I have been going backwards in the attempt (thanks, Bob, for nominating
me) to test "New" vs. "Old" cyanotypy. The starting gate retreats, as I
find that two different formulas of "Old" are in common use by folks who
each take them for "the" cyanotype. It turns out they perform differently,
not across the board, so you could generalize, but erratically, in such
factors as how density is affected by aging in solution, how they react to
different papers, and how otherwise they do and don't, can and can't be
made to manifest the problems cited as reason for inventing the "new."
Since I just hate it when I reinvent the wheel, I'd most ardently
appreciate hearing from anyone who has done or knows of comparisons
between these two main "old" formulas, which are as follows.
The first, which is the one I use, I have, for obvious reasons, called
"Plain" in testing (and this is the formula in Keepers of Light and Bea
Nettles, among others). The second I label "OXA" for "oxalate," again for
obvious reasons. This is the formula used by Bob Schramm, Mike Ware (as I
recall), and in Gassan's Handbook, among other sources. I don't notice
John Barnier mentioning which he had used & found unreliable in his
article in Photo Techniques -- if he mentioned it on line, it is
temporarily (of course) lost in the overload around here.
Plain Old Cyanotype
A. 20 g ferric ammonium citrate in 100 cc distilled water
B. 8 g potassium ferricyanide in 100 cc distilled water
OXA Old Cyanotype
[note that this formula is for 250 cc. I reduced it by a
third, since I only wanted enough for tests, and added the dichromate in
proportionate drops of 26% ammonium dichromate solution.]
A. 68 g ferric ammonium citrate and 1.3 g oxalic acid in 250 cc distilled
water
B. 23 g potassium ferricyanide, 1.3 g oxalic acid and .5 g ammonium
dichromate in 250 cc distilled water.
I also discover that in an essay by Mike Ware reprinted in the Luminos
catalog, he mentions that "There are many up-to-date accessible accounts
of the traditional method, for instance by Hope Kinglsley and TERRY KING,"
whom I take for the very same KING NAPOLEON of Alt Photo fame. Terry,
what are the odds of your sending me a copy of that "accessible" account?!
Meanwhile, along the way, I can say without a shadow of fear of
contradiction that,
a. the chlorox 1:32 "intensifier" given in Bea Nettles (among other
sources I'm sure) actually bleaches the print (it's chlorox, what did you
expect?). But you already knew that.
and
b. Developing directly in distilled water also lightens the print, or did
so far, 2 tests out of 3. Did you know that?
Oh, I almost forgot, here's "c" for you, Bob my friend: So far of the
maybe 8 papers I've tested with the two "old" formulas, the worst, and I
mean the very worst, so that I could hardly see steps until I'd exposed
for 16 minutes by blacklight flourescent (trying to do it on the NuArc
would burn out my $100 bulb) was.... you guessed it: Rives BFK! (After 18
minutes it does get an atmospheric kind of random dot effect in a deep
rich blue -- which may be why Bob wins all those "Best in Show" awards.)
However, he tells me that he gets Rives BFK in both a coldpress and hot
press form, which I've never heard of, so he might be using a different
paper from the Rives BFK I'm testing.
And one more thing while I'm passing out bouquets: Barnier says in his
article that "there should be no difference if you prefer heat drying with
a hair dryer." I promise to test that when (and if) I ever get to the new
formulas sitting in boxes here & there (hope they don't get buried). But
in case there's anyone within sound of my voice who's drying their "old"
cyanotype with a hair dryer, I have but one word: "uhoh!"
Yours in cyan-tology,
Judy