Re: myths and magic

Hi Loris

Agreed. You didn't make any such assertions. But someone else misinterpreted
what was said somewhere on the thread. For example, here is a quote:

> Given that some people may
> prefer a low contrast image (including Terry) the process may be fine,
> however Terry has neatly avoided the fact the one could never get any
other
> result.

On lists such as this it is easy for people to misinterpret other's
conjecture/observations based on limited data, and very rapidly myths grow
to the point that they become accepted facts. Often, there is no one person
at fault. Its a bit like chinese whispers.

I don't believe that Terry has ever claimed that Cy-Rex is better than trad
(or new).

Nor do I. I simply say that I can get better results with Cy-Rex. Side by
side the Cy-Rex prints look better. I haven't tried new, so can't comment on
that.

You are also right about judging prints on the web. I could scan some of my
trad cyanotypes and you would not be able to see much, if any, difference.
Probably the biggest difference is that they would look more cyan, less
blue.

Regards

David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <mail@loris.medici.name>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 9:11 PM
Subject: 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 07/23/06-03:20:11 PM Z