Re: 1st & 2nd Cyanotype

From: G Guhan Gunaratnam <guruguhan_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:09:00 -0400
Message-id: <BAY102-DAV1674E9CD89B09DA019BBECAF660@phx.gbl>
Message-id: <C0E69E8C.2408%guruguhan@hotmail.com>

Hi Camden,

Thanks a lot. Yes, this is a digital neg. And I did not use anything to
control contrast in the sensitizer. Is controlling the contrast of the neg
always preferred over doing it when printing?

I will read about toning in tannic acid, thanks for the suggestion.

I used a foam brush because my only hake brush is being used for pt/pd. I
have ordered two 9010s that should be here soon. I know it does no good to
complain...but... wow these brushes are expensive!

Thanks again,
Gu

On 7/21/06 1:58 PM, "Camden Hardy" <camden@hardyphotography.net> wrote:

> Gu,
>
> It looks like you're on the right track (at least with the top one). It
> looks like you're not getting paper white, but I'm not sure if it's the
> image or the photo of the print. I think I'd like to see a little more
> contrast (is this a digital neg? If so, that should be easy enough to
> do). I think this print would look really nice toned in tannic acid.
>
>
>> Seeing how the second print came out, my first thought was ­ too long an
>> exposure (for this paper).
>
> I would say overexposure is a good guess, although I could be way off base.
>
>
> You mentioned that you used a foam brush...have you considered using a
> hake brush? I've had much better luck coating cyanotypes with the hake
> than with foam. May help get some of your coating issues out of the
> picture (no pun intended).
>
>
> Camden Hardy
>
> camden@hardyphotography.net
> http://www.hardyphotography.net
>
>
Received on 07/21/06-01:09:34 PM Z

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 08/31/06-12:23:48 PM Z CST