Well, Denise describes a Baryta coating, but the "real" stuff is compressed under hundreds of pounds of pressure at high temperature to get a smooth and relatively impenetrable coating. The one Denise describes is quite porous.
Baryta paper is available on the open market from Fotoimpex and AFAIK several places in the US. Inquire at the Formulary.
I just got an email about this thread.
Ron, please make my recipes before you comment on them. Handmade baryta is not "quite porous", it's just not extra glossy. It is an excellent coating surface.
Ron premade is not the same as the handmade, if the OP were able to make his own paper he could incorporate the baryta in the water of the Hollander mix it with the pulb and make even better baryta paper than the pressed version the baryta would be an integral part of the paper.
I also believe that perfect paper would take something away from the handmade quality of cyanotypes but maybe the OP has a different opinion
Denise thank you again for providing this information even if does not equal the industrial made stuff it's still better than nothing and one also has broader choice of support paper.
Last edited by MDR; 02-04-2014 at 03:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Been there, done that. It still requires a lot of sizing, huge pressure and calendering to get a good hard surface. Even a 9 tonne press wasn't quite sufficient for 12 x 12" sq sheet (first cut cotton, AKD sizing), and it was messy!
Originally Posted by MDR
must be fun to print on !
Originally Posted by dwross
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Indeed, it's pretty hard to make nice cyanotypes with good dmax and smooth / delicate tones, but it's possible. OTOH, it's a given fact that you just can't get the same degree of delicacy compared to (say...) pt/pd. I have many good cyanotypes that I'm proud of, but when you print the same image (on the same paper) in pt/pd and then compare the two side by side, the cyanotype version (which is "very fine and satisfactory" when judged alone) looks quite grainy and lacking (in terms of tonality). You just have to accept that it isn't the best process in the department of smooth and delicate tones. (But that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, you have to persevere until you're sure you've hit the limits of the process...)
Here's the scans of a couple of my cyanotypes:
Leaves @ IFM (Trad. Cyanotype)
Dried Flowers (Trad. Cyanotype)
(These aren't especially big prints; both are around 11-12" in the shortest dimension.)
Can provide scans of an image realized in both cyanotype and pd for a better comparison if you like, but I don't have any online repros right now. Let me know if you need it.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
I think that hexavalent has made my point for me.
I have both Baryta powder and Titanox powder here and have experienced the mess of working with them. I have also seen Baryta paper at the Kodak paper plant before it is pressed, and I have worked with paper with different pressures having been used in this process.
I stand by what I said.
EDIT: Within the context of some of the posts here to get better detail and the absorption of "image materials" into paper fibers, I think that there was absolutely no criticism of the formula on Denise's web site. Think about that please!
Last edited by Photo Engineer; 02-04-2014 at 06:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
MDR and jnanian, Thanks! Yes, it is a very satisfying surface to coat on.
PE: Not sure what you stand by. Your "quite porous" opinion is simply wrong. I don't take your comment as criticism, simply ignorance. If you had made baryta-coated paper from the classical recipe I adapted, you would know it is not porous. Also, I believe Ian is talking about incorporating baryta into the actual paper pulp itself and then trying to make glossy paper from that. It's intriguing, but I certainly believe it could be a mess!
As is my nature, I have made an illustration. On the left is Photographers Formulary glossy baryta paper, in the middle is my baryta, coated on Rives Lightweight, and on the right is uncoated Rives. Each blotch of pink is from one drop of erythrosin solution (i.e. pink water.) All the drops were identical in size. Putting liquid on the PF paper is like putting liquid on plastic. Non-porous to be sure. To a fault. I tried twice. Even where the paper was very flat, the drop spread and dried unevenly.
What happens on the uncoated paper is obvious. Also, there was a lot of bleed-through to the back of the paper.
But, Tah-Dah! The handmade baryta held the drop in place. It did not spread beyond the area it originally fell on. It dried evenly and with the rich color of the wet solution. There is absolutely no bleed-through. A much bigger puddle than a drop can be spread just as nicely with a puddle pusher.
Denise, have you coated emulsion on those 3 samples and then printed definition charts onto them? That is the real test! Or perhaps, using this thread as an example, made a cyanotype print?
Ron, I will never understand your problem. I was simply responding to your erroneous contention that handmade baryta paper is "quite porous".