From: Thor Bols (thorbols@hotmail.com)
Date: 12/26/00-12:22:01 PM Z
Wow. Such a mean-spirited response. And on the day after Christmas, no
less.
What's up, Sandy? Coal in your stocking?
>From: Sandy King <sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: On the ubiquitious cyanotype
>Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1904 15:06:26 -0500
>
>Judy Seigel wrote:
>
>>
>>Jack, you force me to point out that contrast in cyanotype is largely a
>>factor of the paper -- as explained at great, even exhaustive, length in
>>Post-Factory #5. Average papers print 7 to 8 or 9 steps on the 21 step,
>>"contrasty" papers may print as few as 5, and longscale papers as many as
>>12.
>>
>>As for brightness or *strength* of the blue, again as noted in cyanotype
>>Issue #5, double coating "classic" cyano on a good-for-cyano paper seems
>>to give same density/intensity as "new" cyano, with much stabler emulsion
>>(it NEVER crashes). What's more, the relatively benign ingredients are
>>easy to mix & a fraction of the cost.
>>
>
>
>I am more than a little hopeful that the extensive and most
>authoritative considerations given to the cyanotype in issue #5 of
>Post-Factory will make it totally unnecessary to further discuss it
>during the coming year. From my personal perspective the *best* part
>about the article on cyanotype was that it spared us from having to
>look at these photographic aberrations of abysmal blue which are,
>sparing a few and lord save us from the wrath of our friends, so
>terribly permanent in their wretchedness.
>
>Sandy King
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/03/01-03:59:42 PM Z CST