Re: myths and magic

Eric

It is a flash thing, but its supposed to work for the non-flash enabled too.
Damn, computers!

David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:35 PM
Subject: RE: myths and magic

No still nothing, I did however see text and I'll bet it is flash thing as
the site has two special mentions down on the bottom of the page.

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 07/25/06-02:55:10 PM Z