Re: myths and magic

Did you click the double arrows in the bottom right-hand corner to go to the
next page to the images?

-Jeremy

On 7/24/06, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> 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 07/24/06-10:16:25 AM Z