What paper with the New Cyanotype formula?

[SergeyT]

I've been making some Cyanotypes with the New Cyanotype (or Cyanotype II) formula solution. And my biggest issue is to find a paper that works. So far I have been through pretty much all fine art paper available at my local art supply store, including Fabriano Artistico, Rising Stonehenge, Canson Montval , etc...
The only paper that I was able to get acceptable results is Rives BFK. And although it works beautifully for some images it is not the "shapest" paper. I wonder what papers work for others making the new cyanotypes and with what sensitizing technique.

Thank you,
SergeyT.

[Heespharm]

Go to google and do a search for "big paper survey cyanotype" alternative photography did a poll there of all types

[SergeyT]

I have read pretty much everything that google returns on the subject matter..and tried too (short of Arhces Platine, COT-320, Weston’s Diploma Parchment and very few others which are no longer availablable ) before starting this thread...

[Dcohio]

I've had descent results using the canson. I do a quick soak in viniger and water. That may not be right but it really made a difference over not doing it(your supposed to use citric acid but all I had around was the viniger or stop bath). I could not get arches platine to work any where close with repeatable results no matter what I did. So far the canson is the only paper I've gotten to work repeatedly.
Doug

[Heespharm]

I have read pretty much everything that google returns on the subject matter..and tried too (short of Arhces Platine, COT-320, Weston’s Diploma Parchment and very few others which are no longer availablable ) before starting this thread...

Oh ok... Well I've had good result with Stonehenge and arches aquarelle hot pressed.... Do not precoat with citric acid... DO use it in first developing bath... Do not use hydrogen peroxide and do not use running water to wash your prints... Dip in tray for a couple minutes then dump then repeat over and over

[SergeyT]

Thanks for the info. Do the highlights clear to paper white, or remain stained with either bluish or worse brownish tint?

I do not know why but the Stonehenge was one of the worst in my tests. The highlights do not clear and remain brownish, with acidifing the paper or not. And no, I do not use HP for quick results and no running water - tray development only.

What Canson paper type did you use Doug?

Thank you, SergeyT.

[Marek Warunkiewicz]

I have had serious issues with the "NEW" formula. Can't get my whites white. Tried different papers. Really wish I had someone I could see making it. I tried three times and got different residual crystal growth....

[Dcohio]

SergeyT,
I will have to check when I pick some more up because I'm out. Thats why I've been struggling with the arches.
Doug

[Dan Dozer]

I've had a lot of problems with different paper types and it is definitely finicky on the paper type. The problems I experience most are grainyness and spotting. I think that a contributing factor is the acid level of your paper and you might try pre-soaking your paper in a weak acid bath (I've tried citric acid) might help. As far as paper types are concerned, the original Weston paper seemed to be real nice when it came out. I'm not sure if the current version is the same as what came out about 5 years ago. Bergger also seems to work well, but you have to significantly over expose your image to make sure that you don't wash half of it out out when processing.

[John MacManus]

Sergey: Several years ago I had a terrible time getting the New Cyanotype to give consistent results on many types of paper. I was just about to give up but decided to try the Ware recommended paper Buxton http://www.ruscombepaper.com/index1.html. It was expensive but worked beautifully and gave a tonal range greater than the Classic Cyanotype.

I suspect the new linen paper Herschel would also work ... best wishes ... John

[D. Bryant]

Here is a tip I received from Sam Wang, one of the best cyanotype printers I know of.

Using the traditional cyanotype formula uses 2 parts A with 1 part B. This will produce very similar results as the New Cyanotype formula will and the traditional formula is much more paper friendly than the N.C. formula.

Experiment with different portions of A to B for variations.

Another tip is to add about 1 to 2 drops of 40% citric acid with the N.C. mix for an amount great enough to coat for an 8x10 image.

Almost any paper that works well for palladium printing is sure to work well with the traditional formula. John Dugdale does excellent cyanotype printing and I believe uses the traditional formula. HE of course is nearly blind but uses an 8x10 camera to make his images and has been featured in View Camera magazine.

And let's not forget the incredible work of Anna Atkins. I've viewed two of her prints and they look as though they were made yesterday.

http://lightimpressions.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-dugdale.html?zx=460c302820b004d4

So the truth is there is a lot of flexibility with the traditional cyanotype formula if you play your cards right.

[Dcohio]

Sergeyt,
The canson paper I used was the canson 100 cold press. It has worked for me so far.
Doug

[SergeyT]

Thanks for the information everyone.
I like the results I have got on the Rives BFK (straight with no extra treatments).
But I really want to make this new formula to work on a smooth surface paper to reproduce even finest details.
Sounds like I have few more options to explore for now. I will update this thread once I have some good news to share.

SergeyT

[nolindan]

I've had very good results with Bienfang Graphics 360 - designed for use with illustrators' markers. Very white whites, no pretreatment needed, easy to coat evenly, though it wrinkles when wet - so figure on a few dummy practice runs with colored water first.

It is very cheap compared to all the StoneArchPlatinEtc - $10 for 50 sheets of 11x14. It needs to be drymounted after processing; though it can be flattened it is a very thin paper - think onion skin (if you remember onion skin, carbon paper and manual typewriters).

However, Bienfang was sold recently and the paper has changed. I haven't tried the new paper. The original has a solid black paper cover, the new has a cover that is printed a black color on the front.

[Jim Noel]

Are you using the new Stonehenge, or the old? I use the old with great results. I do not pre-soak in an acid.

[SergeyT]

I have tried whatever was in stock. So it was the "new", I guess. And it was terrible with the new formula. But works relatively good as carbon transfer support ;)

SergeyT.

[Lex van der Sluijs]

Hi guys,

I know I'm reviving a five year old thread, but I have some good info to share!

My first experiments with the New Cynanotype process were on the Terschelling paper by Schut that I got as a gift (see e.g. http://www.fineart.schutpapier.nl/fa/terschelling-english/), and the results were outstanding:
- beautiful deep dark blue, not that bright blue variant
- good tonal gradation
- clears well
- tough
- flawless distribution of color (no spots, stains or anything)
- a light grain, but not too imposing (so it's not HP smooth)

After that I experimented with other papers, like Fabriano Idea, Fabriano Artistico, Fabriano Academia, Arches Hot Press, a pure cotton paper from Arches, inkjet printer paper, Bristol, and all quickly turned blue or green, or produced a horrible end-result.

So yesterday I tried again with Terschelling (please read to the end!), and there were bad spots and huge inconsistencies all over. At first I attributed to a starch sizing that I applied on a top sheet of the block (using a spray) which might have leaked through to lower pages. But even a sheet from the middle of the block gave strange results. So I started looking around for another paper, but today I realized that the new experiments were with a new batch of sensitizer, and in this new batch I hadn't added the dichromate that Mike Ware described...

So I added 0.1 gram of potassium dichromate to about 90 ml of solution, coated the other half of a sheet that previously gave me a lot of trouble, and the result was perfect again!

The only thing is that it was now overexposed: I exposed for 10 minutes with a small facial tanning light because I didn't see enough color-change compared to the without-dichromate situation, and thought that I had read that exposure should be longer (not sure now anymore whether this was with Cyanotype or VDB or some other process..).

In other words: without the dichromate the paper darkens much more during illumination, while with the dichromate two-thirds of the darkening will happen in the first wash!

And the price of the paper is about a third of the Herschel paper! See for example http://www.vanbeekart.nl/papier-karton-aquarelblokken-schut-terschelling/8073/

The paper seems to work quite well for Van Dyke Brown too by the way (judging from some test-strips I made to compare papers).

All in all, I'm very happy that I can continue my New Cynanotype adventures (still have almost have a kilogram of Ammonium Iron(III) Oxalate..) without breaking the bank.

In closing, if anybody else tries it based on my experience I'd love to hear about it (here or in a PM) !

All the best,
Lex

[koraks]

I've been using a Schut paper for nearly all of my alt printing for the past year. I use the drawing paper that comes in the brightly colored pink and green blocks. The pink is a but heavier at I think 160gsm and gives the best tonality and dmax of the two. I have yet to try Terschelling, but I suspect it will perform very similar to the paper I currently use, but I think the surface texture of Terschelling is a bit rougher.

I haven't noticed the print out to develop out transition (to try and put a name to it) with dichromate in new cyanotype, but I have the same observation with Van Dyke brown and tartaric acid. Without the acid, the printing out effect is quite pronounced, but dmax suffers and contrast is considerably lower. Adding tartaric acid to the sensitizers boosts contrast significantly and reduces the print out effect noticeably as well.

The last time I mixed new cyanotype (I don't blueprint as much these days), I added a tiny bit of dichromate to the stock sensitizer as well. I regret having done so, as I have virtually no way of reducing the contrast and accomodatie contrastier negatives. I do find that adding a tiny bit of dichromate makes the chemistry a lot more forgiving to inconsistencies, so I can echo that part of your experience.

Btw, I'm surprised at your relatively long printing times. With a 60W 4-tube face tanner at about 8cm from the negative I get printing times of about 3 minutes with new cyanotype and van dyke brown (they're pretty close, if not identical). I measured the light falloff at larger distances to the frame and I think that I would end up with 10 minutes with the face tanner at about 20cm from the printing frame. What distance do you place your light source at and what is its power rating?

Btw, nice to see an (I assume) fellow countryman on here! Do feel free to drop me a pm anytime and meet up for coffee and exchanging experiences.

[Lex van der Sluijs]

Hi Koraks,

Thanks for the tip about the Schut Drawing Paper 160gsm, I'm going to give it a try!

Interesting to hear that you also have the experience that adding a tiny bit of dichromate makes it more forgiving towards inconsistencies in the paper. Perhaps not needing a 'trick' like this is where the advantage of the Herschel paper lies.

What the diminishment of the control of contrast is concerned, I'm wondering if another salt could be used to convince the paper to accept the sensitizer better, without altering contrast. In this respect it seems like we are looking for something like (but not exactly the same as) a mordant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordant), so perhaps chrome alum could be used. I should try this the next time, i.e. make a batch without chromate and add the chrome alum only for testing on a single sheet.

Regarding my printing time, 10 minutes was indeed way too long, so that's why it came out overexposed. I was waiting for the 'print out' effect which didn't come (to the extent I saw earlier). In my first experiments I used a time between 3 and 4 minutes, and I will stick with this the next time. I'll also post some pictures when I have a bit of time to put a set together. I use a four- or five-tube Philips facial tanner, where each tube is about 30 cm long, placed between 20 and 30 cm from the paper.

I'm from The Netherlands, and can usually be found somewhere in the neighborhood of Rotterdam or Zoetermeer :) Thanks for the invitation, I'd love to meet up for coffee sometime and chat about alt proc!

[koraks]

Lex, you're most welcome; I'm in the vicinity of Rotterdam regularly, and sometimes at university there as well for work (but not very often). Summer is quite relaxed, so there should be ample opportunity to meet up.

I'm not sure if the alum will do what you expect it to do. You'd have to give it a try; should be easy enough to experiment a bit. In my attempts to overcome uneven coatings I find that adding a bit of citric acid to the sensitizer works quite well; it also neutralizes any high-pH ingredients that may be used in making the paper (although the Schut papers seem to be very neutral to begin with).

I'm interested in the starch spray sizing that you mentioned earlier. I tried sizing with potato starch, but it made things much worse: dmax was awful and prints cams out uneven. Dmax was great with gelatin sizing, but the unevenness was even worse than with starch. How does your spray perform?

[Lex van der Sluijs]

Hi koraks,

I haven't tried the paper with the spray starch sizing yet, but will do. Right now I'm mostly trying to figure out what is causing the different results I'm getting.

In roughly chronological order:

first attempt, in the winter, Schut Terschelling, standard new cyanotype with dichromate, no Tween or Adoflo used, facial tanner: very good results ("Wow this is easy/great!", I thought, but little did I know :-)

many other attempts with different papers, also in the winter, exposed using facial tanner: bad fogging while drying, or bad color or staining in the result

new test with new batch, in the summer, lit by the sun (correction from my first post above, misremembered this!), no dichromate: developing-out effect, overexposed

on the same day: reduced exposure, lit by the sun: exposure is good, fogging acceptable, but bad spots due to uneveness in the coating

on the same day: added dichromate and a few drops of AdoFlo (a sort of Tween): all spots are gone, exposure and fogging not perfect yet. I wrote my first post above, thinking that all that is needed now is adjustment of exposure time (and that the dichromate was mostly responsible for removing the spots, since that was what made the test most equal to the very first one I did in the winter. In retrospect the AdoFlo probably had a lot to do with this as well)

yesterday: new tests, Schut Terschelling and Schut Drawing paper 225

without AdoFlow: some spots visible
with a bit of AdoFlo: spots are gone, fogging is worse. Terschelling has more fogging than the Drawing paper
the Drawing 225 paper has less fogging but I get a light brown stain all over the paper in the result. Can be lived with, I think. Could even be seen to make the print livelier



So my preliminary conclusions are:

exposure with sunlight causes the 'developing out' effect (in water), exposure with facial tanner gives the 'printing out' effect (has anyone else experienced this?)
Schut's Terschelling paper is good but mildly alkaline. This is not a problem in cold weather, but when it is warm (>25 degrees) then fogging occurs
Adding AdoFlo removes the spots but increases the fogging (sensitizer gets too deep into the paper?)


Next steps:

try again on a cold day, see what happens
try with the spray starch sizing
try again after filtering the sensitizer: some fogging could be attributed to Prussion blue present in the solution.
try with less AdoFlo
maybe try removing the buffering in the paper using sulphamic or very diluted nitric acid as mentioned elsewhere. This may be the most bulletproof method... I'm hesitant because of the work involved to dry all the sheets flat (usually I use gum tape and boards) after the process, since a flat sheet is much easier to coat than a buckled one. But I'll try with a few sheets and see how it goes..

[koraks]

Lex, interesting thoughts and thanks for sharing your observations. When reading them, I feel there may be a hidden parameter (or several), but that's hypothesizing on my part.
A few observations on my part:

Concerning paper: I haven't tried Terschelling (I think I may have some lying around, may give it a try once), but I did notice that New Cyano is the pickiest process in terms of paper of the processes I have tried so far. With this process, but also with Van Dyke, I find that the Schut 180g/sqm drawing paper that comes in the bright pink blocks works the best. Other papers give me fogging and/or lacking dmax (usually both) with New Cyano. I have also tried printing VDB on etching paper, which should be absolutely pH neutral as it has no additions and no sizing, but it yielded flat prints and long printing times. Sizing papers with gelatin or gum arabic seems to make for good dmax, contrast, little fog and a pleasant sheen (depending on how heavily the paper is sized), but it has *always* given me issues with coating evenness. I've given up on sizing as well as a result, and also because of the work it takes.

Concerning coating evenness: the rough side of my favorite paper works the best for getting an even coat. The backside is much smoother and gives a bit more detail and a crisper image, but I can't get an even coat on it consistently. I have tried brush coating, an improvised puddle pusher and foam brushes. A good quality spalter or hake brush works best for me, giving an even coating and good dmax. I use a synthetic hake, about 3"/8cm wide, that cost me about €15. With foam brushes, I also get a reasonably even coating, but dmax is lacking. Double coating could alleviate this, but I prefer a single-coat approach for practical reasons. Foam brushes do work well with carbon transfer and I prefer them over other methods of sensitizing for this process. With a puddle pusher, I get all sorts of marks with New Cyano and VDB resulting from the pusher being into more firm contact with the paper surface in some places than in others. I've given up on this approach.

Concerning the use of Adoflo: I have tried it with Van Dyke Brown, but I find it makes the sensitizer soak into the paper too quickly, resulting in uneven coating and wasteful use of the sensitizer. I see no merit in it. I did not notice fogging, but haven't tried it with New Cyano and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be incompatible with its finicky chemistry. While New Cyano is one of the most versatile alt processes in terms of accommodating negative contrast, it's insanely picky with regard to all materials used. I currently rarely print New Cyano because it brings the kind of problems you also noticed.

Concerning acidifying the paper: I have only tried citric acid to acidify the paper. In trays, I find that I need to soak a single sheet at a time, because a stack of sheets will result in the edges of the sheets being more acidic than the center, regardless of frequent shuffling. I also found it quite a chore and not worth the hassle. I prefer to pick a paper that doesn't require soaking. In order to make New Cyano work properly, I did find that I need to add about one drop of 40% citric acid solution per ml. of sensitizer. This works much better for me than soaking sheets - it's also much quicker and more flexible. Increasing the amount of citric acid seems to decrease contrast, making it possible to print negatives that are even outside the base range of New Cyano (so very contrasty negatives indeed!) I have not tried sulphamic or nitric acid for acidifying the paper, but I don't expect it'll improve matters much. I also think it's quite difficult to match the concentration and soaking time to the alkalinity of the paper, which is usually unknown.

Concerning dichromate: I have not noticed the POP/DOP difference you attributed to dichromate earlier. It does work very well for increasing contrast of the print, i.e. printing negatives that have less contrast (or rather: a shorter density scale). It also requires longer exposure times, but it works in a surprisingly wide range; lots of dichromate can be added and decent prints can still be made (from fairly low contrast negatives).

Concerning using the sun as a light source: I have tried this a handful of times, but didn't observe a difference in POP/DOP behavior. New Cyano behaves like a POP process mostly, with only solarized shadows converting back to normal in the water bath and during drying. Contrary to Van Dyke Brown, I have never managed to solarize the shadows permanently with New Cyano.

Concerning ambient temperature when printing: I haven't found this to be a relevant parameter. However, a related issue seems to make a huge issue, also with Van Dyke Brown: the moisture level of the coated/sensitized paper. This has been well-known to several alt printers for years. In fact, I find that drying time and residual moisture level in the coated paper is probably the most difficult parameter to control in the process. Some residual moisture seems to make for better dmax, particularly with Van Dyke Brown but to some extent also with New Cyano. However, too little moisture results in overly contrasty prints (washed out highlights) and/or slower printing times.

Concerning aging of the New Cyano sensitizer: it really works well only when fairly fresh, I find, i.e. up to a couple of weeks or maybe 2 months old. Gradually Prussian Blue is being formed in the sensitizer, resulting in flat prints with poor dmax and fogging, as well as coating unevenness. I tried a New Cyano print with sensitizer I made in October, I think, and I think I'm going to pour it down the drain; it's worthless by now. It's stored in a small, brown glass bottle in a room that's mostly dark. It may very well be a matter of chemical impurities. This batch did have a small amount of dichromate added to it, which apparently didn't help (but did limit my options for contrast control). Next time I'm going to make a batch, I'm going to make a smaller one and not add any dichromate.

One final observation I had with VDB and that may be relevant to New Cyano as well (haven't tried it): adding up to 50% of a ca. 30% gum arabic solution that has been aged for a few months (so probably quite acidic) yielded gorgeous prints. It also thickens the sensitizer a bit, making it easier to coat (contrary to conventional wisdom, going by the often-heard advice of adding a surfactant to the sensitizer, which has always worked adversely for me).

New Cyano is a very finicky process. The prints can be gorgeous when they come out well, but these days, I usually don't bother with it due to the never-ending struggle to get it just right.

[jnantz]

I've been making some Cyanotypes with the New Cyanotype (or Cyanotype II) formula solution. And my biggest issue is to find a paper that works. So far I have been through pretty much all fine art paper available at my local art supply store, including Fabriano Artistico, Rising Stonehenge, Canson Montval , etc...
The only paper that I was able to get acceptable results is Rives BFK. And although it works beautifully for some images it is not the "shapest" paper. I wonder what papers work for others making the new cyanotypes and with what sensitizing technique.

Thank you,
SergeyT.

hi sergey

i hesitated to post to your thread when it first appeared
because i don't use the new formula but the classic one. i don't know
if the paper selection would be the same or if the addition of oxylic acid and
other things in the new formula ( i think they are in there ) will change the
demands of the paper.
i use 2 different types of paper, one is listed as "vellum" paper and comes in a pad
its made by bordon and reilly. never have trouble or problems with it.
the other paper i use from all reports os "virgin butcher paper"
butcher paper is often times coated with something, but this has no coating,
its just plain old paper. i had about 500 maybe more sheets of it ( big sheets )
and i have been looking to replace it when i run out ( also coat it with silver emulsion )
and the closest i can find is sold either on a roll or big sheets at uline, or in a small roll
labled "craft" or "art" paper sold at regular old places like walmart and on amazon.
good luck !
john

[koraks]

i don't use the new formula but the classic one. i don't know
if the paper selection would be the same
In my experience, the new formula is much more picky. Papers that work well with classic may not work at all with new cyanotype. But papers that work well with the new formula, will also work well with classic.

[jnantz]

In my experience, the new formula is much more picky. Papers that work well with classic may not work at all with new cyanotype. But papers that work well with the new formula, will also work well with classic.


thanks, good ot know -

[Fr. Mark]

If by New Cyanotype you mean Dr. Ware's chemsitry, I've found it very reliable for up to a year after I've made a batch. I do store it in a dark brown glass bottle to keep light out.

As to paper Arches Hotpress water color paper works great if you use the smooth side and if I pre-treat it with 5% HCl to remove the calcium carbonate. After and hour or three of soaking with shuffling at random intervals as convenient, I rinse it with tap water a few times and dry it. Then I coat with a pushrod type device.

For working out exposures and test prints I've been using high content content typing paper I found in a thrift store. About 20 pound weight either 80 or 100% cotton. I can get full tonal range incl. fully clear specular highlights if I a have a proper negative and nail the exposure with the UV exposure unit.

NB most of my best cyanotype negatives are denser and more contrasty than what my 35mm in D-76 ones look like. For alt process I've been using Ektascan B/RA and pyrocat HD 2:2:100.

[Lex van der Sluijs]

Apologies for the late reply, I was on vacation the past week.

Thanks so much for your detailed answers Koraks, they have been very helpful!

Also to Fr. Mark for the tip about removing the buffering with 5% HCL! Looks like a labor-intensive procedure, but it probably gives a lot of freedom when choosing papers. It seems to me that it would be wise to wash well afterwards, to get as much of the acid out as possible.

Here are some new results:
- I tried New Cyano with a bit of gum arabic that I had prepared a long time ago. The pH was about 5, so indeed acidic. As you (koraks) mentioned, it was very easy to get an even coating! When I prepared it last year I added a small amount of mercury chloride as a preservative (0.5 g on 200 ml), so I wasn't sure if this was going to work properly. I did not have time to dissolve a separate batch of gum so used it anyway. I did not add citric acid. The paper exhibited a bit of fogging while drying. Not sure if this was because of the absence of the citric acid or because of the mercury chloride.

- I tried the paper with the starch sizing. I probably overdid the sizing: the sensitizer coating was not absorbed well, and took a long time to dry

- I tried paper for oil painting (Canson Figueras, with a sort of 'linen' texture), the idea being that it should not be buffered since probably there are various layers and films inside it that prevent absorbtion of paint. The sensitizer seemed to coat evenly, but during drying unevenness appeared. I think it warrants further experimentation.

Ultimately I arrived at the following combination, and this seems to work very well:
- Schut 160 gsm drawing paper, as you suggested
- New Cyanotype sensitizer with dichromate (amount according to Dr. Ware's recipe), a few months old by now
- a little under 2 drops of 40% citric acid solution per ml of sensitizer (this prevents all fogging during drying)
- 0.5 ml of a 5% solution (0.5 ml added to 9.5 ml of demineralized water) of AdoFlo to 5 ml of sensitizer (without this I got some spotting that only became apparent during exposure). So the total dilution of the AdoFlo in the mixture is 1:200 or 0.5%.

The flat areas in the image came out very even. During exposure I noticed that the paper did not 'print out' again. So I think you were correct: this effect is not to be attributed to the presence of the dichromate, but instead to the presence of the AdoFlo.

I have only had time to do one test-print with the above combination, and this came out overexposed since a) I could not judge the darkening because this was inhibited by the AdoFlo and b) I used the same exposure time as usual, but this time there was a lot of sunlight coming into our attic.

So the result is not 100% conclusive yet: for that I need a print with correct exposure, but it's looking very promising indeed.

[koraks]

Your recipe sounds like a good match with this particular paper, going by my experience. I find that with the right brush and the right technique, no Adoflo is needed to produce an even coat, but your mileage may vary.
I'm looking forward to the results!

[Fr. Mark]

I don't worry about getting the HCl scrupulously out of the paper because I soak the paper in 1% or so HCl depending on desired contrast when developing. After development I do try to get the excess acid out.

[koraks]

1% sounds pretty strong; in my experience it's quite easy to wash out delicate highlights this way. But maybe if you compensate for that by exposing a minute longer...

[Fr. Mark]

True 1% is high. .25-1% is the recommended concentrations from dr. Ware.