post alternative techniques

[Ramiro Elena]

Wow! Beautiful

[h2oman]

I agree...

[hazardsg]

Here is a cyanotype I just finished. Not the best composition. This is my first successful print from my first successful 8x10 negative. I'm having some trouble getting the highlights to print.

[ndg]

"The Mansion" - a gold-toned Kallitype using 8x10 paper negative

Ongoing attempts to develop a workflow using paper negatives for kallitypes
Negative on Arista-Edu 8x10 glossy RC paper
Shen Hao FCL 810
Fuji 250 mm f5.7 lens at f22
Printed on Arches Platine paper

[Randy]

Here is a cyanotype I just finished. Not the best composition. This is my first successful print from my first successful 8x10 negative. I'm having some trouble getting the highlights to print.

Are you coating your own paper? Just curious - I have been dabbling with already coated paper from bluesunprints.com and have gotten pretty good results - I have been reading up on mixing / coating my own cyanotype and Vandyke, which I have not tried yet but I really like the results I am getting from the pre-coated stuff.

From an 8X10 neg

[hazardsg]

I am coating my own paper. It may be that my exposure was too short. I'm currently building an uv exposure box. Once I'm done at least I'll have more control.

[koraks]

Are you using classic cyanotype or Mike Ware's formula? In case it's classic, keep in mind that the contrast of the negative needs to be pretty low. Any negative that will print well on grade #2 paper will be way too contrasty for classic cyanotype. You have to choose between getting decent highlights or decent shadows in that case; can't have both. The alternative is to switch to the New Cyanotype process of Dr. Ware, which requires very contrasty negatives (and prints much faster). It's also more sensitive to the paper used and any contaminants. In my experience, cyanotypes (classic or new) have no good means of contrast control, in the sense of accommodating for a range of negative contrasts (you can increase the dmax of the print by using a quite acidic first wash; the acid used subtly affects the tone of the print). Classic cyanotype is in my experience vastly more forgiving and robust and works very well with digitally printed negatives since they don't require so much contrast in the negative.

[Craig Tuffin]

Here's a quarter plate mercurial daguerreotype I made a couple of weeks ago. I made the leather case to house it last week.

Please excuse the poor iPhone photos of the d-type in the case.

[ndg]

Are you using classic cyanotype or Mike Ware's formula? In case it's classic, keep in mind that the contrast of the negative needs to be pretty low. Any negative that will print well on grade #2 paper will be way too contrasty for classic cyanotype. You have to choose between getting decent highlights or decent shadows in that case; can't have both. The alternative is to switch to the New Cyanotype process of Dr. Ware, which requires very contrasty negatives (and prints much faster). It's also more sensitive to the paper used and any contaminants. In my experience, cyanotypes (classic or new) have no good means of contrast control, in the sense of accommodating for a range of negative contrasts (you can increase the dmax of the print by using a quite acidic first wash; the acid used subtly affects the tone of the print). Classic cyanotype is in my experience vastly more forgiving and robust and works very well with digitally printed negatives since they don't require so much contrast in the negative.

Craig, that is beautiful!

[Craig Tuffin]

Craig, that is beautiful!

Thank you Nana!