Prisi Cyanotype

[Gustavo Castilla]

print is 8X10 Cyanotype

Your comments are most welcome
​

 

[Asher Kelman]

Great to have alternative process like cyanotype being shown. One thing obvious at first glance is the very modern attitude of the model. Unlike photographs of the a century back, with women in a soft almost modest, playful or neutral pose, here this woman is self confidant and holds her own in a perhaps challenging confrontation with the viewer.

The illumination is soft. Is this natural light?

Maybe you can share the idea behind the process? Most here don't even use film and that's a pity for art choices for expression get narrowed somewhat.

Asher

 

[Shane Carter]

Interested about the processing itself and the goal. Is it to get an "old" look? Read up on this a little but it was historical info, not how to use it in capturing a subject. Was this done in photoshop or on film and processed using the cyanotype process. Sorry if these are stupid questions, never heard of this till just now.

 

[Marcus Peddle]

I once heard someone say of cyanotype that since the digital age it has become nothing more than a gimmick used by photoshoppers. The same as using sepia to make a photograph look old-fashioned. Well, I don't know if you've done your image using chemicals or computer but it certainly doesn't look gimmicky.
When I look at a cyanotype, it gives me a feeling that is different than black and white or sepia but I am having difficulty expressing what this feeling is. Could you explain why you would choose cyanotype over black and white or even colour?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Marcus,

This choice seems to me no different than using charcoal, oil or latex paint to express one's art. Of course that medium selection can be informed, not by artistic intent, but by marketing gimmickry. It's like, in a way, how you choose to dress differently when you go out in public. For some people, how they dress in private is what they show. Is either self-expression or showing off? I don't have any general answer of course, but we are free to make judgments ourselves and we do.

All you are seeing in Gustavo's work is hand processed.

Was the photograph of this Cyanotype post-processed to enhance it in PS? Well, in general one has to see the original!

Asher

 

[Gustavo Castilla]

your comments

First let me thank you for taking the time to look at my work!
I work with film and the work I have posted here is from 8 X 10 negatives shoot with a Deardorff V8. I use the processes you see here because I want to communicate my experience/ feelings state of mind or what ever you want to call it I want my work to evoke a response from the viewer using these processes I find my vision comes across and the prints have a unique feeling about them not 2 are the same . Using the historical chemistry allows me to put a little bit of me into each piece , I only print editions of ten and the the negative gets put away .
I do want to make it clear that making a blue Image on the computer not a cyanotype makes !!
or a Sepiatone it is just a blue cast or sepia cast Image the process of making a sepia tone or platinotype is not done for the color but for particular characteristics of each process I am not a snob but a duck is a duck and digital capture is not by definition photography for the record I do enjoy using a digital capture device A.K.A. digital camera.

Gustavo

 

[Asher Kelman]

First let me thank you for taking the time to look at my work!
I work with film and the work I have posted here is from 8 X 10 negatives shoot with a Deardorff V8.

So that is step one here. But was that with the original cynaotype methodology?

I use the processes you see here because I want to communicate my experience/ feelings state of mind or what ever you want to call it I want my work to evoke a response from the viewer using these processes I find my vision comes across and the prints have a unique feeling about them not 2 are the same . Using the historical chemistry allows me to put a little bit of me into each piece , I only print editions of ten and the the negative gets put away.

Are these images available for purchase on your website? I'd be interested in how much these sell for compared to say a silver halide contact print or platinum print, assuming the same starting negative. Also if you have an edition of 10 Cyanotypes, could you also have a series of 10 platinum prints from the same negative.

I do want to make it clear that making a blue Image on the computer not a cyanotype makes !!
or a Sepiatone it is just a blue cast or sepia cast Image the process of making a sepia tone or platinotype is not done for the color but for particular characteristics of each process

So far we have no differences in opinion.

I am not a snob but a duck is a duck and digital capture is not by definition photography

Neither, for that matter then is exposing a light sensitive emulsion to photons. In both cases, light is captured and the energy is used to excite chemicals and move electrons. In silver chemistry we have a potential reduction of silver nitrate to silver metal whereas it's silicon that gets excited in digital photography, but it's the same energy transfer process. We just have an accurate measurement of that electron flux with digital recording and transfer to a drawing instrument to laydown the dyes. The method, photography, ie writing with light, is the same.

Merely exposing silver nitrate to the light does not a picture make. One still has to do something with the moved electrons. No different with digital.

for the record I do enjoy using a digital capture device A.K.A. digital camera.
Gustavo

The little trick of relegating Digital photography to some other form is transparent! You don't get a freebie on this so easily!

Silver nitrate film, after all is merely another photoelectric recording device too. We could, if we so wish, move directly from that sheet to a digital printer. Then you would call the silver emulsion generated picture what? Not photography but "a digital capture device"?

One can define "life and death" or "up and down" but making a line between different ways of exploiting the photon-mediated electron transfers is to my scientific mid, both capricious and not needed.

I personally value and even treasure purely analog hand worked photographs as there is often a lot of personal devotion, care, thought, emotion and impressive skill that goes into the delivered image.

What inks/dye/metal or whatever a photographer uses, must be based on his or her esthetic sense and necessity. The actual process is not as important as the honesty and quality of what is embedded in the final print. All we are doing is writing with light and that, by definition covers all types of "photography" including grannies $90 2MP digital camera!

I love to see photography made available to everyone and so digital photography is so revolutionary socially. Still, I would like photographers to look at the untapped creative possibilities with chemically sensitized emulsions and media. Your cyanotypes, Gustavo, interest me for that very reason. There is still a lot of magnificent work to be done.

Every known method of recording light and printing that to paper gives a different sometimes critical psycho-visual nuance. It's these subtle differences and qualities that can make a picture move us. We may react so differently to the very same subject according to how the print was made. While digital photography is very powerful, access is simple and it's a robust medium for creative expression, we shouldn't wear blinders! I'm not advocating everyone go out and shoot film. I do say that we shouldn't rob ourselves of the vast possibilities of all the photographic methods that went beforehand. Yes, digital photography is the superman and superwoman for ease of use and creativity. Still, the fine craftsman can create wonders with simple chemistry that will be hard to match in character. For this very reason, I hope that the simple chemical processes we'll show, open different ways of making a dream photograph a reality. So thanks Gustavo for sharing your work!

Asher

 

[Marcus Peddle]

I wasn't trying to belittle your efforts by asking if this photograph was done on computer -- it really was an honest question. I'm looking at a low-resolution copy of your picture on a computer monitor and it's difficult to tell how a photograph was created. I would love to see an original print but that's not possible.
I agree with Asher about film vs. digital. To me, both are means to the same end. I have learned black and white printing in the darkroom and it is a very difficult and a very rewarding activity. The end product is much different than what I would get from a digital camera. At the same time, there are possibilities open to digital that can't be done on film. It's all photography and it's all fun.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing more of your images. Although I can't describe it yet, the cyanotype does evoke some sort of feeling in me.
Cheers.

 

[Gustavo Castilla]

as to the questions posed by Asher

Marcus I do not think you where belittle the work ,I just wanted to make it clear the differences!

Answers :
So that is step one here. But was that with the original cynaotype methodology?
This is a contact printing method ,the seize of the negative is the seize of the print ,It is an Iron base
processes with Ferric Oxalate or Ferric ammonium citrate as the light sensitive salt .

Are these images available for purchase on your website? Yes you can use my site or email me at
castilg at yahoo dot com with the name of the print and I can use paypal or checks ,For the record the editions are of ten.

 

[Marcus Peddle]

I had a look at your website. Beautiful photographs and a real inspiration.