Message text written by Judy Seigel
>
>Terry, It's a good thing I'm not coming to England, because if I were the
>first thing I'd do would be to bean you for, again, a combination of error
>and partial information delivered in that tone of absolute authority.
If you were to come to the meeting we would be able to discuss things
constructively.
> I .suspect you do it to annoy me -- & in that you succeed. I haven't got
time
>left in life to correct everything
All I am stating is my practical experience. The trouble is that you seem
determined disagree even when the facts are plain that we agree.
> (and your doubletalk reply will make
>me crazier)
Than what ?
>, but here are a few tokens:
>On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Terry King wrote:
>> Soaking into the paper will tend to reduce the D-max as the paper will
get
>> between you and the image. The only difference between practical
>Some papers increase D-max when they soak up a lot of emulsion, due to
>.of having more metal. They require more exposure, however,
That way tends to uneven coating, degraded highlights and muddy images and
unnecessary labour and expense. So why not use techniques and materials
that avoid these difficulties?
>In my experience, application method and papers are different,
>even if the emulsion is the same consistency,
I agree.
>That's a non-sequitur to the point at hand.
I think that you had better explain what you consider to be a non sequitur.
As far as I could see what I said only confirmed our agreement that papers
differ. Who could disagree?
> However, since you bring up
>the subject I'll add that I have never seen a successful "double
>processing" of cyanotype -- the paper shrinks, so re-register isn't
>perfect. And since there are so many ways to get really good d-max the 1st
>time around, that does seem like an exercise in futility.
Judy I have shown you a doubly processed cyanotype that you rather liked.
Hundreds of thousands of copies of this image have been made. If you use
the right materials they do not shrink and the image does not get out of
register. If you have a large negative on expensive film made for another
purpose, it is quicker and easier and cheaper to do a cyanotype twice
rather than make another large contact negative.
> >I've never seen solarizing in platinum, but I have seen it in cyanotype,
> >where it doesn't at all become paper white, but a lighter blue.
>
>> In a cyanotype you expose until all the shadows are solarised. Then you
>> know that it is done properly. The solarised parts turn dark blue on
> development.
>Again, Terry, you are committing error, or rather a series of errors, in
>tones of absolute majesty. Why do you do that? Doesn't your computer
>write the words "in my experience"? I'll send you some software.
Judy. No error at all . I am sorry if that upsets you but that is the way
you make a good cyanotype with a good range of tones and good gradation.
Try it. My comments are obviously based on practical experience. If you
were to come to the spring meeting you would be able to see for yourself.
>Meanwhile, please note: for certain papers (as well as certain formulas)
.shadows will not be "all solarized." Or rather (in >addition?) there
are.different kinds of solarizing. In some cases what has been lighter
before
>development does indeed look "dark blue" after development, but it may or
>may not be the darkest blue in the print.
You are determined to disagree again when we are in fact agreed. Of course
some of the reversed areas will look darker than others as the reversal
takes place over a range of tones.
> There is also an anomaly that
>in some cases what is a lighter blue *visually* is actually denser when
>viewed by transmitted light. In any event, I assure you that I have tests
.>in my file (including one by Mike Ware, of holy name) in which the border
>of the strip, which had no film over it, and step #1, appear lighter than
.>step 2.
In my experience I would put it back in the water for a bit longer as it
is usually the case that when that happens the image has not been developed
properly.
> In which case, I believe
>things being attributed to solarizing are probably due to something else.
This sounds to me thesort of problem that one can only resolve if one sees
the phenomenon occurring.
Terry