Re: New Cyanotype

From: Tom Ferguson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/13/04-08:19:08 AM Z
Message-id: <>

I had nothing but trouble. It is VERY paper sensitive, so have a good
number of samples around to try. Perhaps it was the LA water, but I
couldn't get it to clear acceptably in the highlights on any paper :-(

As to D-Max, yes it was slightly deeper than double coated. Slightly.
It looks great straight out of the water, it doesn't dry down as much
as regular cyan. That is nice (less guessing in the darkroom), but
after the prints dry there isn't a huge difference.

Hope you have better luck than I did.

On Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 02:37 AM, Loris Medici wrote:

> I will prepare/mix "new cyanotype" this weekend. Any remarks on what
> can
> go wrong or what should I pay attention - from those who did it before
> -
> will be appreciated. BTW, I keep Ammonium Iron(III) Oxalate in B&S's
> original packaging and not in dark. Is there any possibility of
> "fogging" (because it says light sensitive)? I would also like to
> receive remarks/suggestions (about paper, printing/exposing,
> processing/clearing ect.) from people who had made the transition from
> classic cyanotype to new cyanotype. I'm expecting a better dmax
> compared
> to double coated classic cyanotype - do you find this possible?
> TIA,
> Loris.
Tom Ferguson
Received on Thu May 13 08:20:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 06/04/04-01:20:53 PM Z CST