Real Cyanotype in-camera photographs!!!

[crystalclear]

I know most people think its either impossible or highly impractical due to extreme exposure times, but I did find one person who has successfully produced cyanotype photgraphs with a camera. Most are full day exposures, but they are interesting.

Heres the link!

http://www.tompolk.com/hobbies/cyanotype/cyanotype.html


CrystalClear

[jnanian]

hi

i think they are what he suggests.
they are not traditional cyanotypes,
but they seem to be sun print-prints.

very nice indeed!

john

[Vaughn]

There is a process, recently 'rediscovered" by Terry King of the Royal Photography Society that is actually fast enough for in-camera use (and not the 3+ hour exposures the fellow above is using.) One has to order the CD from King to get the how-to, but from what I have read, it involves coating the paper with the Ferric ammonium citrate, then exposing in-camera, and then developing the latent image in the Potassium ferricyanide...or something along those lines.

The process is called Cyanotype Rex.

Vaughn

[crystalclear]

Heres another photographer who is using a similar cyanotype technique with a camera to produce negatives. One of the secrets of the process is to use a fast lense that doesn't block UV. In this case, a magnifying lense. Check it out.

http://www.dianaludwig.com/studio/cy...n.html#cameras


CrystalClear

[keithwms]

CC, this is somewhat off topic, but I made an instant polaroid quasi-cyanotype by mistake once, I think part of the pod didn't rupture on development and the result was an image with something like cyanotype tonality, but very sharp. I've been meaning to try it again.

[Schlapp]

There is a flickr group for this but what puts me off bothering is that the final print would inkjet or similar. Surely?

[Akki14]

If you can get it to work via the rather obscure "pellet process" cyanotype process, you can produce direct positives. I think the pellet process is slightly more toxic in chemicals but I've forgotten exactly what it is now...

[crystalclear]

I've heard that you can produce positives by simply putting two cyanotypes face two face in a contact print. I'm not sure if that'll ruin the original negative though. Anyone ever try that?

Crystalclear

[crystalclear]

keithwms,

How would you go about reproducing the result? You would almost have to do it by hand, right? Sounds interesting. To bad the exposure times are so long, otherwise, with a few modifications, you could use cyanotype paper in your polaroid camera. I'm planning on building a completely homemade camera with magnifying lense to test the whole in-camera concept. I'm not expecting much detail, but the negatives I've seen other people make have an almost erie artistic quality to them. If I can get any results, later on I might actually try hacking a polaroid. Probably an old super shooter or big swinger. Might be worth a try now that it seems no one is going to produce film for these cameras.

CrystalClear

[keithwms]

CC this is the result I got last time I saw this effect. Haven't tried to refine it. If it appeals then I could think about how to do it reproducibly. Probably just a matter of snipping off part of the developing goo pod or short-developing or developing cold. Something like that. You could probably just slap a cyan filter over the lens and shoot straight polaroid and get the same effect.

But... what would we call it? A cyanoroid?

Keith