Re: Sort of Satista

Peter Marshall ()
Wed, 15 January 1997 1:44 AM

In-Reply-To: <01BC025F.205AC6E0@lis6_p4.telepac.pt>

Priority: High
Carlos

As it clearly says it is basically one of the Thomson formulae - with a few
very minor amendments - I think mainly bringing the names up to date.

I found it handy to work with the silver in the developer - and also cheaper.
You can actually use the same sensitizer and end up with a platinum or
kallitype or even gold print. I wouldn't advise trying it for platinum prints,
as it is trickier, but does cut down the cost. No problems with keeping
solutions either.

This formula was developed to produce prints that looked just like platinum
around 1918. I tried it and it seemed to work pretty well, so I haven't
bothered to fiddle with it much. And since it has an acidic developer I
thought it might well promise more stable prints than the more commonly
printed kallitype formulae. Perhaps the platinum would help also.

If so it seemed to me that a number of people were still trying to solve a
problem of the kallitype that was essentially solved around 80 years ago.

> I asked Peter for the full information,

Haven't yet found your request, but will send it you.

>but like many other kallitype =
> related formulas this one seems unecessary long and complicated (it =
> reminds me of the Thompson formulas). Maybe I should wait for the whole =
> information, but...
>
> I agree that an acid developer is almost a must. All my kallitype =
> developers are in a pH range of 3 to 5.

Almost all of the kallitype developers in the literature are weakly alkaline,
so I'd be interested in what you are using.

>
> All my tests indicate that all image forming salts can be put in the =
> sensitizer.
> A developer without image forming salts is much easier to prepare and =
> control.

There are no problems that I know of in preparing or using the developer given
here, so I don't understand this.

>
> Addition of organic acids to the emulsion is not entirelly necessary but =
> it may provide interesting results. (Addition of gallic acid to the =
> kallitype emulsion, results in a complete solarization around zone V and =
> in a positive/negative image).
>
> Leave the gum arabic out. It is not necessary with modern papers. What =
> you may try is what I call proportional sensitizing, i.e. a tranparent =
> 101522.2625@compuserve.com (no pigment) gum dicromate print under the satista or kallitype image. =
> It will size the paper proportinally to density of the future ferric =
> print, allowing for better tone separation in the shadows, and increased =
> shadow density.

I think we discussed the gum in a similar formula some time ago, and failed to
come to any very clear conclusion. It may of course depend on the paper that
you choose. Certainly the formula works with it there and since I have it on
the shelf there is no problem in adding a pinch.

> More comments after reading the rest of the information.
>
> Carlos Gasparinho
> SMTP:nop51076@mail.telepac.pt
>

Peter Marshall

On Fixing Shadows, Dragonfire and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures & Gay Pride: http://www.dragonfire.net/~gallery/
and: http://www.speltlib.demon.co.uk/

----------