Liam Lawless (lawless@vignette.freeserve.co.uk)
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:44:04 +0000
Hi Adam,
Looking at it now, my previous message gives the impression that I want to
do the Ware chrysotype because it uses so much gold, whereas in fact this is
the reason I'm interested in Bob Schramm's version. Two or three years ago,
I did some chrysotypes by a method a friend "extracted" from MW's notes, and
we got good contrast and colour (from blue to purple), but the main problem
was very high fog. This was with a 5% gold chloride solution.
Liam
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Kimball <akimball@finebrand.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Date: 12 February 1999 07:08
Subject: Re: Chrysotypes
>The biggest consideration, Liam, is that Ware's process just isn't known.
>Sure, we have the articles he published, but that isn't the whole story.
John
>Rudiak helped a lot by making his interpretation of the New Chrysotype -
but it
>is simply different from Ware's process. Ware's process relies on the
ammonium
>salt of gold, Rudiak's interpretation lacks this. And other differences
>abound, I am certain of that.
>
>So, as I've mentioned to people off list - if you want my advice, wait a
few
>years for Mike to publish something. This process, as I have tried it, is
>insanely unfriendly. And I have the gold plated beakers to prove it too!
>
>-Adam
>
>
>Liam Lawless wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Many thanks for the advice, and I shall get in touch with Terry at some
>> stage. I understand that Mike Ware's process gives the best results, but
I
>> think I'm right in saying it uses 60-odd times more gold than what Bob
>> describes, and for me that's an important consideration.
>>
>> Liam
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:49