Back in October last year, I picked up some "Solarprint" paper from an educational supply house that was having a sale. For some weeks I thought about what to do with it, and eventually decided that the usual path of making contact prints or photograms with it was a bit too dull, and that I would build a camera and take photos with it. Now I am by no means the first person to do this - although the idea of producing cyanotype camera negatives is surprisingly recent. As far as I can tell, the first person to do it was photographer, John Beaver, in 1999 - over 150 years after the development of the chemistry ! More recently, blogger Nag on the Lake published a how-to for cardboard cameras in 2019. Meanwhile, Ray Christopher has been experimenting with using cyanotype paper as a medium-format negative. The cyanotype process chemistry is rather unusual in that is not particularly sensitive to visible light. It is most sensitive to UVA down to the visible spectrum. One of the s
Very true
ReplyDeleteI find a persons view of Good or Bad journalism mine included is defined by your own views first, Personal social influences second then facts if at all.
ReplyDeleteGarry Winterton I'm thinking the more objective sort of good/bad. If you are doing a report on the effects of ... oh... spaghetti tree blight, and you give equal time to a botanist, a spaghetti tree farmer, and an agricultural economist - that would be good journalism. If, instead, you gave equal time to the same botanist, a structural engineer with a specialization in bridges who once saw a spaghetti tree on TV, and Edward J. "Spang" Wrotfingler (the local trout molester) who once heard a rumour that spaghetti trees are purple (when they are clearly green and white), then that would be bad journalism.
ReplyDeleteSimilarities to this and the vaccination 'debate' are completely co-incidental.
yes but facts are not important to ones Perception of good or bad journalism.
ReplyDeleteIf you like the stories from the murdoch or fairfax crowd then you are not going to like the ABC or the guardian for example.
It wouldn't matter if the stories were perfect in their facts your inner bias skews things in your mind.
The Vaccination debate shows this clearly. The facts mean nothing to those who perceive them to be evil or bad and the threat seems too distant for them to change their mind.
For example when i explained to a vaccination skeptic i knew. That when my father and his siblings were vaccinated just after such things became available. secretly as my grandfather was a naturist and that they were the only family in the street not to have someone suffer from one of the dread diseases. that experience is written of as pure luck by those i know who oppose vaccination.