RE: Van Dyck and Kallitype
David, I second this. To me, Vandyke is better only if:
A) You expose using sunlight since it's a print-out process unlike
develop-out Kallitype, and that's a big big plus when using sun.
B) You like the colors it gives (untoned: reddish brown, gold toned: almost
neutral black) better than what you can get with Kallitype (colder
And let me tell you: Vandyke dmax sucks compared to Kallitype. I was always
double coating with Vandyke - you don't need this with Kallitype; it gives a
very satisfactory dmax with just one coat.
From: Sandy King [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 20 Eylül 2006 Çarşamba 16:49
Subject: Re: Van Dyck and Kallitype
Well, as they say, when it comes to opinions everybody has at least one. I
have made nice prints using both kallitype and VDB, and also have some
As regards the greater complexity of kallitype over VDB, that is something
of a myth. Yes, if you just take the most basic way generally recommended
for processing the two processes, VDB might look simpler. However,
processing either for longevity includes clearing, fixing, toning, hypo
clear, and final wash. When you add all of this up there is very little
advantage, if any, to VDB.
Contrast control, almost completely lacking in VDB, gives a big advantage to
kallitype, IMO, and it is an advantage even when one uses digital negative.
I use digital negatives to print kallitype but still often make slight
adjustments in print contrast to get exactly what I want. With VDB you are
simply stuck with whatever contrast you get with the digital negative.
I have also found that kallitypes are capable of greater Dmax than VDB. The
difference may not be great, but in comparing many prints the advantage
always seems to go to kallitype in my experience.
Finally, VDB prints, even after toning in gold, palladium or platinum, tend
to have a kind of rust-black or reddish-black tone, whereas toned kallitypes
go purple-black or brown-black. I personally much prefer the latter.
>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!!