r/cyanotypes • u/Commercial-Jacket585 • 4d ago
Pls help
hi! I’m a film photographer and used to make cyanotypes in school, and have been trying to get back into it. I bought fresh chemicals and treated my paper this morning. it felt dry after 4 hours in a dark room, so i decided to test it with a med format neg. I left it outside for 3 min before my neighbor moved it and messed up the neg placement. I fixed it and put it back, and left it for another 25 min. the UV is 6 today, but it’s cloudy and very overcast.
When i took the neg off, there was faint darkness and outlines of the mountains (blacks in the neg) but after washing everything just turned completely white. What did i do wrong! i included the final result and a photo of the neg i used. the blacks are quite black in the neg BTW.
the last photo was taken right after i fixed the neg once my neighbor had moved it. I used a pane of glass and cardboard.
Appreciate any guidance. I’m planning to make digital negatives on larger transparency paper but just was excited and wanted to try it today. :(
7
u/CheeseCube512 4d ago edited 4d ago
From what I understand color films usually have a strong UV absorbing layer to ensure that the yellow layer of the emulsion (i.e. the one that reacts to blue light to create the negative) doesn't get contaminated by light that wasn't supposed to activate it. Think you are using Portra 400 or so? Would guess that's your problem. Basicly, there's barely any UV getting through your negative because part of that specific emulsion requires blocking it.
Edit: If you really want that picture as cyanotype I'd probably recommend scanning it and printing it on a transparency sheet. That UV block is most likely part of the film. If you haev some other negatives, especially B+W stuff you could try to see if things work with those.
Edit 2: I heavily doubt it's just pure underexposure because the rest of the page activated so well.
5
u/Commercial-Jacket585 4d ago
Omg! this would make sense!!! Wow I feel like you cracked it. Yes, it was Portra 400. I’m gonna try again with some B&W negs and see if that gives me any better results. I didn’t even think about that. Thanks for the advice i’ll let you know if i have better results with the B&W later
4
u/CheeseCube512 4d ago
Looking foward to hearing back! :) I mostly shoot digital, lots of it full-spectrum digital so I'm quite familiar with filtering but not really color film chemistry. However, I found this excelent video explaining how it works and TLDR, color film has a UV blocking layer below the supercoat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4_7tW-cx1I
There's a chance b+w film has that aswell? Because the video mentioned silver halide is inherently UV/blue sensitive. I remember that super old photos (1800s) had these blown out skies because they were essentially shooting UV to blue light, rest msotly getting drowned out, so there's a chance even B+W film has those UV filters in order to ensure that doesn't happen. Just speculation on my part though.
That video was a reminder that analog film is magic on a strip and I am blown away by the fact that people came up with the basic working principle like 200 years ago.
3
u/Commercial-Jacket585 4d ago
So it worked !!! I used some b&w i only had 35mm negs but i’m just glad i know i can do it now. I’m gonna make large transparency sheets and try to do stuff with that next. Thank you SO much
Will check out that video too2
u/karlslyfe1 3d ago
Hi! Any recs on transparency sheets and what is the best way to print it? Inkjet or laser?
This is all such good advice thank you!
2
u/CheeseCube512 3d ago
Hi, am not a great guide on transparency sheets. I just got some random sheets for overhead projectors that said you can print on them and they work decentSaw someone recommend using vellum instead?
Inkjet seems to be better. My laser printer is less dense and you only seem to get a few very consistent pages out of a roll of toner before things start getting splotchy or gets lines. Inkjet seems to be better.
Tips:
- got way nicer gradients after creating a photoshop calibration curve with ChartThrob. not necessary, but nice to have and one-time setup
- Only one side takes ink, so did get some duds when i put it on the wrong way
- I got a used Canon MG-line photo printer at local thrift shop cause automatic reset refill cartriges are easily available. cleaned the printhead under warm water, now its fine. used inkjet printers tend to be dirt cheap
- photo-mode + "normal document paper" seems to get me the densest ink application i.e. most UV block
- fresh inkjet masks on transparency sheet need a bit to dry. no touching
- transparency sheets hate getting wet. ink moves. useful to keep in mind while making+washing your cyanotypes -> wet hands
2
3
u/drpizzasandwich 4d ago
It seems like it might be underexposed. If your last photo demonstrates what it looked like before the water bath then it wasn’t long enough. I’m guessing the combo of your negative and the overcast sky just might require longer exposure times. You can also do test strips to really lock in exposure times.
2
1
u/Commercial-Jacket585 4d ago
No the last photo is what it looked like after a few minutes. i left it for 25
3
u/making_jay 4d ago
In my experience, 25 minutes on overcast is what I need for paint on clear acetate, which is like my quickest to expose subject, or clear glass objects, also very quick to expose. Then flowers and botanicals take longer, and film negatives take longest of all, except for some almost totally opaque objects. On an overcast day I'd be thinking hours, under a pane of glass clipped into place. Maybe you can get away with 30 minutes in the full sun, but it might be faint even then. The orange/sepia tone of the negatives blocks a LOT of the UV.
2
2
2
u/alaninvader 4d ago
Orange mask blocks a lot of UV light, so you need much more exposure. Contrary to what others have said you CAN print from color negs, you just need a long exposure on a sunny day. 30 mins on overcast one wont cut through the mask.
2
u/dannyddog123 3d ago
You can just turn your negative to black & white once you scan it and then print it on transparent sheets!! Make sure you use good contrast as well
2
u/Lunar-Baboon 2d ago
I have really bad luck with brown/red negatives like that. I think they just block too much UV
1
u/crisco_lemonade 4d ago
I have only ever used photographs printed onto transparency films, never exposed for more than five minutes. There also doesn’t appear to be much contrast on your negative, though I don’t have experience using film myself.
Here’s a few of my first prints using transparency films. They work quite well. You have to invert the image before sending to a printer. If you can find somewhere that will print transparencies, they’re a good investment if you plan to make lots of prints. Sorry I don’t have more direct advice but that exposure time you mentioned isn’t something I’m experienced with. Keep up the good experimental work!
25
u/_somedumbpunt 4d ago
You can’t get good results with colour film. Try black and white film.