[Alt-photo] Christopher James - terminology question

John Isner john.isner at gmail.com
Fri Oct 27 19:18:36 UTC 2017


I bought the Ware "New Cyanotype" formula but have not tried it yet.  I am
using the standard A + B with the variations you mentioned.  These reduce
contrast in midtones and highlights but leave the shadows blocked.  Does
the Ware formula unblock the shadows?

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Don Bryant <donsbryant at gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> As James points out, over all contrast can be reduced by adding water to
> the
> A+B solution using the traditional cyanotype receipt. If your shadows are
> blocked it is doubtful that any chemical adjustment will show detail and
> reduce contrast.
>
> One can also vary the A to B proportions to decrease contrast.
>
> Have you tried the Ware formula?
>
> Don Bryant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alt-photo-process-list
> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf
> Of
> John Isner via Alt-photo-process-list
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 2:08 PM
> To: David Hatton
> Cc: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Alt-photo] Christopher James - terminology question
>
> I think I understand now.  In quoting James, I misread "steps" as "stops."
> More steps means more intermediate tones visible between any given pair of
> tones in a step wedge, while fewer steps means more abrupt change in
> tonality, hence higher contrast.
>
> In my initial experiments with cyanotype, I got high contrast in the
> shadows and moderate contrast in the midtones and highlights.  By altering
> the process (e.g., developing in acid + water instead of just plain water,
> or adding a few drops of distilled water to the sensitizer), I was able to
> lower contrast in the midtones and highlights, but the shadows remained
> stubbornly high contrast.  Furthermore, the transition from shadows to
> midtones occurs fairly abruptly.
>
> Is it possible to lower contrast in the shadows without increasing contrast
> in the midtones and highlights?  In other words, is it possible to lower
> contrast across the entire spectrum?  Or is contrast a zero-sum game, as it
> is with a Curves adjustment in Photoshop (Curves let you push contrast
> around but not eliminate it).
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:28 AM, David Hatton <davidhatton at totalise.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > A long tonal range ie more tones visible is low contrast whereas a short
> > tonal range  ie less tones visible is high contrast
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:16 PM, John Isner via Alt-photo-process-list <
> > alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I am new to alternative process, having come from a digital photography
> >> background (no darkroom experience).  This is my second post to the
> >> mailing
> >> list.
> >>
> >> I'm struggling to understand two terms that Christopher James repeatedly
> >> mentions in his book, but never explicitly defines: contrast and tonal
> >> range.  For example, on page 185 in the cyanotype chapter, he says that
> >> using a particular developer chemistry will give "a significant increase
> >> in
> >> the range of values (2 to 4 stops) but a decrease in contrast."
> >>
> >> My understanding of contrast and tonal range is based on the histogram
> in
> >> digital photography:   An image with a large tonal range has a wide
> >> histogram, that is, large "distance" between the darkest and lightest
> >> tone,
> >> while a high contrast image has relatively few midtones.  To my mind,
> the
> >> alt process equivalent of the histogram is a printed sample of a step
> >> wedge
> >> with 256 brightness levels from black to white.  When James says a
> >> "decrease in contrast," I interpret this to mean that the tones bunch up
> >> at
> >> the dark and the light ends of the step wedge, with very few tones in
> >> between.  That makes sense to me.  However when he says "a significant
> >> increase in range of values (2 to 4 stops) I'm confused.  Since you
> can't
> >> get any whiter than paper white, an "increase in range of values" could
> >> only mean one thing: the darkest tone gets darker!   I suspect this is
> NOT
> >> what he means.
> >>
> >> Can someone help me understand this?
> >> Thanks,
> >> John
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>
>


More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list