Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: new cyanotype process development

  1. #31
    500+ Posts earlj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    5,744
    Blog Entries
    7
    My print passed phase 2, and has been accepted to hang in the Minnesota State Fair art exhibition.
    because:
    "a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?"
    -Don Van Vliet

  2. #32
    500+ Posts jon.oman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Summerville, SC, USA
    Posts
    988
    Congratulations!

  3. #33
    Congratulations Earl!

  4. #34
    500+ Posts Isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,732
    Wonderful.
    Regards Shane
    - Suggestions on how to improve image always welcome
    http://www.ipernity.com/home/isisford/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/isisford/

  5. #35
    Well done, Earl!

    I'm going to have to make up some of Mike Ware's new process, and do some side by side testing myself. 9 steps versus 17 is definitely quite a difference. I do think that the initial citric acid bath on developing the traditional formula helps with the mid tones, and the tonal range, but that's just subjective. I do have a couple of step wedges around, so I'll test it. My test with vinegar didn't go so well. Cleared out the whites well, but also any mid tones that could be found. Seemed to multiply the limitations of the traditional process rather than improve it.

    I was just checking my paper inventory, and I have a good stash of Fabriano Artistico that I didn't like as much for cyanotypes. I'm going to have to try the acidification with Sulfamic acid. Again, Twinrocker hot press has been my favorite for cyanotypes, with Stonehenge a close second. I like Stonehenge for playing since it's so inexpensive, and it really does do an acceptable job.

  6. #36
    500+ Posts earlj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    5,744
    Blog Entries
    7
    Good luck, Doug. The new cyanotype formula is not difficult to mix up yourself if you have the ingredients. I think that you will be pleased with the results. Do acidify any paper that you use with the Ware formula with sulfamic acid - the Ware formula is much more sensitive to paper chemistry than the traditional.
    because:
    "a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?"
    -Don Van Vliet

  7. #37
    You know, Earl, when I first used Fabriano Artistico, it was with Ware's formula, and I didn't acidify it. I will have to try it again with the traditional process as well. I do like both formulas, I've just never had them around together at the same time. I think I'll make some Ware's this weekend and give it a shot.

    Also just noticed your pinhole was shot with EFKE, which was perhaps my favorite film. Especially the ISO 25 in low light with long exposures. So sad to see that suddenly disappear. At least I have a small stash in the freezer of both 4x5 and 120.
    Last edited by Doug K; 09-10-2014 at 10:23 PM.

  8. #38
    I've mixed up some of Mike Ware's formula, and I had forgotten how finicky it is about paper etc. I did a test print to make sure that it indeed was working, and ended up with a horrible yellow fog on the print that would not clear out. Mike Ware says this is due to "impurities" in the paper. What I've found is it's due to the pH of the paper. I had treated some paper with sulfamic acid, so used that, and I acidified the formula with citric acid, which I didn't do with the first print. I also did a test with acidified emulsion with untreated paper, and got the same yellow fog. The paper that got treated with sulfamic made a nice, if a bit over exposed (my fault) print. Definitely more range on the print, and less washing out of blue during development. Anyhow, the two pieces were cut from the same sheet, so it's definitely due to the pH and whatever they are using to buffer the paper. The fogging issue is something I haven't had any problem with using the traditional formula.

    In the past I've said how much I like Twinrocker paper for cyanotypes, and I think it's partly due to the pH of the paper. I haven't tested it, but my anecdotal impression when treating it with sulfamic is that it bubbled less than Stonehenge paper. I've never had an issue with yellow fogging with the old formula, so it's just one of those finicky things that one has to deal with when using Ware's formula. I've not printed on Twinrocker with the new formula yet, but I will be interested to try both acid treated paper, and untreated paper.

    Anyhow, still tweaking my process. I will try to print out some using the new and old process with the same negative, and post them here for comparison.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •