[alt-photo] Re: wet-plate collodion

[Bob Barnes]

PS; what were Sherriff Edward Curtis'  (sorry for the oblique humous)  
gold-tone prints?
  PSS; your arcticle on Unblinking Eye really encouraged me, but the  
toxicity is still intimidating.
Bob



On Apr 13, 2010, at 7:47 PM, Joseph Smigiel wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo