RE: palladium vs. cyanotype sharpness

Thanks for the confirmation Christina. I admit I cheated in this issue;
I have 3600dpi imagesetter negatives (for Cyanotype) printed on smooth
paper which clearly show the (non visible to the naked eye) dots (10x
loupe)! I remember printing these imagesetter negatives emulsion-up (in
order to sligthly loose sharpness) because I didn't want the dots
show-up even on close inspection.

For a
poor-guy-that-has-to-order-his-paper-from-overseas-suppliers-with-added-
international-shipment-and-customs-costs like me the price difference
between cyanotype and pt/pd chemistry becomes very unimportant, when
compared to the cost of fine paper. And I always get better shadow
detail with my Ziatypes (no matter what digital negative making method I
use: C.Palmer/D.Fokos imagesetter, D. Burkholder/M. Nelson inkjet).
Plus, the curves for Pt/Pd are much more mild compared to curves for
Cyanotype (= less posterization). So I will be still printing Ziatypes
;)

Best regards,
Loris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christina Z. Anderson [mailto:zphoto@montana.net]
Sent: 21 Eylül 2005 Çarşamba 00:50
To: Alt list
Subject: palladium vs. cyanotype sharpness

...

Which goes to show that cyanotype is incredibly sharp...more than I
expected, even more supportive of my original point that cyanotype looks

crisper and sharper for a number of reasons.

BTW this does not mean that it makes a better gum print, just that it is
a
nifty way of gum printing, which can have all kinds of possible
expressions
(comment directed to Carmen) over and above sharpness. It's not like
we're
searching for f64 in gum.

However, I have to say I am very surprised that cyanotype rivals
palladium....cool. And cheap. Where's my tannic acid?
Chris
Received on Tue Sep 20 23:37:58 2005