joe_lipka2

Inspiration struck this morning. Have you considered dying the fabric before applying the cyanotype? The blue on a different color than muslin might get you closer to a hue that would be acceptable.

I am eclectic in my selection of tunes. For sheet film developing, smooth jazz (keeps the rhythm for shufflin' those sheets), but for making those platinum prints, it definitely is the "oldies." Rock from the mid- 60's to mid 70's. Since I am almost never in the dark room when doing the platinum prints, the music is usually loud and on the big stereo. Oh yeah, and Stevie Ray Vaughn for printing digital negatives. That thin film base needs some sonic energy to punch up the highlights. Classical (Bach, Albinoni, Vivaldi) is for matting and mounting. BTW, the el-cheapo stereo system for the darkroom is a walkman plugged into some powered computer speakers.

I have only dabbled in Cyanotypes so I have little but suggestions. Ammonia and Tannic or Gallic acid should tone brown. Black/purple comes from substituting Sodium carbonate for the Ammonia. Using only Borax should shift tones toward violet. Red tones supposedly occur if you tone in sodium carbonate, tannic acid and then return to sodium carbonate.

 

More web information on cyanotypes at Mike Ware's alternative process home page and at (the obvious?) www.cyanotypes.com

 

Your project sounds like fun. Make sure the models use lots of sunscreen.

My vote is for central air conditioning. I have been printing Pt/Pd for over ten years in North Carolina (State motto: "It's the humidity.") Air conditioning is a way of life here. Never had any problems summer or winter. Then again, I'm not making large prints like you are.

Pt/Pd is LF lingo for Platinum/Palladium printing. I use the two bath version of D-23. Ed Buffaloe and I put together plenty of information on using D-23 which is on his website, www.unblinkingeye.com.

In one of the appendices of Dan Burkholder's Book Digital Negatives for Contact Printing is a list of suppliers who can print a negative from your digital file.

 

Are you asking the right questions to your suppliers? Using a digital file to create negatives is every day business. The only problem I had was that the resolution was too high for most of the image setters. It took me about ten or twelve tries before I could find someone who could work with the high resolution files. Then after I found one who was willing to try, I wound up with another source who finally got the results I needed.

Don't know if they make them anymore but tupperware used to make a "bread container" that is absolutely perfect for 4x5 negative storage. On my old Zone VI tripod, I added a lock washer between two regular washers to make tightening the knobs easier. (That was one of the many great suggestions from the Zone VI newsletter.)

Seagram Crown Royal bags are a great way to carry miscellaneous stuff around.

Lots of folks make their own darkcloths, but is their white side "black out cloth" used to make "light tight" drapes?

Cut off the tops of plastic milk jugs to make a real cheap and very effective funnel.

Art pretty much has it, although there are some details to be worked out 8)

 

Plans for a home made UV light box are available in many Alt Process books.

 

Make sure you get the right type of UV bulbs. They are not all alike.

 

If you want to buy, Edwards Engineered Products in Texas is a source, you also might look at Bostick and Sullivan, too. Both have web sites.

Silver gelatin print is the fancy name for black and white printing paper. The silver halide crystals are suspended in a gelatin layer that is coated on paper. This is Ilford, Kodak, Agfa, etc., black and white photographic paper.

Mike Ware suggests an alternative Cyanotype formula which contains ammonium dichromate. Check out his extensive alternative process homepage. http://www.mikeware.demon.co.uk/

Interesting concept in presentation. I am assuming that you wish to show the diamond shaped image on a "plain" paper background.

 

Two things that might help. Use a puddle pusher (coating rod) rather than brush to apply your emulsion. It is neater and more easily controlled than the brush application. It will reduce the excessive emulsion coated beyond the print's border that one usually associates with a brushed on platinum emulsion.

 

You will be using an enlarged negative of some sort for the platinum print. You can mask the non printing area with rubylith or some other opaque substance (fully exposed lith film is a good choice) to get the sharply delineated edges you desire. Even if there is emulsion beyond the borders of the image, if it is not exposed it will be removed in clearing and the wash.

 

Good luck with the project.

So far, you have received some very sound and worthwhile comments from

some knowledgeable members of our forum. This comment will not carry

on in that vein. May I have some fun here? Archival processing

techniques are constantly discussed, debated and argued among

photographers. We all have our own variations on what constitutes the

best scheme for archival processing. Sadly, none of us will be around

to see if our photographic masterpieces will be tonally intact in the

twenty sixth century. So, we will not know which approach is correct,

or whether it even matters. So in that light, let me discuss my views

on archival processing.

 

<p>

 

Definition: Archival prints last longer than your interest in the

image.

 

<p>

 

You should archivally process your prints if:

 

<p>

 

MoMA and the Getty ask you to exhibit your prints.

The AIPAD has a reception in your honor at their annual meeting.

Your ability outstrips your ego.

You have received multiple NEA or Guggenheim Grants.

John Sexton asks you questions.

There is room in your darkroom for the fifty-gallon fixer tank.

Your darkroom assistant doesn't want overtime pay for the extra

washing time.

 

<p>

 

So after a little chuckle, follow the advice given by the wonderful

folks here, and your prints will last a very long time.

 

<p>

 

Remember, photography should be fun.

Only a few good photographs in eight years? That's not too bad.

Really. Ansel said one really good photograph per year was about

right. Making photographs is easy. Making great photographs is

difficult.

 

<p>

 

Keep at it. Deep feelings for the subject does make a difference in

the final product, so maybe a change in subject matter might be the

key for you as an earlier contributor suggests

 

<p>

 

When someone ir really good at something, it does look effortless.

Watch an athlete, a dancer, listen to a musician. If they are

talented, they make it look easy. Genius is 99% perspiration, so there

is a lot of work involved in making great art. Eight years is not a

long time to work at photography. Again referring to St. Ansel, he

said something like you can't be a photographer until you have exposed

10,000 negatives. When he wrote that, sheet film was the primary way

to make a negatives, so becoming a photographer is a lifetime thing.

"what do you call the processes where people apply an emulsion with a

brush to other substrates, like perhaps watercolor paper"

 

<p>

 

These fall under the generic term "alternative processes." Among the

more popular ones are platinum/palladium printing, cyanotypes,

kallitypes, Van Dyke Brown prints and others.

 

<p>

 

All these processes are contact prints. The negative is the exact

size of the print. You can you in camera film, paper or lith film as

a negative.

 

<p>

 

Economical alternative processes for 11 x 14 or larger is probably the

cyanotype. It is more recognized by its' common name, "blueprint."

 

<p>

 

Yes, you can use lith film for printing plates to make these large

negatives.

 

<p>

 

"Keepers of the Light" is a good source for information on these old

processes.

Dan Burkholder "wrote the book" on this process. The term service

bureau is sort of dated, and that type of business is pretty hard to

find right now. Sit down with your Yellow Pages and start looking for

Imagesetters, typesetting, graphic design and printers. All of these

types of businesses have the capability of converting your digital

files into a printable large size negative.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with this wonderful way to work.

These used to be common in the printing industry. Another possible

source would be a graphic arts supply house, or a printer's supply

house.

Don't evolve backwards. You are doing just fine with what you have

been doing. Unless you are willing and able to do a complete

evaluation of each exposure you record (measure transmission density

against your exposure)and study the results, recording any information

beyond plus or minus development takes valuable time away from what

you are supposed to be doing in the field - making photographs.

Edwards Engineering has a manufactured model you can purchase. Ditto

for the Palladio Company. Instructions for do it yourself light

sources are fairly easy to come by. (Don't have my sources for

this type of plan, but I bet some other posters will jump in with

the correct information.) So, if you are handy with tools, then you

could build your own. Just make sure you get the proper UV light

bulbs.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with the platinum printing, and if you have any other

questions, you can post on the alternative process forum at photo.net.

It is very important that you have the proper exposure when you make

your negative. Deciding on the correct exposure for your negative is

the most important factor in determining the success of your print.

Underexposure will merge low values to black. Overexposure will block

the high values.

 

<p>

 

You can determine which is the correct exposure for your film,

developer and paper by trial and error. The more you do, the better

the feel for your exposure. Since you will be experimenting,

standardize as much as possible, film, developer, developer

temperature, paper and paper developer.

 

<p>

 

Consistency in exposure and processing is the key to getting a good

product out of your darkroom. Good luck.

Craft takes time, so, yes, it does take some effort to become

proficient with Photoshop. LF has its own set of skills, as do both

wet and digital darkrooms, too. All are photographic "tools of the

trade" and have their own learning curve. For me, the advantage to

digital darkroom work is the versatility of the output. In a wet

darkroom, you make a print to hang on a wall. In the digital

darkroom, you can make a digital print, a digital negative (to print

in your wet darkroom), post on the web, create a CD, create a book

using the digital prints or if you really want to get crazy, print an

iron on transfer for your T shirt.

Far from becoming bored, having a digital darkroom(for me) expands

photographic horizons. I am now thinking in terms of multiple images,

projects and themes that I have treated over the past thirty years of

photography. I recently completed a project of making a portfolio of

fifty images to send to fifty friends. The output was a CD. This was

not something that I could have done economically with wet darkroom

methods.

One other thing, there's tons more gadgets to buy once you start using

your computer.

I have been printing 5 x 7 platinum prints for about 10 years.

Viewing a 5 x 7 print (usually on 11 x 14 mat)is absolutely wonderful

for a personal viewing. Viewing this size print is pretty much a

solitary experience. It's not of a scale (like 16 x 20) where you can

entertain a number of viewers at one time. The 5 x 7 is pretty much a

one on one experience. Don't know how you plan to exhibit, but this,

for me has been the major drawback in a gallery situation. 5 x 7 is

tough to exhibit because it will almost always be the smallest images

exhibited and often overshadowed by the larger sized images.

 

<p>

 

While there are some that live for the large print on the wall,

creating a portfolio of images for a single viewer is just as

rewarding.

Try looking at www.unblinkingeye.com, and the section on divided D-23

developer for more info on the subject. In my version of the divided

developer, I keep a concentrated version of the second part of the

developer, but mix the first part fresh every time. I have been using

TMax 400, and rating it at 400. I have no experience with Ilford

films and this developer.

Try www.unblinkingeye.com. You might have received quicker (and more)

responses had you filed your question on the film and developing

forum.

I have used the Wista 5x7 "expander" back on a Wista Field 45 for

about ten years. (How to install? Remove the ground glass, and the

expander fits on the 4 x 5 back using the same style clips as the

4 x 5 ground glass) I have had no problems with this rig while doing

5 x 7 work. I have used 210, 180, 150 and 90 mm lenses with this set

up. The only trick with the 90 mm is that the front standard has to

be set up to compress the bellows completely. The front bed has to be

dropped to avoid including the focusing rails in the picture. The

result is a "point and shoot" 5 x 7. But then again, when you set the

aperture at f/45, everything gets in focus.

 

<p>

 

I consider the Wista expander back effective, and economical way to

get into the 5 x 7 format. The back is wood, so there might be an

aesthetic issue if you are using the metal Wista.

How about an ounce of prevention? How concentrated is your stop bath?

Too high a pH will create the gas that causes the pinholes. Make

sure that the concentration of the stop bath is not above the

recommended dilution. You could also change to alternative chemistry

to stop development.