Re: myths and magic

David & Jan Harris escribió:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hello to all,
> not you for that it causes cannot see their impressions.
> it could clarify the address www.
> Thank you
> pardon for my English, text translated by computer.
>
>
>
Received on 07/24/06-09:29:28 AM Z