Hi Sal,
Your manipulation of cyanotype formula, increasing proportion of the fe am
cit, very interesting -- I'd done some tests in a similar vein, using 2
parts A to one part B, also (& generally better), one and one-half parts
to one. Would have to look up details but recollection is that results
were about as you describe.
New/old cyano tests are on hold this week as I'm at College Art Conference
every day, hawking my book & in spare time grilling art supply venders in
the same exhibition hall. (As an aside, will mention that I had VERY
interesting conversation with man from Holbein today, in case any folks
reading this remember discussion about the Wilcox watercolor pigment book.
He was full of chapter and verse about how extremely off the wall Wilcox
was in so many many respects and particulars. In fact, suggestion was that
if the fellow had gone on to do book on oil colors as originally projected
there would have been a class-action lawsuit. He also confirmed my
objections to the structure -- or lack of -- of the book, adding points
about the misconstructions I'd missed. Oh I do so love it when I'm right!)
But back to our cyano saga: My HUNCH, surmising from the prelims, is that
the results you cite -- Old formula doublecoat vs Ware singlecoat, etc.
will vary according to the paper.
Yes, that's what I've learned in my old age (and I grieve to think of all
the error I have committed and endured before fully absorbing that fact).
The PAPER is, if not THE overrriding variable, a very big one. So what
paper did you do this on?
Another damnable variable is the temperature- humidity. On very cold days
when steam heat makes the air super-dry the paper soaks up incredible
amounts in *one* coat.
In other words, these tests could very well come out quite different in
summer. (Or in Peak District of England where Mike Ware lives?)
Cheers before snowstorm,
Judy