RE: myths and magic

Hi David,

I never made the "assertions" you list below. I just asked Terry if he can
show us more contrasty samples with better Dmax, but he failed to do so and
suspiciously trashed new cyanotype (as if he gots some serious problems with
Mike Ware). Your prints look very nice, albeit I must admit that I don't see
anything that cannot be done with new cyanotype (of course this is just by
looking scans - and we all know that scans may be quite misleading, I wish I
could hold them in my hands). Anyway, thank you for sharing your experience
with the cyanotype rex process. I just ordered the .PDF (thanks to your
message - BTW for Peter: I never thought to ask for a free copy even for a
review...), will try it (probably communicating extensively with Terry) and
see it for myself (with digital negatives, I may also shoot some 6x6
negatives for testing in-camera negatives - unfortunately I can't shoot
anyting bigger than this).

Regards,
Loris.

-----Original Message-----
From: David & Jan Harris [mailto:david.j.harris2@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 23 Temmuz 2006 Pazar 19:57
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Rex: myths and magic

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/Cyanotyp
e%20Rex/

If some of these look grainy, its because of the aforementioned grain
problem.

David
Received on 07/23/06-02:12:13 PM Z