Van Dyck and Kallitype

To: alt-photo-process-L@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Van Dyck and Kallitype
From: davidhatton@totalise.co.uk
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:26:43 +0100
Authenticated-sender:
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

Hi All,

I've been trying to research the difference between these two processes and the resulting confusion has proven fatal. Given the complexity of Kallitype over Van Dyck is there a reason other than contrast control why Kallitype is considered to be superior? I'm so confused about this I don't even know whether the previous sentence makes sense! If I have a digital negative tuned to the Van Dyck process, is this (contrast) still a problem? Are there longevity issues etc..?

Baby Kate arrived weighing in at 8 pounds 2 ounces of sugar! She's more beautiful than YOUR grand-daughter!!

Regards

David H

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Van Dyck and Kallitype
  - From: Jordan Wosnick <jwosnick@fastmail.fm>
- Re: Van Dyck and Kallitype
  - From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>