From: Kris Erickson (kerickso@ryerson.ca)
Date: 04/03/03-03:14:57 PM Z
Those images are not of the original A+B cyanotype, but are (all, I
believe) Mike Ware's, using the new cyanotype formula he himself
developed. I would also guess they are the product of long and careful
interneg/neg preparation as well (if not well exposed large-format
camera originals).
What do you need to produce a variety of tones? First, in my opinion, is
a subject matter that requires an image to be rendered in a fine array
of BLUE tones. Not just any subject can be rendered in cyanotype (nor in
silver gelatin, nor in a c-print, nor in...) Some images _work_ because
they are flat, some images don't.
Once that's decided, then many tests to determine negative densities
relative to cyanotype positive tonalities. Dense negatives and extreme
overexposure may be one way to go. I've found that for me, overexposed
and overdeveloped Tri-X gives really creamy gradient highlights when
overexposed.
good luck,
K
Rauch, Shelley wrote:
> My teacher cancelled class today, so unfortunately I couldn't ask her this question.
>
> I looked at some of the cyanotypes my fellow students have produced. Without exception, the images look very flat. I almost want to say that they resemble something more like a batik or fabric print. There doesn't seem to be a full representation of tones in the images.
>
> I was scurrying about on the internet today, just looking for any relevant cyanotype info that will help me out this weekend. I came across some galleries that showed cyanotypes. I was shocked to see that they look like... well, photographs, except in blue. This is what I saw: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/viewtechnique.cfm?recid=155 (some scrolling is required).
>
> The work I saw earlier today looked *nothing* like this. Any opinions on what would give the results I described? And what do I need to produce something that does have a variety of tones?
>
> Thanks,
> Shelley
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 05/01/03-11:59:53 AM Z CST