RE: Albumen dichromated and otherwise.

Philip Jackson (pjackson@nla.gov.au)
Thu, 22 Feb 96 19:40:00 PST

In one of his many recent messages Terry King compares "good albumen prints
(bought at the local junk shop for 50p)" with a "straight thiocarbamide
toned resin coated print" and comments:

>Prints of neither process compare with the beauty of my 1870s woodburytypes
>prepared from Fenton's British Museum photographs, one of which is
technically
>and aesthetically one of the best photographic prints that I have seen.

I've done a little research on the woodburytype and would love to hear a
more detailed description of this print from Terry. Fenton's albumen prints
already have a deservedly high reputation so I'm curious about what makes
this print so wonderful? What's the subject? How big is it? Was it
separately issued by a printseller or published in a book?

Luis might favour the carbon print, but I reckon a good woodburytype can be
every bit as good as its close carbon relative, and can look alot like an
albumen print, although there's a tell tale clue insofar as woodburytypes
don't fade or display yellowed highlights. The permance question was quite
important even in the 1870s when woodburytypes in effect replaced the
albumen prints previously pasted into books. In a little contretemps in 1872
Thomas Sutton, favoured collotype over woodburytype (reflecting his long
standing preference for matt-surfaced salted paper over albumen) and
provoked Walter Woodbury into stating "albumenised prints have a certain
charm with the public," contrary to what Sutton adovcates, and
"therefore I am glad my process produces prints exactly resembling
photographs, which has been my aim throughout, and which no collograph ever
can do."

I have a theory that the decline of the woodburytype in the 1890s was at
least in part connected to the decline in fortune of the albumen print. (Of
course the economics of the newer type-compatible halftone processes
constitue a much more important factor). The Albumen and Salted Paper Book
(which I agree is much to be praised) briefly discusses these aesthetic
issues. My favourite remark on the subject comes from Lyonel Clarke, the
acerbic platinum advocate and matt arrowroot revivalist, who describes
albumen prints as an execrable "snail's playground". In the 1890s some
woodburytypes may have been varnished or enamelled to imitate collodio- or
gelatino-chlorides (e.g. the frontispiece to Robert Johnson and A. B.
Chatwood's Photography-Artistic and Scientific) but in general I think the
woodburytype process was abandoned for photogravure, just as ever
self-respecting photographic artist switched to platinum to differentiate
their work from the glossy albumenised commercial products of the previous
generation. Fashions change...but each process can retain a place. I
wouldn't like to be forced to choose between the translucent shadows of a
woodburytype and the velvety matt blacks of a Goupil gravure (maybe I'll be
able to see the Strand platinotype Ron described one day).

>I suppose it is because woodburytypes look as if they were made tomorrow
that
>they do not command high prices in the sale rooms or even at book stalls in
>the Farringdon Road which is where I bought mine.

The patina of age may be a factor, but since prints in particlularly good
knick tend to command even more obscene prices, it's probably more a
question of rarity.

Hope to meet you sometime soon too, Terry,
Philip Jackson
pjackson@nla.gov.au