[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Buxton Papers

Dan, a few comments that may help.  I print a lot of "classic" cyanotype.  I
did not like the Ware version, couldn't get clean enough highlights on any
paper.  Perhaps it's LA water?  Perhaps you should try the classic just to
see if that is a problem for you as well.

Anyway, coating either new or classic cyanotype can be very simple.  Your
Cranes and Bristol are both smooth surface papers, which work great with a
"puddle pusher".  My students have loved working with these.  You can get a
nicely made one from the list's own "Bostic and Sullivan".  Perhaps a good
alternative if you are having trouble getting a good brush coating.

As to your negs, have you tried printing a step wedge?  This is a test strip
of different densities.  Printing it will show if you are achieving "black"
and what value that should be in your negative.  That is controlled by your
film speed setting on your meter.  It will also show what density is
required to produce a "white", and what value that should be in your
negative.  This is controlled by your film development time.  This
description, limited by space, is VERY simplified.  I think Judy's first
issue of PFP has a full discussion of this.  Perhaps she still has some to
sell???

As to paper, classic cyanotype will create an image on almost anything!  Do
remember that your contrast and print speed will be different on each type
of paper.  In general for classic cyanotype, any paper that works for
platinum will work for cyanotype.  My current favorite is Cranes Platinotype
WHITE (you have to specify white, otherwise you get get cream).  This is
also available from "Bostic and Sullivan".

You can see some of my newer cyanotypes on the website below.

-- 
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com

> From: Don Bryant <dsbryant@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: Buxton Papers
> 
> Judy,
> 
>> Don, I assume Mike Ware must have used Buxton for his New Cyanotype,
>> because it was made with his collaboration, or at least was vetted by him,
>> for his pt-pd process. And I know papers perform differently with the
>> "new" and the "classic" cyano -- but my tests showed that Buxton was not
>> especially good for "classic" or regular cyano ... granted the tests were
> 
> I am using the New Cyanotype and getting really miserable prints. This is
> caused I beleive by:
> 
> 1) My poor coating technique.
> 2) Negatives that aren't quite contrasty and dense for the process
> 3) The paper I'm using, which BTW includes Cranes #90 Natural White and
> Bright White, Canson Bristol (a really inexpensive paper) and Fabriano Uno
> #90 and something heavier perhaps #140.
> 
> My exposure times are running between 20 and 30 minutes and I either
> underexpose or overexpose.<BIG SNIP>