the old and the new cyanotype formulae

From: Christina Z. Anderson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/25/04-11:08:43 PM Z
Message-id: <004a01c442df$a6037080$e93dad42@oemcomputer>

Good evening all,
      I can't believe I am writing this late at night. Must be summer.
     The list has been so slow lately I thought I'd go back to this subject:
     So, I have been printing both this week, side by side, same negs, same
     I find still the new is at least a stop faster. I expose the old 2A:1B
for 5 minutes, the new for 2.
      The new is a rich deep navy. The old is a beautiful, soft blue.
     I added tween to the old to make it absorb better, which it did, but it
is still not as absorptive (is that a word?) as the new.
     I still observed the solution streaming off, and losing quite a bit of
density in the water which I did not observe in the new. This is both good
and bad. In order to get the new to lose density if you have overexposed,
you have to soak a much, much longer time, and even then it may not change
     I also find the old more subject to uneven coating than the new.
     Both look great under gum.
     All the above is no big deal.
     However, one thing I noticed is on the same paper, the old is grainier
than the new. That to me is one problem I can live without.
     My question: what is it about the new formula, aside from greater
expense and more trouble mixing (certainly at time of use it is easier
because you DON'T have to mix two parts up), that people object to--what are
the new formula's problems that keep people from using it, aside from habit
(the if it ain't broke, don't fix it reason)? I really am interested in an
"I HATE the new cyanotype because..." kind of thing. I keep thinking there
must be something I am missing. Contrast? Detail in shadows? Anything?
Received on Tue May 25 23:09:59 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 06/04/04-01:20:54 PM Z CST