RE: myths and magic

No images at all on my system! ?

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
 
Skype : ejprinter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David & Jan Harris [mailto:david.j.harris2@ntlworld.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:06 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: myths and magic
>
> You should be able to see the images at:
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.j.harris2/Alt%20process%20pr
> ints/Cyanotype%20Rex/
>
> Does that work?
>
> David
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jusdado" <jusdado@teleline.es>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 4:28 PM
> Subject: 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%20pr
> ints/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 07/24/06-10:12:05 AM Z