Re:Kallitypes

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:57:27 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Paul and Judith Simon wrote:
> I had poor luck with the kit from PF. The silver nitrate was of the poorest
> grade I had ever seen. It was dark in color. Although they included a variety
> of developing agents, the instructions were clearly incorrect in terms of
> dilutions and mixing. I had much better success with ordering material from
> Dick Sullivan, if you wish to try the conventional Kallitype.

I second Paul's point about kits in general -- they end up costing just as
much, really, as getting basic supplies to begin with, and although they
may *seem* easier, for information gained, they're not. That is, you learn
so much less, are so much more limited, and in some cases (as in the PF
gum kit of late great notoriety) are absolutely missled. Rather get
Keepers of Light or something on the topic from Luis for the same amount
of money. You may (or may not) have a bit more struggle to begin with,
but will end up much further along. Also, when kit materials give out,
you have to either buy another kit or anyway get the materials together
yourself, that is, are back on go.

So how come I bought the Argyrotype kit? First, who says I have to take my
own advice -- also it had a glass rod I was curious about and the silver
oxide I couldn't find here and with the process not in books, appealed,
but maybe that merely wishful thinking....

I think though from what I know now if I hadn't done *any* of the 3
processes (VDB, kallitype, argyrotype) & were starting de novo, I'd start
with the Argyrotype. That's from the archival point of view. Mike Ware
asked at the time if anyone knew of definite confirmed good condition
*vintage* kallitype -- very few turned up. True, some may have passed for
platinum (they could), but many others may have faded -- which
was his supposition, at any rate. We probably know more about clearing
now, but.....????

Judy