[alt-photo] Re: wet-plate collodion

Wed Apr 14 03:31:40 GMT 2010

I believe Curtis' Orotones were actually ambrotypes backed with a  
brass powder.

On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Bob Barnes 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