Art I'm Making: Cyanotype progress

Under the heading of "For What it's Worth": I've been working with the new Christina Z. Anderson Cyanotype book, following a couple of months of experimentation on my own (but with the generous help of another member here who happens to live nearby), focused on classic cyanotype and Arches Platine paper.

Looking at the book, I was very impressed by the work by Eugene Starobinskiy (for example, on page 117). Saying to myself "That's the kind of print I want to make!" and reading his comment saying his best-looking prints have been done on Canson XL Watercolor paper (in a 9 x 12 tablet), I decided to start a new calibration using this paper. It has one huge advantage right off the bat--it's much cheaper than Arches Platine. Also, I don't like that the Arches Platine sheets always come with a sticker on them that ruins part of the already expensive paper. On the downside, the Canson paper is less absorbent, making it a little harder to coat evenly. The blues are slightly different, but hard to characterize. The Arches Platine blue is a little fatter, a little more velvety, but I don't dislike the color of the Canson XL.

The Canson seems to give me a much better range of tones. I used Christine's method to determine a base exposure (I hope I've done it right), based on the information on pages 49-53. I've modified my standard processing slightly, by increasing the acidity of the developing water--going from one tbsp of vinegar/quart to 1 tbsp/500ml, essentially doubling the vinegar--although that's still a comparatively small amount.

The first cyanotype I posted here, and my first real effort was appealing and I put it up with some enthusiasm because I was simply pleased to got an interesting image of any kind (the image of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco). However, the shadows are blocked up in the original print (on the left) and the mid-tones are muddy. Changing to the Canson XL Watercolor paper with the above-noted modification immediately produced a much better result. So, I think I will move forward trying to create a curve for this new paper and development routine. Information about the two prints is given below the images (I hope it's readable). Both were exposed in a beautiful UV-light box my brother made for me. Identical negative. Both classic cyanotype formula from Bostick and Sullivan. Double coated. Naturally, these are images of images, so approximations, but I've made an effort to tweak them so that the on-screen versions look as close as possible to the real prints--although they may look rather different on your monitor. Still, I hope the comparison is of some interest to anyone considering these papers. 

[Having posted this on the Facebook cyanotype page I unexpectedly triggered a long thread with many people much more experience than me. They've convinced me that the Canson is not a good choice for serious work because it has buffers in it that react badly with cyanotype chemistry over time. Although it works very well, it's not archival. Back to the Arches Platine.]

Art I'm Making: My Second First Cyanotype

A few weeks back, I posted here my "first cyanotype." Being new to this process, I was pleased with an image that had faults that I was willing to overlook in the excitement of getting a moderately successful image. Here, I post what I think I will be able to look back on as my real first cyanotype in the sense that this one actually looks the way I envisioned it from the outset.

I've been working to create a curve that works for me. However, this image worked a little by accident, I believe. That is, I think the curve I'm using now just happens to work well with this particular image. Using the same curve on other images and on a test target has been disappointing. I'm still have trouble getting a range of tones at the highlight end of things.

For the moment, though, I'll take what I can get. This is repeatable because I have the successful negative, but my work will continue until I get a curve that works more generally.

For those who like technical details, this is a print using the traditional cyanotype formula on Arches Platine, double coated, exposed for 15 minutes under an artificial UV light source. Developed in water with one tbsp of vinegar per quart for one minute under constant, vigorous agitation (which seems to be the key to keeping the highlights from getting stained) and then for 30 seconds in water with one tbsp of hydrogen peroxide added per quart of water. Washed ten minutes. The bird is a Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus), photographed in Santa Rosa, California (digital capture, negative made on Pictorico transparency film). The Great-tailed Grackle is a comparatively unusual bird here, but it is becoming more common as it appears to be extending its range into our area of Northern California from its traditional range, mostly in the southwestern and south-central US and Mexico.

Art I'm Making: First Cyanotypes (November 25, 2018)

The cyanotype process has always fascinated me, but it's only been in the past couple of months that I've started investigating it in earnest, thanks to my brother, who built me an amazing UV exposure box, and to Bob Cornelis, who has been extraordinarily generous with his time and advice.

After many trials, I printed my first actual attempts at making photos yesterday. Some tweaking is still in order (the midtones are greyer than I would like), but generally speaking, I'm quite pleased at having achieved crisp whites and dark, velvety blacks--or blues, I should say. 

This view of the Transamerica Pyramid, in San Francisco, was done on Arches Platine paper using the traditional cyanotype formula, coating the paper twice. 15-minute exposure. Processed in water with one tablespoon vinegar/quart of water for one minute. Then rinsed in a bath of one tablespoon hydrogen peroxide/quart of water for 30 seconds. Washed 15 minutes. Off to a good start. :) 

[My very first cyanotype was actually more than two-and-a-half years ago. Here's a link to a comment about that attempt.] 

[And I've made some progress since posting this ]

Art I'm Making: My First Cyanotype Attempt--An Interesting Failure (March 20, 2016)

My first cyanotype attempt. An interesting failure. On the whole, though, better than I thought likely for a first try. The most obvious problem is the paper I used, which is too light and absorbent. It was looking blotchy already when I coated it with the cyanotype solution--although the finished image is much less obviously blotchy than the paper was when wet, after it had dried following the initial coating, or after exposure and during "development". The image itself is too contrasty. The highlights in the branch on the left are whiter than I want (the scan here is better than the original, with the bright whites softened). Still, this is in the ballpark.

The image shown here was made using the Bostick & Sullivan cyanotype kit, a traditional cyanotype formula. I used 90 drops of finished solution (45 drops each of parts A and B mixed) to coat an 11 x 14 inch sheet of paper. The exposure was about 8 minutes in late afternoon sunlight on March 19, 2016 (partly cloudy). The digital negative (printed on PictoricoPro transparency film, using the glossy photo setting on an Epson 3880 printer) was made from a color digital image converted to B&W that I then adjusted using a cyanotype curve I found online. I next converted the B&W image to orange by using Color Balance, in Photoshop, boosting the yellow and red sliders all the way up. I then flipped the image horizontally so that the image would be right way around when placed against the cyanotype paper with the printed side closest to the paper (flipped). With the rain, I'll be able to expose no more images today, but I may go to the art supply store to seek a better paper to work on. I'm also reading up on toning cyanotype prints with tea, which darkens the highlights a little and converts the bright Prussian blue of the cyanotype to a bluish brown.

[Now, more than two years later (in November 2018), I'm trying to learn cyanotype photography in earnest. Here's a link to a post about my latest efforts.]

Art I'm Making: Cyanotypes and Van Dyke Prints

I recently visited the Santa Rosa studio of photographer Barbara Elliott, whose work I plan to show in August and September on the Art Wall at Shige Sushi. We ended up talking for a couple of hours. One subject that came up was the work she's been doing trying to learn the platinum/palladium photographic process. We also talked about cyanotypes--a process that's always interested me for its simplicity. I've fooled around with pre-sensitized sheets for making cyanotypes before, but the sheets are small, expensive, and rather flimsy. Barbara told me about supplier Bostick & Sullivan, where I just got a deluxe kit of chemicals for making both cyanotypes and Van Dyke prints.

Cyanotypes, as the name suggests, are blue (blueprints are essentially cyanotypes), the final image formed by a insoluble deposit of ferric ferrocyanide--also known as Prussian blue, which has always been one of my favorite colors (remember the "Midnight Blue" Crayola crayon?). Van Dyke prints are brown, but rather different in color from a sepia-toned print. I associate the Van Dyke process mostly with the work of David Octavius Hill and Robert Adamson, who together used it extensively in the 1840s to make portraits that remain highly regarded today. Anna Atkins, who published a book of photograms of algae and other plants  in three volumes in the 1840s and 1850s and is usually credited with creating the first book illustrated with photographs, used the cyanotype process. I look forward to playing with my new chemicals.

["Midnight Blue" was one of the original eight Crayola colors introduced in 1903. Until 1958, it was known as "Prussian Blue." It's still in the line-up. It was always my favorite.]