On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Keith Gerling wrote:
> Judy,
> I hesitate to admit I've never used the traditional cyanotype. I'm not
> shunning the celebrities, mind you, I've just read that Ware's version
> resulted in deeper blues, with less exposure, etc. I'll give the
> traditional version a try in the next few weeks and report back. Tony
> McClean could be right about the ph: living in the sticks, using well-water
> AND with farmers who dump all kinds of high potency Nitrogen fertilizer into
> the soil, God knows what kind of ph the water has. But my distilled water
> bill is already too high with what I run through my espresso machine!
Have you tried developing the cyanotype in the espresso?
If not, it might be worth a dollar to try one (small) print in distilled
-- establish that fact or not. And have it as benchmark against the old
blue.
As for "deeper blues," I don't know of a scientific test of same. There's
no doubt that those "New" blues are intense, but the limited tests I've
seen students do suggest that might as well be the *acid afterbath*...
Which is to say, an acid afterbath with Old Cyanotype makes the blues more
intense as well, but we never compared with the New, because no one
was doing it.
I'll add that big factors in the (old) blue intensity are the paper, the
coating, the number of coats (double coating usually ups it a lot), and
the drying (no heat). With all optimized.... might be a tossup. But for
no-fail ease, less toxic, and less fussy paperwise, old is better.
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:47