Peter I have a number of early articles advocating kallitype as a
substitute for expensive platinum, tho I think the confusion -- or rather
error-- was my blithely pulling a date out of the air for the ferroprussic
wars.... Certainly *not* 1917. The "revolution" was 1917 (n'est-ce pas?),
the earlier war, however you call it, was ???? --- earlier -- about the
time kallitype formulas were getting popular.
> What we now usually call the Van-Dyke Brown process was often previously
> called the sepia process or the water developing kallitype or the single
> solution kallitype, differences in the formulae are slight.
It was also often called "Brown Printing." When you say "differences in
formulae are slight," BTW, I assume you mean between VDB formulae. The
difference between VDB and kallitype is large, in fact offhand I'd say the
only common ingredient is silver....
> The material which was marketed as a substitute for platinum when the price of
> this rocketed was Satista paper. I don't think the formula of this was
> published, but there were attempts by others to produce similar materials.
Satista paper is certainly advertised, but I have seen few if any
*articles* or editorial mentions of it at that time. ( There was
as I recall a vintage satista print in the "Art of Fixing Shadows" show in
Washington, a while back, with much clucking about what could it possibly
be, and some theories which I have forgotten.)
> I don't think it is much harder to produce prints using kallitype then vdb. It
> is just a matter of using a suitable developer rather than water, and slightly
> longer lists of ingredients!
Peter, I wonder about your definition of *harder*. There's a pesky
additional step -- the clearing bath, which you yourself tell us is
critical. There's another problem or question area -- instead of just
water, there's "developer." Not only does this have to be mixed -- and for
the Rochelle salts developers, there's a helluvalot of (costly and/or
relatively obscure) chemicals that get used up quickly and have to be made
to go into solution in a relatively small amount of water -- but as you
mention now, have to be the "right" developer to begin with.
And while the "literature" on VDB is relatively booby-trap free, the
"literature" on kallitype is full of cockamamie formulas that don't work,
developers that don't work as promised and are a pain to make, and other
flights of fancy and accidents waiting to happen.
>
> Vdb is likely to be more archival than kallitypes made using alkaline
> developers - see the archives of course. However kallitypes using a mildly
> acidic developer may be more stable still, particularly if you use alkaline
> tap water.
>
Assuming you have an alkaline tap...
However let me add that my tests showed better results with a small amount
of *ammonia* (household) added to the fixer (by better results I mean less
loss of density on fixing). This is something (that as I recall) the
Stevens book tells you to do, but doesn't say why.
Cheers,
Judy