Lockdown Blues... Cyanotypes, anyone?

[PeterSpencer]

As promised here are the best of the results from my experimentation. Saddly let down by haveing been photographed using my phone.

And one of the interneg Photoshop images.


All the originals were shot on film in colour and converted to monochrome.
Yes, before you say, more than one of these prints is back-to-front!

 

[sirch]

How did you do the toning Peter?

 

[PeterSpencer]

The pre-coated paper comes in a variety of hues. I bought a multipack (https://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Silv...5x7-Inch-12Sheet/product/SKU162321/SKU162321/ ) but you can buy a couple of the individual colours. There are suggestions for modifying the colours, for example sepia toning the blue/white version using a strong cup of (Yorkshire?) tea.

I found the darker papers quite difficult to use, for example the red and dark blue, so next time I'm might just order some lime green paper. It's a bit expensive at over
£1/sheet so what I should be doing is making the paper myself I suppose.

 

[ChrisR]

So, over on the digital negative thread (eg this post and some earlier ones) I described a couple of (not very good) digital negatives I made. I had a go at making cyanotypes from these.

First, I used the Northlight Images black and white test image with some cut-up cyanotype paper to test exposure, at roughly 1, 2 and 3 minutes for the different strips:



I'm not sure I interpreted this strip correctly... I assumed that because the right hand parts of the 21-step wedge at the bottom were all white, that 1 minute was an under-exposure. I think 2 minutes might have been a good exposure, but for some reason I chose 3 minutes (top part of the strip). I think I was looking for stronger blues for the dark part... So then I exposed the (over contrasty) horseman negative for 3 minutes:



TBH I'm not sure re-exposing that digital negative will have a significantly better result, as the negative does not (IIRC) differentiate as much between the tones of the horse and the trees as the original image did. I think maybe I should have a try at re-printing the digital negative...

So a couple of thoughts from this. First, I'm sure those of you who do wet printing from your negatives are aware, this process really made me look at and think about the negatives. Normally for me they are usually just an intermediate stage that I either barely look at (when I scan them) or almost never look at (when I get them scanned at Filmdev etc). I think I really ought to be looking much harder at my negatives, as there's probably a lot to learn about my (lack of) technique from them.

Secondly, from what I remember of the posts on the first page of this thread (I did mean to check back), exposure times in sunlight seem to vary hugely. In part this does seem to depend on how dense the negatives are, but I suspect that the actual amount of UV in UK sunlight also varies quite a lot with atmospheric conditions and (evn now) pollution. So I reckon I'm going to have to continue doing test strips if I do more of this.

 

[Andysnap]

I very much admire your attention to detail with all this northlight test strip/21 step wedgie stuff but it feels like maybe your overthinking it . I just chose a photo I liked, converted to nlac and white if necessary, faffed around until it looked contrasty enough then inverted and printed on an overhead projector sheet.
And it does seem peculiar that my exposure times are so much shorter than everyone else's, the longest was 90 seconds. I wonder if my set up is somehow pre-flashing the paper thus reducing the exposure needed?

 

[ChrisR]

I very much admire your attention to detail with all this northlight test strip/21 step wedgie stuff but it feels like maybe your overthinking it . I just chose a photo I liked, converted to nlac and white if necessary, faffed around until it looked contrasty enough then inverted and printed on an overhead projector sheet.
And it does seem peculiar that my exposure times are so much shorter than everyone else's, the longest was 90 seconds. I wonder if my set up is somehow pre-flashing the paper thus reducing the exposure needed?

I probably am over-thinking it, Andy. But given the variability of the sun, and the complete lack of automation and UV metering in my camera-less photography (!) I thought test strips would be a good idea. Probably superfluous after the first time with a UV printer (which should give replicable light), although I believe most darkroom printers use test strips every time... maybe because each negative is potentially very different?

 

[ChrisR]

A few people I follow on twitter have been showing cyanotypes (otherwise known as blue-prints), and they do look interesting. To back that up, I got an email from Stills in Edinburgh about their "Elementary blueprints" project (https://stills.org/learning/projects/), where they give away a sheet of cyanotype for users to expose to the elements any way they like, and contribute the results back. The sheet is free, except for the postage, so actually turns out to be a rather expensive way to get started! I've got mine, but have yet to decide what to do with it...

So it was the Stills Elementary blueprints project that got me started on this, and then I forgot about that part of it, until I got a reminder a week or so ago, and then another reminder a few days ago, that the last day for submission was 21 June! So, grubbed around in the mess on my desk, found the envelope with the quarter sheet of A4 carefully wrapped in newspaper, and took it out to the garden. Where to put it? How about under pear tree, below the bird feeder, held in place by this random dish that's been there the last few years? And 30 or so hours, some sun, cloud, drizzle, thunder shower, rain and more sun, plus maybe some bird droppings and a bit of lemon juice...



Took it inside and scanned it without a wash:



I don't really know what to make of it, but I rather like it (much more than the result after I'd washed it, which was rather bland). I thought it would just turn a uniform blue in the sun, but it's much more interesting than that. Anyway, both images submitted to Stills, for their exhibition.

 

[cardiff_gareth]

Thanks @sirch for guiding me to this thread.

I'm just getting started, I did ask a question in my new thread but I think it'll be better to re-ask here as to keep this main thread going.

Paper - I have some thick card stock paper here, will that be okay?

Dry / Wet? I bought a kit where you make the 2 solutions and then mix together. It says to dry the paper but I've seen a few online video's where they're using it wet?

The instructions say that when you paint the solution onto the paper and let it dry, you're to put in in a book or something so it's in the dark until you want to get it out and add things on top of the paper. It then says the paper will turn dark when "exposed" but I see people doing test strips?

If I make up both solutions - can I mix together and store in a light tight container and just tip out the liquid as and when I want it?

I see a few people have used their 120 negs? Can I ask how you do this?

 

[sirch]

Paper, as I said on the the other thread, I have found that papers used by water colour painters are good but just try what you have and if the results are not good then try different paper. There are a number of things regarding paper, you have to wash it for at least several minutes and you don't want it to fall apart while washing. You need to was off all the undeveloped chemicals and IME coated papers (such as printer paper) tend to hold on to the chemicals. Apparently paper acidity can affect the colour of the final print.

I have never tried wet, I always let it dry and I just leave it out on a board in a darkened room

The paper does change colour when exposed to a brown/bronze colour but test strips give you a more accurate way of getting a good exposure.

I only mix what I need, around 50ml to coat a number of sheets, IIRC it doesn't keep well if mixed.

Re negs, just put the negative on top of the coated paper and a piece of glass on top to keep the neg in close contact with the paper. Both the neg and glass cut down the amount of UV that gets through so you need longer exposure times.

 

[ChrisR]

I've only tried ready-coated paper; it's probably about the weight of a decent printer photo paper...

I did a few with the "adding things on top" approach; I don't think you need worry too much about exposure for those, although I did have trouble with light creeping in at the sides making some thin objects disappear. I don't think test strips would work well in this situation

I did one print from a 4x5 negative, and one from an enlarged digital "inter-negative" printed on clear acetate. (I found the 4x5 negative a bit small, which is why I went on to the enlarged negative; I suspect a 120 negative might be a bit small). Test strips were useful for both of those. I cut up one of my pre-coated sheets into strips, laid an "interesting" part of the negative over the strip, covered it up with a book and progressively revealed it.

On second thoughts, it might be better to use a comparatively bland part of the negative for a first test strip, then maybe check with another strip under a part of the negative with varying density.

I also did an environmental one left it outside over the weekend under the bird feeders with a rotting pear on top, squeezed lemon juice on it, whatever I could think of. I liked that one the best... though luckily I took a photo of it before washing as it became less interesting after that!

Unless you've got a UV printer of some kind, you need sun... so maybe you're starting at just the right time of year. Good luck, and have fun!

 

[cardiff_gareth]

Here's my first offerings!

10 minute exposures and all leaves, flowers etc sourced from a field nearby. The last 2 images are smaller A5 images and are feathers and snail shells. They didn't go as well as I imagined them in my head!

 

[Andysnap]

Good stuff. Did you leave them under glass whilst exposing them?

 

[cardiff_gareth]

Good stuff. Did you leave them under glass whilst exposing them?

Yes, I have a piece of IKEA Malm glass here and placed them under that