[alt-photo] Re: wet-plate collodion

[Joseph Smigiel]

Bob,

Now I'm confused.  (Imagine that.)

Do you wish to end up with:
an ambrotype made in the darkroom by enlarging a slide;
an ambrotype made in the darkroom by enlarging or contact printing  
another ambrotype or collodion negative;
a paper print made from a digital negative scanned from an ambrotype  
or collodion negative;
a paper print made in the darkroom by enlarging or contact printing  
another ambrotype or collodion negative?

What are you starting with?  An ambrotype?  Slide?  Negative?  Print?

I might suggest the Rockland tintype kit or a gelatin dryplate  
process  might be an easier way to get a pseudo-wetplate look in the  
darkroom because you'll be dealing with a dry plate that can be  
contact-printed upon no muss-no fuss.  Also, if enthralled by the  
look of an ambrotype (I understand), be aware that a paper print  
isn't going to give the same feeling whether it comes off a contact  
process, enlarger, or inkjet printer.  I also doubt that a darkroom- 
created ambrotype will have the same feeling associated with it  
compared to one made in the field.  Apples and oranges.

Doing a wetplate image  "in camera" may actually be easier than  
trying to do an image under an enlarger.  If it takes the same  
chemistry, etc., the difference comes down to having a portable  
darkroom for which there are many solutions, if you'll also pardon a  
pun.

Joe

p.s., You can find my free wetplate article online here:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/WPC/wpc.html



On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Bob Barnes wrote:

> sorry Jeremy... I love the photographic potentials of Ambrotype,  
> but because I am facilities-challenged, I' am curious.
> BTW, I did make 300 lpi imagesetter negs for any contact printing  
> almost twenty years ago :-)
>
> Bob
>
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Jeremy Moore wrote:
>
>> Bob, this last post has really confused me:
>>
>> Are you wanting to use an enlarger or digital negatives to create  
>> positive
>> ambrotypes or are you wanting to use an enlarger/digital negatives  
>> to print
>> wet plate collodion negatives as positives on silver gelatin paper?
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Bob Barnes <bb333 at earthlink.net>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> thanks, Etienne....I do PT/PD now... I have an Ambrotype and I am
>>> hopelessly infatuated,
>>> but not to the point of doing it, "in camera" if you would please  
>>> excuse
>>> the horrendous legal pun.
>>> PS what about proportional intensifiers, like Selenium?
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:08 PM, etienne garbaux wrote:
>>>
>>>  Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I am asking for advice about about starting wet-plate collodian  
>>>> and
>>>>> Ambrotypes.
>>>>> I would appreciate any advice, links, on-list as well as off-list.
>>>>> I am very interested in printing wet-plate
>>>>>  on my  Omega DXL enlarger. I have a 4x5, an 8x10 as well as a  
>>>>> large
>>>>> antique studio camera, and I do want advice
>>>>> about finding or adapting wooden film holders, but I am very
>>>>> interested in enlarging or digital negs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wet-plate collodion ("WP") tends to make negatives with a  
>>>> substantially
>>>> longer density range ("DR") than the exposure scale ("ES") of most
>>>> enlarging-speed printing materials, and IME the process does not  
>>>> respond
>>>> well to "minus" development (the usual technique for reducing  
>>>> the contrast
>>>> of film negatives).  You have choices -- for example, you could  
>>>> make
>>>> printing masks for the collodion negatives, but punch presses  
>>>> tend to make a
>>>> mess out of glass plates (<g>) and achieving alignment manually  
>>>> will make
>>>> you want to go make daguerrotypes over an open dish of hot  
>>>> mercury in an
>>>> unventilated tent.  So, my advice would be to focus on solutions  
>>>> other than
>>>> enlarging wet plate negs.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I don't much see the point of making wet-plate
>>>> collodion negatives just to scan them or print them on enlarging  
>>>> materials
>>>> -- there isn't much "look" to WP negs, aside from the long DR  
>>>> and blue
>>>> [only] sensitivity (which can be duplicated with a blue  
>>>> filter).  Of course,
>>>> "just to do it" is a perfectly legitimate justification.   
>>>> However, may I
>>>> suggest that you also take up Pt, albumen, or collodion paper  
>>>> printing while
>>>> you're at it?  Those are the printing media that were in use by  
>>>> the folks
>>>> who originally made WP negs.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> etienne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo