Re: Rex: myths and magic

David,

Out of curiousity, you mentioned below that in case #1 you got nowhere near a
paper white on the CDRP and ended up using RGB Grayscale negative/color. In
case #2 you mentioned that you expect to get a paper white square on the
CDRP.... but I am not sure what it is in the printing/chemistry that is the
difference between the two?

My other question is, for this process, though you didn't get a paper white
square on the CDRP, what was the lightest square you got? My reason for
asking is that sometimes certain altprocess & ink combinations give surprisingly
different results than one would expect.

By the way I looked at the prints you made at the website (indicated below)
and liked them. I liked the subtle tones and the tonalities remind me of a
nice hi key pt/pd print. Nice to see all the different comparisons in toning,
etc.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives

In a message dated 7/23/06 9:59:24 AM, david.j.harris2@ntlworld.com writes:

> Some interesting myths about Cyanotype Rex seem to be circulating on this
> list:
>
> 1. The process lacks Dmax.
> 2. The process is inherently flat.
>
> I have seen quite a few Cyanotype Rex prints over the past 18 months or so,
> and envying them greatly. Despite the fact that many of them have been
> bleached slightly (to reduce the depth of blue), they all had much greater
> Dmax than my traditional cyanotypes (which had never looked weak in
> isolation). So there goes myth number 1. It will be interesting to see
> Loris' views on Rex v New cyanotype insofar as Dmax. I would be surprised if
> Rex loses that battle.
>
> The prints I've been admiring were made from negatives suited to salt
> prints. The photographer concerned, who is most definitely not digital,
> found this to be a great advantage as he could use the same negative for
> both processes. In fact, he has come to prefer Rex for his style of
> photography.
>
> Jan and I have been trying out Cyanotype Rex for just a few weeks, using
> digital negs. One thing we found is that it does require a high density
> digital neg, even greater than we needed for POP, and certainly greater than
> Pt/Pd or trad cyanotype. Those who use PDN will understand what I mean when
> I say that we got nowhere near a white square when printing the colour
> density range palette (on Epson 2100 with +15 ink config). So we use black
> ink printing.
>
> So far as myth #2, this does suggest that the process is quite low contrast.
> However, I have never heard anyone when talking about salt prints say in a
> derogatory way that the process lacks contrast. When the negative is matched
> to the process prints display plenty of contrast, believe me. Like
> traditional cyanotypes, prints can flatten up when toned, but they can also
> gain contrast depending on the technique. I suspect I could get a white
> square on the CDRP now if I tried it. It might be worth a try.
>
> Initially we obtained great results, then we ran into a problem with grain
> and reversal. This took a few weeks to fix, but finally we did so. The
> culprit was a dodgy batch of one of the chemicals. So its fair to say that
> the process is sensitive to poor quality chemicals. Not unlike most other
> processes. In fact, I identified the cause when the same chemical gave weak
> traditional cyanotypes. I should have realised that the solid didn't look
> quite right.
>
> If people are interested, some of our prints are at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.j.harris2/Alt%20process%20prints/Cyanotype
> %20Rex/
>
> If some of these look grainy, its because of the aforementioned grain
> problem.
>
> David
>
Received on 07/23/06-12:01:56 PM Z