THE ARTEFACT

>> What, why and how

Having seen how effective the cyanotype process could be and after hearing photographers' enthusiasm I knew that they could be used successfully in graphic design projects. Designers made it clear that they are not used in graphic design because they are unheard of rather than unusable.

During my research I kept in mind that I wanted to produce an artefact to test my argument: are cyanotypes suitable for design? I needed to create something that could help the interviewees compare and judge the difference between stock images and cyanotypes in an actual design project, rather than as a work of art.

I wanted to find out if there was a reason why graphic designers should use cyanotypes rather than stock photography. Do they visually improve the design, or communicate the concepts better? Can they add something to the the graphic? I feel that using stock photography and manipulating it creates a very 'samey' quality to the designs. Perhaps because most designers tend to use the same tools and software, with the same filters. To be able to prove if cyanotypes are useable in design I needed to measure and analyse the audiences response to them. An artefact would be a perfect medium for this.

IXa) Retouched stock photography sting ©

 

 

 

 

 

 
IXb) Unretouched stock photography sting
©
 

 

 

 

 

 
IXc) Cyanotype sting ©

Now working as a graphic designer for television I decided to do something called a sting. A sting is basically industry jargon for a short advert or promotion for a programme, similar to a trailer for a movie. It can be anything from a couple of seconds to a minute long, and usually gets scheduled just before the programme. The idea of a sting is to introduce and entice the viewer to the programme. The imagery and the text should therefore be relevant to the content. I decided to do a 10 second sting for a music and pop culture programme called 'Culture Club'. I produced three different stings, using different photography:

1. Using Unretouched stock photography

2. Using Retouched stock photography

3. Using Cyanotypes.

Xa) Retouched stock photography sting ©

 

 

 

 

 

 
Xb) Unretouched stock photography sting ©

 

 

 

 

 

 
Xc) Cyanotype sting ©

With the sting using Unretouched stock photography I wanted to prove how imperfect and unusable the photographs that come straight out of photographic libraries are in their original form. The one using Retouched stock photography is, as I have established, how most graphic designers work. They take the images from the libraries and add textures and interest to them on the computer. The one using Cyanotypes would also be as unretouched as possible, to prove that cyanotypes are usable in their original form. In order to maintain some control I built a template for the design using the same background and typography for all three versions. The three stings were then identical except for the images. The difference was the process of how the images were made. The more similar the images were in shape and form, the easier it would be to establish the usability of the process rather than the content, when comparing them.

XIa) Retouched stock photography sting ©

 

 

 

 

 

 
XIb) Unretouched stock photography sting ©

 

 

 

 

 

 
XIc) Cyanotype sting ©

>> Working with cyanotypes in design

As I was making the artefact I also found out how the cyanotypes compare to other images when you work with them in a design project.

The first obstacle I ran into was the colour restriction. I wanted to have a warm orange feel to the sting, and the cyanotypes are blue. This could be easily solved with retouching, but as I wanted to use the cyanotype in is original form I was stuck with the blue. I used an orange background for the cyanotypes which complemented the blue well. Due to the soft printing of cyanotypes when objects are printed they sometimes turn into unrecognisable shades or textures. This is a very nice effect that I found usable on screen. However I can see how this can be a problem is you want to be able to see clearly what the object is.

[26] RGB is a colour system used for screens. It uses Red, Green and Blue light to reproduce images you see on a television screen or monitor.

As with most photography and illustration, the richness of the cyanotype print can only be shown in the original. When re-produced in print or on screen some of the quality of the original print and its textures are lost, primarily because the RGB [26] colour range used for screens is shorter than the original prints.

THE ARTEFACT QUESTIONNAIRE AND IT'S RESPONSES

>> The audience

The main target group was the younger generation, since the sting is for a music and culture, or youth culture based programme. I was able to conduct some of the research in a school in Sweden with teenagers aged between 15 and 17. This was a very useful opportunity since they are the age group that would have the most exposure to this sort of sting. I feel that the teenage generation of today is largely the same in Europe, so whether the research was conducted in Sweden, England or anywhere else in Europe would not influence the result very much. They are all fed the same sort of TV and adverts, and wear the same fashion. The other people targeted were ordinary consumers of all ages, from 9 to 56. I wanted to include people of all ages, although not as the main group. Despite being of different ages, some would still watch this sort of programme.

I designed a questionnaire as a basis for the analysis. I explained what a sting is and showed the three different versions, (the Retouched stock photography one, the Unretouched stock photography one, and the one with Cyanotypes). This way I got an initial impression from the person interviewed. The questions following analysed this reaction. The artefact has been made for TV, and the media is very fast; one sting follows another, an advert or a programme. As you only have a couple of seconds to give an impression I felt that the first reaction was very important. I then exposed the viewer to the stings three more times. This helped to establish what that first reaction was based on, or if the first impression would change over time. In practice stings are repeated many times and I thought it would be important to get a reaction based on a 'realistic scenario', as if the sting was actually for a television programme.

>> Analysing the results from the questionnaires

100 people saw the artefact. Of these people 57% were men and 43% women. Their average age was 25 years old. I felt that it would be interesting to see if there was a difference of opinion with age and sex, and included these questions on the questionnaires.

XII) Analysing chart

On the first viewing 24% thought that the Retouched stock photography sting was the most successful design. The average age of this group was 25.1 years. 15 or 26.3% of the men and 9 or 20.9% of the women were of this opinion. The comments varied from "More harmonical, not so messy" and "Visually clearer, more defined" and "More interesting" and "Warmer colours" and "More lively pictures" and "Better consistency with colours" to "Sharp outlines".

13% favoured the Unretouched photography sting. Their average age was 33.4 years and 9 of the men - 15.8% and 4 of the women - 9.3% preferred this option. The reasons mentioned were "Better colours" and "Smoothest transitions" and "Most solid pictures" and "Easy on the eye" and "Sharper pictures".

27% thought the Cyanotype sting was the best one. The average age of the interviewees was 22.1 years. 14, or 24.6% of the men and 13, or 30.2% of the women chose this option. Comments on this design ranged from "Clearer pictures" and "Different, more distinct" and "Nicest pictures" to "More serious, contrasts stand out" and one person said that "Textures made it more lively". Another comment was that "Stock photography feels flat in comparison; retouched offered some changes; greatest contrast with cyanotypes."

However, 36% thought that there was no difference at all between the three stings. The average age of people of this opinion was 24.1 years, and 19 or 33.3% of the men and 17 or 39.5% of the women chose this option on the questionnaire.

After three viewings only 16 people changed their minds about which sting they preferred. 6 favoured the Retouched stock photography sting after repeated viewings, 4 the Unretouched stock photography version, 5 the Cyanotype sting and 1 person reverted from favouring the Unretouched stock photography sting to saying there was no difference between the three stings.

Most tended to stick with their initial impression, which shows that the first impression is a very important one, and that the time you have to make an impression is very short. This argues again for using a different feel or look to stand out. Of the people who could tell the difference between the three stings, the highest percentage chose the Cyanotype version. This supports the argument for using them.

I feel that the difference in textures and its original look will make it easier to be remembered than the more obvious and straight forward images. If you react to an image because it looks different you remember it easier than an image that causes no reaction. I feel that even if the reaction is a slightly negative one, it is still more effective than a bland one.

Another interesting fact that came from this survey was that of the people who did see a difference, the average age of people who preferred the more obvious and straight forward Unretouched photography sting was significantly higher than for the other two. The average age for the Retouched photography sting was 25.1 and for the Cyanotype photography sting 22.1 but for the Unretouched photography sting it was as high as 33.4 years. Possibly, younger people, who have been more exposed to popular culture and MTV expects images to look different. That the images can be used as textures. In the older age groups, comments were made that they wanted to see the images more clearly. Since the cyanotypes tend to be more fuzzy they are perhaps more suited for a younger audience.

CONCLUSION

Today's designers have access to extensive photographic libraries and image banks. But, I feel that there is something lacking in the choice of images used in contemporary graphic design. Perhaps it is the 'real' feel of physical material rather than pixelated images that I miss in a lot of the work I see. This project offered me the opportunity to see if some of the craftsmanship of an old technology could add a new dimension to contemporary graphic design. Is it practical for a designer to switch off his or her computer, get some ink under the fingernails, and still come up with the goods at the end of the day? And if a designer powered down where would they find a how-to-guide to alternative photography? It felt like an eternity from the time that the first blue and white reproduction of a cyanotype caught my eye until I saw the real thing. So, how can one expect a graphic designer working to short time scales to find these images?

I approached this project with several questions. Why are cyanotypes not used by contemporary designers? The answer is that they are generally unheard of. Very few photographic exhibitions show them and there are very few books dealing with the subject.

Apart from the photographers working with the process very few people are aware of their existence. As a graphic designer you would have to be very persistent and really know where to go to find them. There is no 'natural' exposure to them. The main source of images for graphic designers is photographic libraries. Photographic libraries do not tend to stock cyanotypes because there is no demand for them. Because most graphic designers use photographic libraries as a main source of images, and since the photographic libraries do not stock cyanotypes graphic designers would not come across them in the same way as they would with silver based photography. If an image is hard, or near impossible to find, it would not be used in the design. I drew the conclusion that since the cyanotype process produces different looking images, and would therefore appeal to graphic designers, the main reason graphic designers do not use them is that they simply do not know about them.

Photographers I spoke to have had a very enthusiastic response to their work, and they sell well as art, but still, they are rarely used in design projects. The enthusiastic response the photographers received made me believe that there was something about the cyanotype image that would benefit design projects.

[27] Mike Ware (1999) Cyantype: the history, science and art of photographic printing in Prussian blue, the Science Museum and the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television

I also asked if the technology is easy enough for graphic designers to use and if they would be able to use it. It is an old process and apart from some recent updates by Mike Ware [27], it has remained virtually unchanged since John Herschel discovered it in 1842.

The process is easy to use, inexpensive and requires little equipment. It has some drawbacks, such as long exposure times making the time they take to produce longer than for silver based photography. It is also a little hard to control the exposure time if you use the sun as your light source. This problem can be overcome by using an UV lamp.

There is also a colour restriction attached to the process. You are restricted to blue, unless you tone the cyanotypes or use different coloured material to print them on. A similar image can be produced by using computer technology, although you would loose the unique quality and the depth that the cyanotype image has, because it is embedded in the material. They have a different feel from silver based photography as they hold the image inside the material rather than on top of it. Cyanotypes also have very original textures that set them apart from silver based photography.

Most of the problems can be overcome. With a bit of planning, the time scales would not be too much of an obstacle. The colour limitations could be surmounted by toning the images, or by retouching, in the same way as graphic designers retouch stock photography. The loss of quality in the print process and on screen is probably the greatest problem, but you do get this with conventional silver based photography as well. It is not a problem specifically associated with cyanotypes. A reproduced photograph in a magazine or a TV programme rarely has the same detail and depth as the original. So, from a technical point of view, the process is very usable.

[28] Steve Macleod, Metro Art.

The last question I wanted to answer was if cyanotypes can be used in design, and if they would appeal to the audience. Of the test group that was shown the three different stings (the Retouched stock photography sting, the Unretouched stock photography sting and the Cyanotype sting) a significant percentage, 36% could not see a difference between the three different stings at all. Steve Macleod [28] was right when he said that "Money spent on printing [the cyanotypes] could be wasted since people don't notice the difference...".

However, setting the indifferent people aside and analysing the remaining 64% of the people who could see a difference, most favoured the cyanotypes. Over a quarter of the total target group preferred the cyanotypes. Judging by this it is still worth the extra effort of finding images that are different, that stand out and that stick in people's minds. I feel the cyanotype is this sort of image. Graphic design, to be able to sell a product, a magazine or a TV programme, has to be noticed and remembered. With stings, the time you have to make an impression can be as short as 5 seconds, you have a very short time to make a difference. As graphic design is usually made up by two elements: type and images I think it is fair to say that the choice of images is of significance to the final result. The choice of images is very important. If graphic designers can use an image that looks different, that has something original about it, or stands out in any other way, then I believe it has a better chance of getting remembered and sticking in people's minds for longer than a straight forward conventional image.

Another interesting observation that came from the research is that there was an age difference in the target groups that choose cyanotypes and the ones who choose Unretouched stock photography. The average age of the people who choose cyanotypes was 22.1 and for the Unretouched stock photography it was 33.4. I could therefore draw the conclusion that cyanotypes are better suited for a younger audience.

The so called MTV generation has developed a higher tolerance for graphic images used as textures, whereas the older generation want to be able to see what the images actually portray. People exposed to today's popular culture are accustomed to a fast turnover in images, and more readily expect them to look different. For this reason cyanotypes seem to be more effective when designing for a younger audience.

This thesis deals with the process of making an image rather than the message or the content of the image. I feel that I have proven that the execution of how an image is produced makes a difference, not to everyone, but to a significant number of people to be of importance. I think the fact that over a quarter of the group choose the Cyanotype sting supports the argument for using them. They are different in their look and feel. This is reason enough to keep making different images to make the design look original.