They are, aren't they. I missed this post somehow. Interested to find that the cyanotype process is the origin of the name 'blueprint'.

Fanx chaps. I have toyed with the idea of darkroom development and a bit of analogue film photography but felt it was a rabbit hole I didn't want to go down.

This on the other hand feels like a good balance of it all, especially because it is relatively simple (in comparison to darkroom development) and the results can be quite nice. The chemical use/process interests me because of my Chemistry degree so it ticks a box there.

I think I'll find it interesting to figure out what types of photo transfer well to this format.

Of the above
Forest (Sequoia National Park) - good
Train (Barmouth Bridge) - good
Sunrise (Madeira) - not good
Chapel (Madeira) - good

I think images with a good degree of difference between light and dark come out better.

What Kos said.

They're brilliant.

Like in traditional dark rooms are you able to control the exposure in real time, so remove the image from the developing process when you're happy with it, and is there another stage you need to do to fix the image to stop it from developing further?

What do you reckon you've spent to get your setup going?

It is really difficult to tell if you've got what you want because, as you've asked, there is a fixing process - literally just wash the sheet in water to remove the undeveloped parts. But it's difficult to see how the finished and washed print will turn out without actually doing it. Or at least I'm unable to tell as yet.

These are the train/bridge and the sunrise just after being removed from the UV box and before washing

 


And the sunrise being washed





In terms of costs - I've probably spent around £60ish maybe so far and I've now got enough kit to last me ages. You could probably start with one of the £20-£30 chemical kits, add some paper, a cheap photo frame to hold item/negative to paper, then use the sun to do the exposing on a sunny day. The reel of UV LEDs cost around £10 and was more than enough for the scanner conversion, my mini box and have a few sections left over.

Really nice. I'm working with a couple of artists using cyanotype atm. It must be a thing.

Would be interested to see what they're doing with it.

I've got a little project in mind to do some in-camera cyanotype. So the picture would only be the size of a 35mm negative, and I would imagine it could take upwards of 30 minutes to get an image exposed on a sunny day. Would need to be a landscape!

> I think images with a good degree of difference between light and dark come out better.

Yep, it'll mostly be same as would apply to regular monochrome - images where contrasting tones and textures are [part of] the main subject, so long as the tint doesn't work against it.

> It is really difficult to tell if you've got what you want because, as you've asked, there is a fixing process...

Have you thought about using Cyanotype filters digitally to preview what you'd get? By processing test cards you could calibrate the effects of different durations and materials, and work out what combination produces the preferred result - or would you consider that cheating / is the surprise/uncertainty part of what you enjoy?

Yeah, that's definitely the case. And even more exaggerated because the dynamic range of cyantoype is quite limited. Seen a few guides about playing with curves to ensure there's not too much lost in an attempt to get the detail where you want it.
 
I've definitely thought about this. I did some test prints initially with the UV scanner where I slid out a card to block/increase exposure time just to have some idea of what it was capable of and what settings to start with since it was a complete unknown for me.

Part of me hates the uncertainty of it, part of me loves it.
I don't want it to become too formulaic because then it's less of an art and can become boring. But who wants to waste time producing rubbish prints?



 

Deffo it's a thing. Also wet-plate collodion and daguerreotypes even.

I think the rocky one is my favourite.

Also I vaguely knew about the blue print thing (sure our ancient technical drawing (as in, with a drawing board and pencil) teacher at uni told us about it) but I'd forgotten until you said it.

I played about a little with cyanotype about 20 years ago, but had to rely on scottish sunshine for developing and I'm sure you can imagine how that went.

Dominic Smith:

https://www.dominicsmith.info/near-earth-objects/


And the other one, I misremembered (I haev teh olds). Jacqui Gallon is actually working in photogram:

https://www.curatorspace.com/about/news/curatorspace-artist-bursary--jacqui-gallon/97

We moved house in January, and lock down happened halfway through decorating. My wife is working from  spare bedroom, so my PCis relegated to the living room tv (Walls are now papered, finally) 

How long have you owned that microphone?

It's a classic!!! Since about 1996 I think, hardly ever use it, so I've never bought a decent headphone with integrated mic, as I'd probably use it 2 or 3 times a year. Just don't get the time to play multiplayer games anymore.

Here's a photo of it after a recent spring clean. It's an clutterfest again now.

I'd stolen our back bedroom a few years ago when I started doing more WFH, so in that sense I was reasonably prepared.

This was the height of lock-down when I was working insane hours doing multiple projects, trying to spin out remote access solutions for desperate people. 

It's marginally tidier now, but I can't be arsed removing all the work/confidential shit to take another photo

 (fail)

?

Makes me look like the slob I am.