>>3392831So you took your bad photo, used a good high-resolving printer to print a negative transparency of your 1.6mpix photo and made a bad cyanotype of the already-printed transparency, because muh analogue process?
Have you ever, you know, considered using that printer to print, you know, the actual photo? In as many sharp, contrasty b/w copies as you need? For less than the cost of the cyanotype kit, paper and plastic transparency?
Process wankery for process' sake, with horrible results. Epitome of /p/ gearfagging/process over photo.
At least tweak your transparency's contrast to print out properly. Did you even use a peroxide developing bath after rinsing?
