Re: Why use cyanotype in-camera?

 
 
Loris
 
You seem to be basing your argument on the false and unjustified assumption
that our objective was to produce an in camera process and that speed is of
the essence...
 
We had achieved a very fast printing out process using iron based chemistry.
It was a matter of intellectual curiosity, and fun, to see whether it could
be used in camera. It can be used to produce negatives in camera and
positives can be made from those negatives. But I prefer to use FP4, or a
commercially based equivalent, so long as they are available, as my overall objective is
to produce pictures. If the film I use, FP4, ceases to be commercially
available I will have an incentive to turn my intellectual curiosity to a
practical search for a substitute. In those circumstances I may explore developments
of cyanotype rex as it is a lot easier to make than a fine silver gelatine
emulsion of the quality of FP4. That is why I prefer to pay Ilford to make it..
But any such decision would be related to the best method of making pictures
which could well be digital.
 
The main criterion for advancements in the inventive process is industrial
efficiency which may, but does not necessarily, involve increased speed.
Kodachrome is slow but probably still the best in its field. But it is
industrial efficiency which has killed off the processes we 'alt' persons use. I
prefer to use them not for sentimental reasons but as they have the potential
to produce fine pictures. My experience has shown that one usually achieve a
better result with these processes, in terms of subtlety of gradation for
example, if one works slowly.
 
Your comment
 
"Printing out processes have a huge handicap in this regard."
 
demonstrates that you may have missed what is the whole point of using
printing out processes which is that they use the range of tone of films, exposed
and developed appropriately, to produce a comparable range of tone and
gradation in the printed out print. One cannot obtain as good results using films
exposed and developed for making develop out prints.
That is why people still make salt prints and platinum prints. Just look at
the work of the great photographers using printing out methods and you will
see what I mean.
 
You seem to take d max in prints very seriously. In fact this is using a
machine tool to contribute to a subjective judgement. It does not work like
that. I still maintain that using the 'standard' method of making cyanotypes with
a single coat where a negative of the right density has been used will give
you as good results as those you claim from the methods you advocate.
 
One of the problems with the current 'alt' world, and in the world where
commercial efficiency is not the driving force, is that people work very hard to
find solutions to problems which arise from their personal inefficiencies
rather than any inherent fault in the process.. The manuals over the last 160
years are full of it.
 
Finally, there is no reason why you should not make cyanotypes or other
printing our methods of print making on silver gelatine paper. Try making a
platinum print on RC paper. It will print but it will look like an RC print !
You will lose all the tactility and other qualities that go with making
prints on fine papers. Why bother , unless you are making an inter neg ?
 
Terry
 
You seem to make a habit of putting your own thoughts into the mouths of
others and then trying to knock them down. This is not a convincing method of
argument
 
 
 
In a message dated 17/02/2006 07:42:48 GMT Standard Time, rs@silvergrain.org
writes:

If you need negative emulsion to use in-camera, why don't you make
silver gelatin emulsion instead of much slower printing-out process?
Beginning with a printing out process and emphasizing in-camera
usability makes it sound like you are trying something serious with a
wrong tool.

If you are an expert in the history of photography, you must know that
the development process is one of the most important factors that
enhanced the photographic speed of materials. Printing out processes
have a huge handicap in this regard.

Then you can print on silver gelatin paper as well. My current
enlarging print emulsions can give Dmax approaching 2 with single
coating, as long as the surface is very smooth. Even if I coat on cold
press or rougher paper, 1.4 is very easy to beat.

Terry King FRPS

RPS Historical Group (Chairman)

_www.hands-on-pictures.com/_ (http://www.hands-on-pictures.com/)

Moderated Discussion Group

Post message: artaltphot@yahoogroups.co.uk

Subscribe: artaltphot-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk
Subscribe _PhotoHistory-subscribe@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:PhotoHistory-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)
Unsubscribe: artaltphot-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk

1. An excellent thing is as rare as it is difficult.(Spinoza)
2. A man's reach should be beyond his grasp or what's a heaven
for.(Browning)
3. Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.(Occam's razor or
'Keep it simple!').
4. Nullius in Verba (Horace), 'Take no man's word for it' (motto of the
Royal Society).
5. If ignorance is bliss, why are not more people happy ? (anon)
Received on Fri Feb 17 03:31:28 2006