Re: Alt-emulsion-projection

[Dean Kansky <deankansky@yahoo.com>]

The questions of C-Rex are three fold:

1) What is the difference that the difference makes?
That is, does it add some value over using C-Rex over
other traditional methods. Or would the C-Rexs that
look nice look just as nice if they were the made as
traditional C's.

To me, this is the most important question in terms of
ART.


(also to the artist thinking of using the C-Rex. As
the C-Rex is new, you might have more information and
help on this list and elsewhere if you use more widely
known and tested methods. I assume you do not have
time to be tweaking the C-Rex method to get it just
right)


The other questions: if Terry was underhanded in his
promotions or articles to make a quick buck and get
kudos has only to do with our view of Mr. King.

for example, he could have tweaked the method and
faked the data, to hype his discovery and, ironically,
still have come up with a good method. Not enough to
put him in the pantheon of stars, but a good solid
method, like some old alt take on a common theme that
works well and gets the job done.

I am not saying that this IS the case with C-Rex,
since I have never used it. I am only saying that this
all could be the case and we need to be careful about
confusing the source of the method with the method
itself. Those two things need to stand on their own.

I do think Terry needs to answer the charges against
him or he should resign from the Royal Society, since
this sort of slide of hand should be unacceptable, if
true.


I consider it shocking and suspicious that Terry King,
who was always worried about his reputation and always
quibbled over minor issues has yet to mount a defense.

I think Mr. Ware should offer to write an article for
the mag. that published Terry's original piece so that
standards are kept and met.

Not since Norman Finkelstein showed Joan Peter's book
to be a hoax, have I been so shocked to see the
allegations in question.

Dean

P.S. I wrote Mr. King, last night, and told him that
he should defend him for resign, since I do not think
it right to talk about him here, call for things, and
not include him.

I always thought him difficult and disruptive (how
many "dust ups" has the list has since Terry has not
been posting vs. when he was posting) but I always
thought he knew his game. So this is all a shock. 

If he is banned, he should be allowed to compose a
defense and post it with the right of reply. We need
to be fair, no matter, whose side we are inclined to
support.


--- Saffron Branfoot <Saf.branfoot@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

> There are some very beautiful examples in the
> exhibition at Fairfield Halls 
> (UK) that I mentioned.
> Best wishes,
> Saffron.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Camden Hardy" <camden@hardyphotography.net>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Alt-emulsion-projection
> 
> 
> > Sam,
> >
> > I'm curious about the glowing reports you
> mentioned, since I've heard
> > nothing but bad things (especially on this list)
> about cyanotype rex.  I
> > would be interested to hear the other side,
> though...could you point me in
> > the direction of some good, unbiased
> articles/reviews/etc. about the rex
> > process?
> >
> > Camden Hardy
> >
> > camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net
> > http://www.hardyphotography.net
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, October 19, 2006 6:43 am, sam wang wrote:
> >> Great idea for an installation project, David!
> >>
> >> I would only add that other than what you have
> proposed, you would want
> >> to use a subject dressed in black, dancing under
> moonlight. Also, I
> >> would convert your camera into a pinhole camera.
> The effects would be
> >> spectacular.
> >>
> >> Cyanotype Rex, from the glowing reports I've
> read, would be the perfect
> >> emulsion for this project. Remember to add the
> Royal Photographic
> >> Society Fellow to your list of credits.
> >>
> >> Do let us know what grade you receive for the
> project.
> >>
> >> Sam
> >>
> >> On Oct 18, 2006, at 7:11 PM, David Elinoff wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> My current project may require an alternative
> photographic emulsion.
> >>> I've
> >>> mostly considered Cyanotype Rex as a route for
> experimentation and it
> >>> appears to be my best bet, however, I'm not
> certain.
> >>>
> >>> Basically, an image will be captured and
> subsequently projected,
> >>> without
> >>> development (the result of this exposure may
> either be positive or
> >>> negative). I don't expect this to behave like
> normal motion picture
> >>> film -
> >>> I'm not expecting any miracles, and I imagine I
> will sacrifice speed
> >>> for
> >>> simplicity and legibility. This emulsion only
> requires to be so fast
> >>> as to
> >>> register some change in the frame, but perhaps
> just slow enough for the
> >>> image to last at least a second or two before
> 'fading' under the
> >>> projection lamp.
> >>>
> >>> The installation will utilize computer
> controlled 16mm
> >>> analyzer-projectors
> >>> that I have developed, and will modify for
> realization of this work.
> >>> I hope I will be applying cyanotype (or another
> emulsion applicable for
> >>> this purpose) to gelatin coated 16mm clear
> leader soon. Before I get
> >>> mired
> >>> in the chemistry, I'd appreciate any
> recommendations from the list
> >>> since
> >>> I'm a bit out of my element and wondering
> whether I'm barking up the
> >>> wrong
> >>> tree (or barking mad, that's a possibility!).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your advice and suggestions.
> >>>
> >>> -David L. Elinoff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com