Re: gold print

I am distressed to create a controversial by quoting Mike Ware whose practices me has well helped formerly.
References of Terry are indisputable and the two artists are differents but so much excellent each.

best regards

Marc Bruhat
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: TERRYAKING@aol.com
  To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:34 AM
  Subject: Re: gold print

  In a message dated 15/6/06 9:52:24 am, mail@loris.medici.name writes:

    Thanks Marc. I've read Mike Ware's article. Unfortunately the chemicals he
    mentions aren't available to me here in Istanbul. Will try the other way
    (similar to yours and Marek's).

    Regards,
    Loris.

  Loris

  Mike does tend to overcomplicate things.

  The chrysotype rex process is far more simple and uses chemicals that you almost certainly have on your shelves. Probably one of the most surprising thing about the gold 'rex' process is that it is not expensive..It has very good provenance in that is firmly based in the work of Sir John Herschel.

  Mike Ware, Mike Maunder and I have all examined Herschel's papers, as anyone is free to do at the library of the Royal Society in London, but Mike Ware seems have missed the point that Herschel was suggesting something simple. My own purpose in examining Herschel's papers was to confirm my own experimental results in finding an effective and consistent method of repeating my experimental result in the first days of my Wedgwood to Bromoil alternative photography course.This work became my retro-invention programme.

  Although I have demonstarted the chrysotype rex process at three international conferences and it has been described in a number of journals and magazines, Mike did not acknowledge its existence in his recent survey of gold processes in his article in the journal of the History of Photography.

  Terry
Received on 06/15/06-12:07:15 PM Z