Re: Liquid light

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Mon, 8 Jan 1996 00:54:39 -0500 (EST)


On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Russell Young wrote:

> Regarding Judy's comments on beige BFK being inadequately absorptive
> for cyanotypes- I find it one of the easiest papers to print cyanotypes
> on! The variation in these old processes caused by working techniques,

Guess I should have added two points:

1. The failure on the beige paper wasn't mine, it was students' -- who at
one time or another in one way or another have stumbled on this finding.Most
recently a student pinned up in class crit as a "variable" test two
identically coated and exposed prints, one on BFK white, one on beige. The
beige was a pale shadow of the white.

It's possible of course that a longer exposure, or different formula, or
some other strategy followed by Russell & co could have succeeded on the
beige. It's also possible that your beige is different from his beige, or
your formula from his, or your whatever from some other whatever as we
seem to be learning every day ..... HOWEVER,

2. I would not print ANY cyanotype on Rives BFK... If you check the specs
you'll see it is a buffered paper, that is, it has sodium carbonate added
to fight off acid rain, or the acid something else buffering is meant to
oppose. But cyanotype likes a slightly acid condition (according to my
sources, I hasten to add ... Mike?), and the alkali in the paper is likely
to impair the print over time, ie., fade it. Now that said, I haven't seen
the specs on the beige paper, maybe it's not buffered -- but I wouldn't
count on it.

I've said this a lot about BFK. If someone has contrary information how
about telling us? (I'm citing in particular the intro to the Anna Atkins
book published by Aperture, which is the source I remember. I've seen
other references I don't remember now.)

But even more important, cyanotype is capable of an exquisite long scale
and fine detail on a smoother paper (regardless of pH). Why give all that
up for boring old BFK? Why does EVERYONE print cyanotype on BFK? It's
rather sketchy, like watercolor paper, and sometimes leaves white flecks.
It's not cheap either. Why not save it for gum where the relative
stability is useful for multi-coating? (Are you printing very large,
Russell? I guess BFK is seductive for large, but there are plenty of others,
unbuffered.)

And where is global warming when we need it? I mean, answer me that!

Judy