Re: drying cyanotype: LS

Judy Seigel ( jseigel@panix.com)
Sun, 05 January 1997 3:30 PM

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, John Barnier wrote:
>
> I should also point out that the new formula's advantages are not just
> the quality of its Dmax, but that it's achieved with far less chemistry,
> with less exposure time, on more papers. I would like to hear of other
> people's experiences in those areas. And BTW, as I stated in the article,
> some people do--and will continue to have--perfectly good results with
> the old formula. Great! It's all about making art, isn't it?

Actually John I had the impression the "new" cyanotype was *more*
sensitive to impurities in paper, tho that may have been a misreading of
something you said. However, in my experience "old" cyanotype is nearly
omni-paperous.

But I have to laugh, laugh, laugh, when you say "it's all about making
art". It should only be so simple (say those of us seduced by the siren
song of process -- and whoever isn't may be missing more than they've
escaped).

I seem to be in the majority, for once, who have found cyanotype
well-behaved, even exemplary, but I have also had a serious commitment to
the law of cause and effect. What is going on here? The only other
thought I can come up with (pending actual testing, which I hope will be
soon, but who knows if then?) is --- what is your light source?

Cheers,

Judy

----------