[alt-photo] Re: wet-plate collodion

[Jeremy Moore]

Orotones.

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Bob Barnes <bb333 at earthlink.net> wrote:

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