From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/03/03-03:27:29 AM Z
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Sandy King wrote:
Incidentally, I wasn't talking about a step 9 on a 21 step, I meant step 9
on a Kodak gray scale, which is quite a substantial tone ... so saying
that the printout was trivial or whatever the word, seemed not the best
choice of words.... (Also incidentally, it's dry as the Mohavi (or is it
Mohabi?) desert in the studio with the steam heat on... even though we
pump 10 or 15 gallons a day into the apartment with a humidifier... its RH
26 to 32 upstairs. Which means that the rather thin paper I was coating
soaked up a TERRIFIC amount of emulsion and made an incredibly dark blue.
Does anyone ever dry the paper with a hairdryer BEFORE coating cyano?
Meanwhile,
> As I understand it, the theory is
> that the blue image color offers less actinic filtration than that of
> the silver metal of a POP or salted paper print.
As I understand it, that's a THEORY, and I think it may well be invalid,
and since it has all kinds of ramifications, I wanted to test it. I
realized later that I should have tested two different sections of
different colors, to see if say a red held back more light than the
blue... because that was what interested me. I'll do it next week.
As for "self masking" -- from what you say it's impossible to test that so
we can say anything we please. Well, I shall say that there is no self
masking and how will you prove that there is? After all, you can't simply
compare it to another process, because every process has a different
contrast range. And also and therefore the range of every process
(including and especially every paper combo with a particular procedure
and chemistry) has to be tested separately. So what is the meaning in
this context of any *theory* at all? Suppose, if we must have theory, that
I have a theory that cyanotype makes you more beautiful than otherwise.
There are all kinds of reasons for that but it's now 4:21 AM & my bedtime.
However, since you're paying attention, would you please tell me how to
spell Dallmeyer? If I have a book around that would have it, I think it's
in the 4th dimension. Is it Dahlmeyer? Or not? (I mean the lens.)
Thanking you so kindly in advance.
Judy
>
>
> I must admit that I have not studied cyanotype enough to make any
> definitive statements about it so if you have any proof or evidence
> that there is a significant amount of self-masking going on please
> feel free to prove me wrong.
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST