> From: .andj.rerson <j.r.anderson@mds.qmw.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, an 1597 01:37:30 +1100
> Subject: What's in a name?
> To: Multiple recipients of list <alt-photo-process@cse.unsw.edu.au>
>
> I recently saw some rather good babbleon@ican.net (positive image) prints that were
described
> as "calotypes". I was under the impression that this work was only really
> supposed to be applied to Fox Talbot's method for making negatives, and
> that the positive was supposed to be called a salt print, even if the
> chemistry used is 100% identical. At this risk of starting "The War of
the
> Words", can anyone clarify this for me?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>From Richard Morris
Calotypist raorextdinary:-)
Technically speaking the negative is the Calotype and the print a salt
print. Sometimes of course the print was albumen or even a cyanotype to
keep to processes contemporary with Talbot.
The print originally was Talbot's Photogenic Drawing process where both the
negative and positive were the same process.
As a modern day calotypist I accept that this refers to the negative
process only.
Richard Morris
----------babbleon@ican.net Tue 14 Jan 10:44 1997
From: babbleon@ican.net (Risa Horowitz)
Date: Tue, 14 January 1997 10:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: We are not the alternative
Risa's 2 cents:
alternative: gumoil, polaroid transfer, xerox transfer etc....
historical: platinum, carbon, cyanotype, gum-bi etc.....
I work in alternative and historical techniques, as well as conventional
techniques.
----------