Showcase for Your HCWP's

koraks · May 29, 2024

Thanks @nmp, much appreciated - and yes, this is a print I'm technically really happy with. It's now in the final stage; taped to a mirror, waiting to dry to a lustre finish:

nmp said:
Please do share final dried print.

I'll try, I'll try - but few things are more frustrating than trying to capture on a digital screen what a print looks like.

Yeah, this was definitely hand-made all the way. I've heard that the UltraStable tissues from the 1990s still print OK albeit with a little fog by now. I use less DAS in my tissues than Charles does, but the difference isn't as meaningful as it is with dichromate. Keeping pigment concentration down and negative contrast way up is the way to go. Exposures end up being long, but since DAS is so consistent, I get a decent print in one or two tries now.

Here's the first version of the print from the same negative; I found this one a tad too harsh:

So for the version that's drying now, I used a tissue with a little less pigment and preflashed it ever so slightly. The net result is that the entire tonal range is compressed a bit, which makes the whole thing a little friendlier.

It's still flowers in a vase of course. But it was too hard to resist how the light played on those peonies - and since Calvin uses a peony as an illustration for his pigment prints pretty much all the time, I figured I should pay him a tribute.

koraks · May 30, 2024

Finished print:

Rolleiflexible · May 30, 2024

koraks said:
Finished print:

Koraks, that's lovely. I've not seen many carbon prints but the depths of the blacks are wonderful and this print plays to that aspect of the process.

nmp · May 30, 2024

koraks said:
Finished print:

Wow, that's a sumptuous print! Correct me if I am wrong, but most of Calvin's prints are multilayer (even monochrome ones) so considering that this is quite an achievement.

:Niranjan.

koraks · May 30, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
Koraks, that's lovely. I've not seen many carbon prints but the depths of the blacks are wonderful and this print plays to that aspect of the process.

Thanks, yes, carbon tends to do wonders for the blacks/low values. High values are more tricky. One thing I've yet to try is to get a high-key image to really work well on the process. That's going to be one of my next steps in fact.

nmp said:
Wow, that's a sumptuous print! Correct me if I am wrong, but most of Calvin's prints are multilayer (even monochrome ones) so considering that this is quite an achievement.

:Niranjan.

Thanks much, Niranjan! Yes, I think Calvin uses exclusively multilayer techniques for monochrome as well. This print is a single layer print, and to be frank, I doubt there's very much to gain by trying to multilayer it. For digital/inkjet negatives, it does make a lot of sense I think. But I also believe that continuous tone silver gelatin negatives have a distinct edge in this particular department.

KYsailor · May 30, 2024

koraks said:
Finished print:

Perfectly beautiful print - I have been so impressed by the carbon prints I have seen in galleries, the blacks are so deep. This must be spectacular in person. The process produces such wonderful images, I would like to try it sometime, however the complexity keeps me from trying it - maybe in the future. Again - beautiful subject and print.

Dave

koraks · May 30, 2024

@KYsailor thanks so much - and I know the feeling; seeing online images and reading descriptions of carbon prints is also what made me want to try. My first attempts were 10 years ago! I didn't push through with it back then and dropped out after a couple of months. About 2 years ago I rekindled it and this time I put in some real effort, and that's starting to pay off. It's not a straightforward process and there are easier ways to create equally beautiful prints, but the labor and learning that goes into these, does make it rewarding.

Rolleiflexible · May 30, 2024

KYsailor said:
The process produces such wonderful images, I would like to try it sometime, however the complexity keeps me from trying it - maybe in the future.

Sandy King has written about carbon prints and lives not far from here, in Easley SC. If you do want to explore, Sandy might be willing to spend time with you.

koraks · May 30, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
Sandy King has written about carbon prints and lives not far from here, in Easley SC. If you do want to explore, Sandy might be willing to spend time with you.

Sandy has published a rather nice book on this, too, together with Don Nelson and John Lockhart. It's pretty much a how-to guide you can follow. Sandy and Don also regularly answer questions on the carbon groups.io that he and Don manage; Charles Berger (of UltraStable fame) also drops in on occasion, as do Michael Strickland, Calvin Grier, Katayoun Dowlatshahi and several other contemporary carbon printers that matter - such as @Vaughn and @Andrew O'Neill of course!

nmp · May 30, 2024

Another lowly cyanotype:

Misty Morning / Gambrill State Park, Frederick, MD.

Paper is Canson XL Watercolor paper. I have dry-mounted it on the same paper, ready for shipment for the print exchange.

:Niranjan.

koraks · May 30, 2024

Nothing lowly about it, Niranjan. The delicate tones in the background are gorgeous!
Is this classic Cyanotype or New?

nmp · May 30, 2024

koraks said:
Nothing lowly about it, Niranjan. The delicate tones in the background are gorgeous!
Is this classic Cyanotype or New?

Thanks. Lowly (I was being somewhat facetious) because cyanotypes are so accessible and cheap to get something on paper. Barrier to entry is low but, like any other processes, it still requires a good bit of effort to understand the underlying mechanisms to make it do what you want it to do. In the end though it is the quintessential alternative process that was so even at the time of infancy of photographic print.

Some more data on the print:

- Classic cyanotpye
- FAC to KFi ratio is 1.75:1 by weight
- Overall solids content of the sensitizer is 20% w/v (20% each of FAC and KFi)
- T-20 in the form of premixing it in KFi @ 0.05%
- Paper is equilibrated in a saturated salt environment at 25C overnight
- Rod coated, air dried 10 mins, heat dried at 50 C for 10 mins
- Digital negative from digital capture using QTR on Epson P400
- Exposed immediately after drying 10 mins under a bank of CFL spirals
- Developed first with citric acid acidified tap water, then tap water and finally 1 rinse of distilled water

:Niranjan.

Patrick Robert James · May 30, 2024

That is excellent Niranjan. I look forward to seeing it!

What does the 1.75:1 do? Curious. I've been doing them so long the same way I never really thought about changing the ratio.

Patrick Robert James · May 31, 2024

This is probably my print for the exchange as well. Regular ol' cyanotype on Bergger COT. Cyanotypes are easy to make, but to make a good one.... I acidify the mix as well as add some LFN. I picked up some Tween recently so I might start using that. I usually let the print soak in the first Citric acid wash for quite a while. I find I get better tonality that way, especially in the light tones. I'll sometimes let the print soak afterwards in plain tap water to bleach it a bit if necessary.

Nicholas Lindan · May 31, 2024

nmp said:
Another lowly cyanotype:

Now that is impressive.

NedL · May 31, 2024

nmp said:
Another lowly cyanotype:

Not lowly! That's wonderful!

koraks · May 31, 2024

nmp said:
- FAC to KFi ratio is 1.75:1

That's weight ratio I assume, not molar?

nmp said:
- Developed first with citric acid acidified tap water

Yeah, I always found that to yield a more pleasant blue than e.g. acetic acid. The latter tends more towards green, the former more towards magenta.

nmp · May 31, 2024

Thanks @NedL, @Nicholas Lindan and @Patrick Robert James.

koraks said:
That's weight ratio I assume, not molar?

It's weight ratio (I edited the post to reflect that and a couple of other items.) Turns out at this weight ratio, it is close to 1:1 molar ratio.

Patrick Robert James said:
What does the 1.75:1 do? Curious. I've been doing them so long the same way I never really thought about changing the ratio.

So this was a while ago where I studied the relative amounts of FAC and KFi and its effect on Dmax and Dmin starting with 2.5:1 by weight which is the conventional formula. What I found at the time was Dmax increased initially with lower FAC until about 1.75:1 and then fell off again all the way to 1:1. Dmin goes down, but tended to level off at lower FAC. I thought 1.75:1 was optimum for both properties giving the best dyanic range. At the time I rationalized it one way (based on molar ratios,) but now I realize there are many complicating factors and what is optimum for one paper may or may not work out the same of another. My technique was also not that controlled then so if I were to repeat it again I might have more confidence in the results. In any case, 1.75:1 has stuck with me since then. You can try it and see if it make a difference. Some people like Chris Anderson swear by 1:1, incidentally. I find that it hits the Dmax a bit too much for my liking.

:Niranjan.

KYsailor · May 31, 2024

koraks said:
Sandy has published a rather nice book on this, too, together with Don Nelson and John Lockhart. It's pretty much a how-to guide you can follow. Sandy and Don also regularly answer questions on the carbon groups.io that he and Don manage; Charles Berger (of UltraStable fame) also drops in on occasion, as do Michael Strickland, Calvin Grier, Katayoun Dowlatshahi and several other contemporary carbon printers that matter - such as @Vaughn and @Andrew O'Neill of course!

Thanks for all the advice and resource information regarding carbon printing... however before I head down that road, I need to get a bit better at the modalities that I currently use - cyanotype/VDB/Kallitype and most recently photopolymer. Like some of you I find myself circling back to cyanotypes, as noted probably the least complex of the "alt photo" methods - however as Niranjan and others have shown, with the right image it produces striking results.

So I will hold off on carbon printing until some future date. Meanwhile, I have a stack of parts on my workbench to build a new 365mn UV box, and I need to get on with that. Lastly thanks to all of you - this has been a truly enjoyable group to engage with on the subject of photography and alternative methods.

Dave

koraks · May 31, 2024

Sounds good Dave; I'm sure I can speak for the rest in saying we're all happy to have you!

Patrick Robert James · Jun 1, 2024

nmp said:
So this was a while ago where I studied the relative amounts of FAC and KFi and its effect on Dmax and Dmin starting with 2.5:1 by weight which is the conventional formula. What I found at the time was Dmax increased initially with lower FAC until about 1.75:1 and then fell off again all the way to 1:1. Dmin goes down, but tended to level off at lower FAC. I thought 1.75:1 was optimum for both properties giving the best dyanic range. At the time I rationalized it one way (based on molar ratios,) but now I realize there are many complicating factors and what is optimum for one paper may or may not work out the same of another. My technique was also not that controlled then so if I were to repeat it again I might have more confidence in the results. In any case, 1.75:1 has stuck with me since then. You can try it and see if it make a difference. Some people like Chris Anderson swear by 1:1, incidentally. I find that it hits the Dmax a bit too much for my liking.

:Niranjan.

Thanks Niranjan. Are you talking about the raw weights of the chemicals themselves? So 5g:5g?

I'll have to try something diffferent. I've been doing it the same way since I started years ago.

koraks · Jun 1, 2024

Patrick Robert James said:
Are you talking about the raw weights of the chemicals themselves? So 5g:5g?

No, the weight ratio is 1.75 to 1. So 8.75g FAC to 5g Pot. Ferri.

The 1:1 ratio is a molar ratio; substances have a molecular weight, which simply put can be used as a way to convert weight to the number of molecules (since each molecule has a different mass). In chemical reactions, molecules 'do something' with each other, and in understanding the underlying chemistry, we usually figure out how many molecules of one substance will react with how many molecules of another. We can sometimes figure out on this basis what the ideal ratio is between the reacting substances. But since each molecule has its own weigh, we then need to convert it back to grams somehow; that's where the molar mass comes in. The reverse is also true; we can sometimes experimentally determine how much weight of a certain substance is used up in a reaction and based on that work out what the weight ratio is between substances that react with each other. By using the molar mass, we can go back and figure out how many molecules actually react with each other, and that in turn can tell us something about the exact mechanism that occurs at a chemical level.

The molecular weight of FAC is 265 g / mol. Pot. Ferri is 329g/mol. This means that the 1.75:1 weight ratio is actually quite a bit off from a 1:1 molar or 'molecular' ratio, but as Niranjan pointed out, there's probably some mechanisms that play a role in the margins of the main reaction that result in a certain behavior in terms of dmax or speed. Which is a long way of saying that even if you know two chemicals will react in a 1:1 (molecular) ratio, you sometimes still want to have a little more of either for some reason.

PS: a mol or mole is basically just a number; it's equal to Avogadro's constant, which happens to be a ginormous number of which it's actually pretty mindboggling that we somehow managed to determine it in the first place. Don't ask me how - the guy who figured out most of it was a awarded a Nobel prize for it, which is evidently way over my pay grade.

Rolleiflexible · Jun 1, 2024

koraks said:
No, the weight ratio is 1.75 to 1. So 8.75g FAC to 5g Pot. Ferri.

The 1:1 ratio is a molar ratio; substances have a molecular weight, which simply put can be used as a way to convert weight to the number of molecules (since each molecule has a different mass). In chemical reactions, molecules 'do something' with each other, and in understanding the underlying chemistry, we usually figure out how many molecules of one substance will react with how many molecules of another. We can sometimes figure out on this basis what the ideal ratio is between the reacting substances. But since each molecule has its own weigh, we then need to convert it back to grams somehow; that's where the molar mass comes in. The reverse is also true; we can sometimes experimentally determine how much weight of a certain substance is used up in a reaction and based on that work out what the weight ratio is between substances that react with each other. By using the molar mass, we can go back and figure out how many molecules actually react with each other, and that in turn can tell us something about the exact mechanism that occurs at a chemical level.

The molecular weight of FAC is 265 g / mol. Pot. Ferri is 329g/mol. This means that the 1.75:1 weight ratio is actually quite a bit off from a 1:1 molar or 'molecular' ratio, but as Niranjan pointed out, there's probably some mechanisms that play a role in the margins of the main reaction that result in a certain behavior in terms of dmax or speed. Which is a long way of saying that even if you know two chemicals will react in a 1:1 (molecular) ratio, you sometimes still want to have a little more of either for some reason.

PS: a mol or mole is basically just a number; it's equal to Avogadro's constant, which happens to be a ginormous number of which it's actually pretty mindboggling that we somehow managed to determine it in the first place. Don't ask me how - the guy who figured out most of it was a awarded a Nobel prize for it, which is evidently way over my pay grade.

These are the weeds into which I will not stray. I bow to higher intellects.

Nicholas Lindan · Jun 1, 2024

koraks said:
a mol or mole is ... equal to Avogadro's constant

Avogadro's number is the number atoms in one gram of hydrogen = 6.022×10^23; or the number of atoms in 12 grams of Carbon-12, etc..

Avogadro's constant is rarely used. What is used is the ratio of moles. To make methane (CH4) from carbon and hydrogen you would need 12 grams of carbon and 4 grams of hydrogen - or any weights of carbon & hydrogen in a 12:4 ratio. Or to put in a molar form: 1 mole of methane = 1 mole of carbon + 4 moles of hydrogen.

If you have trouble sleeping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

MattKing · Jun 1, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
These are the weeds into which I will not stray.

This could be a good candidate for a Photrio signature line

Showcase for Your HCWP's

koraks

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

Rolleiflexible

nmp

koraks

Moderator

KYsailor

koraks

Moderator

Rolleiflexible

koraks

Moderator

nmp

koraks

Moderator

nmp

Patrick Robert James

Patrick Robert James

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

NedL

koraks

Moderator

nmp

KYsailor

koraks

Moderator

Patrick Robert James

koraks

Moderator

Rolleiflexible

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

MattKing

Moderator

Showcase for Your HCWP's

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency