dazedgonebye
Veteran
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Steve, these pics are awesome. How did you make them?
Sparrow
Veteran
Beautiful Steve, did some Gum Arabic prints at college but was never happy with them. I keep looking at the platinum/palladium processes but I don’t have your dedication, just did the wine drinking last night no printing
Happy New Year
Happy New Year
FrankS
Registered User
Great work, Steve!
I'm planning on unpacking my 4x5 Speed Graphic and trying some alternative/vintage processes and playing with old lenses once I retire and have more time.
I'm planning on unpacking my 4x5 Speed Graphic and trying some alternative/vintage processes and playing with old lenses once I retire and have more time.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Surely someone with an M8 can post some lovely purple shots for us to peruse? :angel:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Andy...check this for an intro to the process. http://www.alternativephotography.com/process_cyanotype.html
I used a Epson 2400 printer (borrowed) to make a digital negative from my files and a sheet of overhead transparency film. From there, it's a contact print on water paper that I sensitized with the appropriate chemicals. The print is made under UV light (a bank of black lights).
It's really far more forgiving (and less precise) then normal dark room work. In fact I keep a light on a few feet away as it's really only sensitive in the UV.
Stewart. This is the simplest of the alternative processes. My gear and skills are far below those needed for good platinum/palladium prints.
Thanks Frank. I'm looking at a crown graphic for 4x5. In the mean time, digital negatives work great and I can make negatives for contact prints at 11x14.
I used a Epson 2400 printer (borrowed) to make a digital negative from my files and a sheet of overhead transparency film. From there, it's a contact print on water paper that I sensitized with the appropriate chemicals. The print is made under UV light (a bank of black lights).
It's really far more forgiving (and less precise) then normal dark room work. In fact I keep a light on a few feet away as it's really only sensitive in the UV.
Stewart. This is the simplest of the alternative processes. My gear and skills are far below those needed for good platinum/palladium prints.
Thanks Frank. I'm looking at a crown graphic for 4x5. In the mean time, digital negatives work great and I can make negatives for contact prints at 11x14.
Sparrow
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
What size are they and how did you make the negatives?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Keith novak said:
Ouch. . . .
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Sparrow said:
Those are 8x10s.
The negatives are digital files printed to OHP transparency paper on an Epson 2400. They're printed on Arches 140lb hot pressed water paper.
I've borrowed the printer, so I plan to make a series of smaller negatives like this then print some 11x14s before I have to return it.
Getting the negative right for the process is challenging. There's a program out there (free) called ChartThrob. It's actually a photoshop scrit. It produces a greyscale image that you make a negative of. You then print that out as a cyanotype (vandyke, salt print, whatever), then you scan that picture. It analyzes the picture and creates an adjustment curve in photoshop that you can apply to your images. That aligns your images to the tonal range of your print process.
Works very well and beats heck out of trial and error.
mtbbrian
RF's ROCK!andFilm RULES!!
Along with film based photography I am very glad to see that people are still doing non-silver photography!
I haven't done any in a long time, since college, but I have some experience doing cyanotypes.
These are good! I especially like the first one.
Brian
I haven't done any in a long time, since college, but I have some experience doing cyanotypes.
These are good! I especially like the first one.
Brian
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
It's a fun process. The chamicals are non-toxic and water soluble. I can work under a regular (dim) light and I rinse the prints in a tray in my kitchen sink.
I wish I had more time for it.
I wish I had more time for it.
Sparrow
Veteran
Thanks Steve, I’ve found the software, might give it a go; not sure my r220 Epsom will be up to the job do the negs need to be very dense?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
mtbbrian said:
The sick thing is that since most people nowadays generate their contact negatives by printing digitally to an inkjet printer... there's no reason you couldn't make cyanotypes (or whatever) with images that originated from a digital camera!
THAT would be an interesting exercise in irony!
Incidentally, I not only enjoyed seeing your samples, I appreciate your ability to come up with images that lend themselves to the process. That was always the problem I had the few times I worked with alternative processes: some images look good with a particular process and some don't. It takes taste to choose ones that will work.
PS -- How long did it take you to get the ammonia smell out of the house, or isn't that a problem with home-brew cyanotypes? I used to work at a graphic arts company that used basically the same process (they call it "blueline") to reproduce architectural drawings. Nice results, but very stinky...
dazedgonebye
Veteran
jlw said:
Actually...those shots were taken with a 300D and made from digital negative, produced on an inkjet printer.
No amonia smell. I didn't mix all the chemicals from scratch. I bought a 2 part kit that you mix right before using. Very easy.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Sparrow said:
You should do fine with your R220. The resolution possible with a process like this, printed on watercolor paper, is really not much of a challenge for modern equipment. The thing is to get the good transparency paper. OHP is what I'm using and it's worlds better than the stuff from the office supply store.
If you use the chartthrob system, you'll get workable negatives.
Exposure is hit and miss if you're using the sun for a UV source. I mounted three blacklights on a board to use for my UV, and that's helped quite a bit.
My set up is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevemphoto/sets/72157594389252708/
dazedgonebye
Veteran
memphis said:
I've seen good jobs of this online. It's one of the reasons I leave the brush strokes on my scans.
The look can be simulated for display online, but it's difficult to impossible to replicate the look/feel of a sheet of watercolor paper that's been printed on and soaked in water to rinse.
An actual cyanotype, vs a photoshop simulation, really shines as a physical print. Scans don't do them justice.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Sparrow said:
Stewart,
This one was shot with a digital point and shoot camera and printed on cheap paper. The negative was made with the free printer that came with my computer, printed on office supply transparency.
Exposure was sandwiched in a picture frame and left in the sun for 20 minutes on a bright Arizona day.
I quite like the results. So, you don't have to dive in big to get something you like.
Attachments
Sparrow
Veteran
I can’t run the software on PS6, but I’ll get some Epsom OHT and play with the negs first.dazedgonebye said:
Thanks
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Sparrow said:
Yep, requires CS2. In general, your files need to be low contrast. The cyanotype process has limited dynamic range, and it's difficult not to blow out your whites.
Good luck.
Sparrow
Veteran
OK thanks that’s a starting point, I’ll set the contrast in curves then when I get it right I can save it, I tried making some 8x12 negs on acetate a couple of years ago but couldn’t get them dense enough, I’ll try with the OHP filmdazedgonebye said: