"I said that I was trying to keep alive
those characteristics of superseded processes that have died.
High gloss and fine detail are generally available today from commercial
sourcesto the extent that i find the results more pleasing than I do modern
glossy albumen prints ."
Of course we're all entitled to our aesthetic preferences, but may I ask if
you are using enlarged negatives or in camera negatives? True, silver
developed out glossies can render very fine detail, but I have yet to see
any better resolution in a photographic printing medium than a glossy
albumen print from a wet plate negative. This, along with the unique image
colour and tonal range
of albumen prints (matt or glossy) are IMO worthy of keeping alive as you
say.
" My posting also made it clear that the high gloss and
fine detail was what the customer wanted in that high tech age. It is my
practice, unless the students want to do it differently, not to repeat processes
just to obtain historical verisimilitude. But I will give double coating a go."
I understand the rationale for your teaching method. I guess my main
concern was for those on the list interested in trying albumen not to be
discouraged from attempting to float paper after reading your comments
about extravagant use of chemisty and the simplicity of brush coating.
"Have you made an albumen arrowroot print and then gold toned it to see the
unique quality it gives. Without the gold toning they are also pretty
impressive. I must admit I prefer the al/ar route; to me the results are more
pleasing aesthetically."
Yes, and as you have probably figured out by now, my preference is to
strive for prints that can render as much lens information as I can get.
Matt finished prints reduce the tonal range and supress detail. To each
his/her own.
Mike Robinson
P.S. Don't try the cheesecake recipe! It taste awful. ;-)