U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Cyanotype Redux

RE: Cyanotype Redux

> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 19:15:33 +0000
> From: henry.rattle@ntlworld.com
> Subject: Re: Cyanotype Redux
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Brian - I'm intrigued by your lightbox that gives such short exposures for
> traditional cyanotype. My own (paper about 5 inches from a bank of 20-watt
> BL tubes) gives a PDN standard printing time of 21 minutes. It would be nice
> if it were less!

One thing I had a problem with was glass in my printing frame that blocked too much UV.  Got some cheap hardware store glass and my printing times went down quite a bit.  I had bought the frame used and somebody must have replaced it with some "good" framing glass at some point in its life.


> Best wishes
> Henry
> On 3/3/08 17:45, "john@johnbrewerphotography.com"
>  wrote:
>> Hi Brian
>> If not rod coating I use a brush similar to the Richeson ( a Da Vinci) and
>> have never had any problems. I do use a little tween and my favourite paper
>> is Aquarelle Arches hot pressed for cyanotypes. I have tried different
>> ratios of A and B but always revert back to the regular 1:1 mix. I have used
>> foam brushes in the past and not found it abrasive but I kept getting
>> streaks in the developed print.
>> John.
>> www.johnbrewerphotography.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Pawlowski [mailto:beepy@netapp.com]
>> Sent: 03 March 2008 17:31
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>> Subject: Cyanotype Redux
>> It can't POSSIBLY be this...
>> I mentioned a while back problems with runoff with Cyanotype. I've
>> tried a few papers over a long time - and was finally trying Crane's
>> Weston Diploma Parchment.
>> I kept getting a lot of run off and bleeding into highlights. I did
>> get a PH meter after someone commented on Bay Area water (mine reads
>> about 8.3) - so I consistently acidify (very very dilute hydrochloric
>> acid - pool chemistry - cheap). I follow Sam Wang's advice through Mark
>> Nelson to clear inverted. I am using Classic Cyanotype - went from 1:1
>> Solution A to Solution B to 3:2 - but then as my highlight bleeding
>> problems plagued me I went back 1:1 (and with a new UV box my exposures
>> are 1m 50s even at 1:1).
>> But Judy Seigel sent me a note along the lines of "This is a really
>> simple process. Why are you using a hake brush - use a foam brush.
>> Etc."
>> I went to Home Depot, and picked up a couple cheap black foam
>> brushes with wooden handles. After several back and forth
>> tests, I'm concluding the foam brush outperforms the hake and
>> Richeson brushes for my cyanotypes - I'm getting virtually *no*
>> runoff - whereas before it looked like a Smurf took a bath in
>> the tray.
>> Can it *really* be that simple? The foam brush moves more roughly
>> across the paper surface. Kevin Sullivan in an e-mail sometime back
>> when I made a comment about runoff on COT 320 said it might be
>> necessary to rough up the surface (to break the sizing?) on very smooth
>> papers like COT 320.
>> Anybody want to weigh in on this? I've been mostly running calibration
>> sheets (step tablets for PDN work). I'll probably do a few prints
>> later.
>> My only concern is that the foam brush will abrade the surface of the
>> paper too much with resulting loss of image detail (on the other hand -
>> cyanotype running off willy nilly and bleeding into highlights suck).