I also note that if we want some respect in the world at large (and OF
COURSE we do), let them get a glimmer of a field full of fine points,
history, subtlety, distinctions, complications, judgement, and a humongous
number of potential processes each one of which has its own richness and
finesse. And here having a generic name for "alt-photo" would be so much
better than not. If some clod needs handholding or reassurance that a
process is market worthy, rather than saying, um, it's kallitype, which
leaves them no more informed than before, if you say it's one of the
------- group (whatever term is chosen) they can, as the MLA types say,
contextualize it.
As for the distinction between van dyke brown and kallitype, that is
nearly as great as between carbon printing and gum printing jseigel@panix.com (which also
use the same *materials*), and so great that to call both by one name
would be to fall into confusion, ineptitude and futility. If you, Peter,
think it's feasible to use one set of terms for outsiders & one for
practitioners, I can only conclude that you live in a very orderly &
controlled world, unlike the reality we peasants encounter every day in
real life.
There is a whole literature, from the Photo Miniature to the presentday,
including the Bostick & Sullivan lab manual, KoL and a certain
undefinitive book, which distinctly and clearly deal with the kallitype as
1. more or less identical to platinum except using silver instead of
platinum/palladium, and 2.as distinctly different from VDB.
However, if you are tactfully chiding Terry, who has for some reason taken
it into his head to "name" or *rename* kallitype as "Agfertype," which
was the issue I addressed in the first place, there I would agree, and in
no way did I have or intend "tongue in cheek."
Cheers,
Judy
----------