Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 01:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Bill_Lucas wrote:
>
> ... It somewhat relieves me to hear that you have had some
> trouble too! First off, what do you mean that the fe am cit (green) was
> bad upon opening the jar. Was it a visual thing, even before you added
> water and tried printing?
It was a few years ago & I don't remember all details, but the moment the
A&B were combined, it turned dark blue. I don't think our troubles were
exactly the same, but some generalisations might be relevant:
Ferric ammonium citrate is, according to Mike Ware, an "ill-characterized
substance", meaning (& I hope I got this right) it's sort of a
constellation of chemicals with no clear precise "make it this way, get
just that." Rather it's subject to variations by whims unknown. Usually
this matters little in our making of cyanotypes, but may, on occasion,
matter much. That was one reason Ware said he devised the New Cyanotype,
based on -- do I remember correctly? Ferric ammonium oxalate?, well, on
something else.
My own experience with cyano is that certain details are NOT constant. For
instance, I used to try to get students to pin down a few variables, like
the keeping quality on paper, but their tests -- AND my own -- were all
over the map. I attributed that to paper differences and/or bad work
habits, but in time I came to suspect hidden variables. Some things
ALWAYS worked one way (like heat drying always cost speed and contrast),
but time on paper was quixotic.
> I did start off with new jars of the fe am cit
> green and brown. The brown as I said is what I have experience with and it
> did look different in color, but not enough for me to initially be
> concerned, since it was from the same chemical company (Sigma). I assumed
> that all raw chemicals coming from a company that supplies big-time labs
> had to be consistent. I did call them when I started getting my bad
The phenomena you describe are unlike any I've seen, but for what it's
worth, at this point I suggest:
1. prayer.
2. Another source entirely. I've found a bad batch of chemicals from a
given supplier (& I've had that with a couple of suppliers & a couple of
chemicals *including* Sigma and Fluka for the ferric ammonium citrate)
means that the ENTIRE shipment they received was bad. Until they run out
of it, it will be useless for you. I suspect also that a) they lie & tell
you no one else complained, b) other uses are different from yours & may
not have your problem, c) the person you talk to on the phone doesn't have
a clue -- or all of the above. So you might call, for instance, Artcraft
(1/800-682-1730, Fax 518/355-9121) and start again with *both* the fe am
cit and the potassium ferricyanide.
3. That's because the one time our prints were too light turned out to be
from contaminated or "off" k ferricyanide. Are the crystals "ruby red"?
The books say they are, though usually there's a hefty sprinkling of
orange too, which is still OK. But one year when our prints came out very
pale, the school supply was all orange with many yellow lumps. Kodak's
chem division swore that was impossible and that it was all shipped in
sealed jars, which (of 8 stores I checked over the next months) not a
SINGLE one was ! We got a pound from another supplier & instant cure.
4. Possibly your problems are exacerbated by a change in paper or water...
both of which are variables. Just for the heck of it you might call the
water department & ask about recent creativity at the pump house (that's
also seasonal).
5. Until you iron (!) this out, try keeping "time on paper" constant (but
you knew that).
6. On the other hand, if you've been getting adequate control exposing by
sunlight, in Michigan yet, there may not be much I can tell you. But I
have read that the green crystals are lots faster than the brown (which
was why they were adapted even while still quite a bit costlier), so
Liam's thought that you could be over-exposing the green sounds likely....
especially since going light blue in developing sounds like solarizing ...
though that usually recovers.
7. However if your wash water turns quite blue, that suggests the
washing off of emulsion... if so, that can be from a non-absorbent paper
(did a batch come in with added size? Try it on a piece of typing paper,
if you didn't already) or heat drying the emulsion, which leaves it on
the top as a skin, which washes away.
Good luck -- & let us know when you solve the mystery...
Judy
> ... results, but they claim no changes were made. I then got the green
from
a
> subsidiary of Sigma, called Fluka. Where do you get your chemicals
> from ?
>
> Second, I live in Michigan, so we do have high humidity. And I do coat in
> my basement, a somewhat damp place, but those variables have not
> dramatically changed. I store my paper in an upstairs dry room, because
> last year I did encounter very weird effects when I decided to be efficient
> and store in the basement where I coat. I fiqured out that problem
> quickly. These new effects in someways have a similar nature, but not
> quite.
>
> Which leads me to your fogging question. Most recent results. I mixed
> chemicals on Wednesday (14th) and coated paper on Sunday (18th). When I
> coated the paper all seemed well (yellow green) and after 1 or 2 hours
> drying in darkness with a fan blowing on the paper it was dry to the touch,
> but my sun went away. So, I boxed it up and took it upstairs to store in a
> dark, less humid closet. I checked on the paper later and it was
starting
> it's "fogging thing" and by the time I printed on it today (20th) it was a
> bright royal blue. Something I have never seen before all this trouble
> started. I pressed on and printed on it like there was nothing wrong.
> During exposure the blue turned this eerie grey beige color, looked burnt
> out, but I proceeded with an average 15 to 20 minute exposure. I washed of
> the chemicals which turned blue in the water, and when I added my diluted
> peroxide a blue came out on the paper. It took forever, almost two hours
> for the print to clear enough that I feel all remaining unexposed chemicals
> are gone. It also faded the blue. In the meantime I was temporarily
> excited, so I coated another couple of sheets to dry and print today. They
> also looked fine during coating and I let it dry for over an hour. Just
> dry enough not to hurt my negatives, but not long enough for it to start
> turning blue. The exposure did the same color change, when final wash was
> done I never got a blue in the end. It's almost greenish brown. It does
> kind of look like when I did the store my paper in the basement routine.
> So, maybe the chemicals did not soak in the paper deep enough? Or where
> would this possible dilution comes in. (P.S it is not that humid today)
> Besides I'm still hung up on the blue change before exposure and weird look
> as I print.
>
> Well, I guess that is as specific as I can get. I know that this is not an
> exact process, which is one thing I like about it. And I have been known
> to push the envelope on it's supposed limitations. But I have never been
> so anal and scientific as I have been this past month trying to elimate
> things from the equation. I know it ain't brain surgery, but MY BRAIN is
> running out. Thanks for your experience, I would love any more input.
>
> Siouxsan E. Miller
> c/o "bill_lucas@compuserve.com"
>
> -------------Forwarded Message-----------------
> RE: Re: I'm Blue Over My Cyanotype!
>
> You don't say if you had started a new bottle of any of the chemicals
> at the point where the trouble began.
>
> You also say "appearance of fogging" -- but not if the print itself fogged
> when made. In very warm weather (where are you???? NYC????) and high
> humidity, emulsion can go blue on the paper but may still print OK.
>
> I also had a jar of fe am cit (green) that was bad upon opening. Turned
> blue as you describe. A replacement from the same company was ALSO bad.
> Got a new jar from a different company was OK.
>
> At that time Mike Ware advised adding a certain % of a very dilute
> potassium dichromate to the emulsion -- it did clear up the pre-fogging,
> but the contrast was through the roof, times much slower, and loss of grey
> scale made an inferior print.
>
> My own tests, BTW, showed that classic formula without either dichromate
> or oxalic acid worked best...
>
> The emulsion with the oxalic goes off sort of (again -- in my tests) after
> about 6 weeks -- but some tests (not yet completed) of VERY old emulsion
> (like 2 years) show it kept *on the paper* better than the plain -- like
> for about 2 weeks. In other words, there are so many variables it's hard
> to make generalizations, but tests both I and my students made suggest
> wait a day or two for fresh emulsion to get its full strength, then test
> again after, say, 2 weeks if you're in habit of working from 21-steps
> rather than test prints (as we do).
>
> good luck,
>
> Judy
>
>
> >
> > I too used this version of cyanotype. Many comments on this list
> > made me wonder if the Oxalic Acid and Dichromate were needed (or
> > might even hurt). But, I had editioned work I was trying to
> > match. My results: I can skip the Oxalic acid totaly, but the
> > dichromeate makes a very slight contrast differance.
> >
> > My point: try mixing a small amount without these chemicals and
> > see what you get. Also try getting new (clean) jars (I wonder
> > what rust on a jar lid does to cyanotype??). Or how about
> > coating with a differant brush (again rust or other metal
> > contaminent).
> >
> > My experience is that the solutions are better after about 24
> > hours. Something doesn't dissolve well, and I sometimes get
> > streaks with too fresh solutions. But, that has nothing to do
> > with your problems.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > > SNIP>
> > --
> > Tom Ferguson
> > tomf2468@pipeline.com
> > http://www.thefstop.com/tf.html
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37