yep, good old ordinary sunshine. I hear-tell they've been making it for quite a few years.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yep, good old ordinary sunshine. I hear-tell they've been making it for quite a few years.

It has... and it works fairly good for cyanotype. Getting consistent exposure can be a challenge, though. Here's a tidbit I found in a 19th or early 20th century book on sun exposure of prints. It has helped me compensate for the various factors associated with sun-based UV exposure. Hope it helps you.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Here's a tidbit I found in a 19th or early 20th century book on sun exposure of prints.

Great table, thanks. Going to pin it up in the darkroom.

What do the asterisks signify?

 

[BrianShaw]

It's a foootnote that I apparently omitted when scanning:
"* The accuracy of these figures would be affected by yellow sunset."

Page 272

Photographic Instruction Book

books.google.com

 

[koraks]

I'm not paying $30 for 12 sheets of some fancy 9x12 watercolor paper.

Me neither; never did, never will. I generally use cheap(ish) printmaking papers. Shop around, it's worth it. This doesn't have to cost an arm & a leg.
You're right about the simplicity of classic cyanotype. It's also waaaay less picky w.r.t. papers than New Cyanotype.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

100% cotton paper will give you the best results but they tend to be the most expensive. My favorite less expensive paper for traditional cyanotype is Canson XL Bristol with the yellow cover. You can get it at Dick Blick.

 

[MattKing]

I've got 200 sheets of ordinary photographic paper that so horribly outdated it just turns black in 5 sec in Dektol.

I trust that that paper isn't a paper with a backprint on it.

 

[F4U]

As I've studied this, I've learned several things beging further inquiry.I've seen how the "emulsion" is poured into a pool on he paper and then distributed over the sheet with paintbrushes; foam or bristle. If Eastman Kodak invested many millions of dollars into engineering emulsion coating equipment with finely machined rollers just to insure paper characteristics, how can somebody with a paintbrush expect uniformity in the final print? 2) I've learned you can't pre-prepare say, a dozen sheets, or 20 sheets and store them for a month or 2. Understandable if the paper is not properly stored. But how about freezing?, Remember, I've chosen the conventional chemistry process for now, not the "new" process. Thank you.

 

[koraks]

If Eastman Kodak invested many millions of dollars into engineering emulsion coating equipment with finely machined rollers just to insure paper characteristics, how can somebody with a paintbrush expect uniformity in the final print?

Apples & oranges, plus a haphazard assumption.
The haphazard assumption is that everyone pours a puddle and then brushes it out. Some people work that way. I never do. But this is not really the key issue.

The apples & oranges bit is related to the word 'emulsion' which is technically a misnomer in both the Cyanotype and Kodak's case. With cyanotype (and many other alt. processes), you're not really using an emulsion, but a watery solution. Moreover, you're not really coating this, but brushing it into the top layer of a semi-absorbent paper base. It's relatively easy (given suitable materials) to get sufficiently even density this way even if your application technique isn't technically perfect. It sort of evens itself out, so variations in density don't really show up quite readily, even if you brush one part of the sheet a little heavier than another.

In the Kodak case of making film and paper, the 'emulsion' is in fact a warm gelatine solution with tiny silver halide bits suspended in it which has a much higher viscosity than a plain watery solution. This is applied to a non-absorbent surface, and the thickness of this coating is directly proportional to the density you'll get in the print or negative, and due to the viscosity (which also changes during the coating process!). There's nothing in this process that naturally evens out any irregularities in the coating process. Any minute variation in flow, rheology, web speed etc. will show up as clear density variations in the final image.

The two processes of hand-coating something like cyanotype onto paper vs. coating silver gelatin emulsions onto paper or film end up being virtually only related in a linguistic sense. Once you start to define the actual processes involved, the similarities turn out to be only very superficial.

2) I've learned you can't pre-prepare say, a dozen sheets, or 20 sheets and store them for a month or 2. Understandable if the paper is not properly stored. But how about freezing?, Remember, I've chosen the conventional chemistry process for now, not the "new" process. Thank you.

You could try it; I expect it'll slow down the deterioration. It's worth a shot!

 

[BrianShaw]

The biggest threats to prepared Cyanotype materials are moisture/humidity and light. I’ve always been a “prepare and use” type yet storage up to 6-months in cool conditions has been in the literature of some knowledgeable sources for quite some time. Nobody, however, seems to go to the extreme of freezing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I tried the new cyanotype, and saw no advantage over the original formula...other than the blue being more intense. But for me, that is not an advantage. I very much dislike the blue, and routinely tone it away (unless it's for the base of tri-colour, or gum overs). Covered in a few of my videos, I prefer to bleach in a weak sodium carbonate solution, then redevelop in tannic acid. Sometimes I stick the print in the tannic acid first, rinse, then into the carbonate solution, then back again, for a warmer tone. My favourite paper for all the processes that I use is Revere Platinum.

 

[fgorga]

The biggest threats to prepared Cyanotype materials are moisture/humidity and light.

Agreed.

Paper also plays a role... the rate of the dark reaction varies widely, some (completely unsuitable) papers turn green within minutes of coating, others 'go bad' within a day or two and some can last much longer.

This thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/stability-of-paper-coated-for-cyanotype.180255/#post-2390765 might be of interest.

I’ve always been a “prepare and use” type yet storage up to 6-months in cool conditions has been in the literature of some knowledgeable sources for quite some time. Nobody, however, seems to go to the extreme of freezing.

I, too, have not heard of anyone trying to keep cyanotype paper frozen. However, I do encourage you to experiment. Alt process printing is really all about experimentation.

If you do experiment, keep in mind that moisture condenses on cold surfaces (including cold paper) and thus you would want to arrange things so that you do not expose cold paper to the atmosphere until it has warmed up to room temperature.

If I was going to do this, I would coat a bunch of paper let it dry thoroughly. Then, I would place a small number of sheets into a zip lock bag and place that in the freezer. When I wanted to use a sheet I would take the entire bag out of the freezer and allow it to warm to room temperature before removing a sheet from the zip lock bag.

Lastly, I will remind you of something I mentioned in post #13 above... cyanotype paper is commercially available, see: https://sunprints.org/products/index.html. I do not know how they have solved the stability 'problem' nor do I know exactly what the shelf-life of their paper is, but their paper may suit you needs.

 

[F4U]

OK, my first print. The Ferric Ammonium Citrate green came today and I got busy. Here's a cellphone shot of my first print. Believe me, it looks more dingy in person. But then te chemical brushed on dingy in the first place. I thought his stuff was supposed to brush on with a light lemon color. But look at the backside of a piece of 40 year old Portriga Rapid fiber base with the wet solution brushed on very lightly. as an aside, I'd never used Portriga. What a yellow dingy miserable paper. But back to the print. The negative was a perfetcly good 4x5 x-ray film neg that would have printed beautifully on conventional grade 2 or 3 photographic paper. When I mixed the 2 solutions, I was excited and forgot to use distilled water and just used city water. Would that explain how dark it is? Looks at the ferric ammonium citrate in the empty (clean) plastic saccahrine bottle. And look at the jar lid where the 2 pars were mixed. What have I done wrong? Thank you.Edit. Forgot to mention, this stuff is pretty fast. 6 minutes in the sun.

 

[koraks]

I thought his stuff was supposed to brush on with a light lemon color. But look at the backside of a piece of 40 year old Portriga Rapid fiber base with the wet solution brushed on very lightly.

Did you brush it onto the emulsion side? I'd expect that'll produce problems, as your photo also suggests. It is indeed supposed to look a fresh, rather pale lime color.

just used city water. Would that explain how dark it is?

No, the water is fine. Your sensitizer is reacting with the silver emulsion. If you want to use the emulsion-side of the old photo paper, you'll have to fix it and then thoroughly wash it. Let dry and give it another go.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with all this and just use another kind of paper. Classic cyanotype isn't very picky, paper-wise.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well you got an image; congratulations! Something looks wrong with your solution. Perhaps it was light-struck? I’ve always used city water and not a problem. The paper doesn’t look like it’s taking to being coated very good. You really should consider trying a “more standard” paper at some point. But you’re clearly on your way to success.

What color are your A and B solutions?

 

[F4U]

The ferricyanide solution is the same yellow color you'd expect. Even though the orange powder is from the 7'0's ,it's fine. And you saw the citrate I'm using. I don't know how old it is but the powder itself is a light yellow-green. I mixed it up in the kitchen in daylight. But even in daylight my kitchen is pretty dark. But as soon as I put the citrate powder in the water, it went dark as can be. And you see the mixed working solution in the jar lid. Black as tar. I developed in city water with a little squirt of peroxide and it does go from gray to blue. Just dingy. No, I used the BACK of the old Agfa paper. But I can already tell this paper doesn't take the mixture very well. Plus the Agfa paper is as dingy looking as it can be. Awful stuff. Guess I ought to throw out this first batch and make up another with distilled water tonight when there's just the tungsten bulbs and no sunshine. It's faster than I thought. Only took 5 minutes in direct March sun to get that print. At that rate, it's be 1or 1 minutes in the July sun I bet.

 

[fgorga]

In addition to what others have said above, it looks like you mixed sensitizer in the metallic lid from a jar. This is not a good idea. Your working solution should be yellow, not dark blue.

Use only glass or plastic containers for alt process solutions. The reason for this is that all of these processes involve oxidation/reduction (redox) reactions and metallic containers can cause unwanted redox reactions that will mess up your prints.

Lastly, I am unclear as to what is shown in the photo labeled citrate solution. Do you mean ferric ammonium citrate (FAC) solution? "Citrate solution" is ambiguous and imprecise. A solution of FAC should be dark olive green.

 

[koraks]

But as soon as I put the citrate powder in the water, it went dark as can be

Concentrated solutions of citrate look almost black.
Better not .ix the stuff up in daylight; it's asking for problems, although with cyanotype, there's a lot of leeway.

Have you tried some random papers you have lying about the house? That's where I'd start.