Rae Adams (rae.adams@gtri.gatech.edu)
Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:06:10 -0400
In a reply to your post, I wrote:
>>>I do believe that a careful worker rigorously testing an emulsion and
>>>working out a formula and procedures can replicate an emulsion. Jim
>>>Browning obviously does, and he does a good job of it. The problem as I
>see
>>>it lies in assuming that this "perfected" formula will work precisely the
>>>same in the hands of another worker. If I follow your formula and
>>>procedures, they may well work; but they may not meet my needs, and they
>>>may not work well.
>
>
>First of all, please read what I said. I mentioned Jim Brownings formula.
>It can be done.
As far as my familiarity with Jim Browning's formula, please see the
comments later in this posting.
What my post reply was talking about was the creation of
>color emulsions. I specifically mentioned color emulsions, as that is what
>the original post asked about, in part. Impossible for most of us - heck,
>there is not a single person on this list that could create a successful
>color film that is consistent from batch to batch, that reproduces colors
>accurately or is the least bit sharp. Me included, and this is not a slam
>against anyone. I can say the same thing about creating a jet airplane or a
>computer microprocessor.
Not even the film companies produce consistent emulsions from batch to
batch, especially color; nor do they reproduce colors accurately (all have
some biases, and that's the way photographers want them or there wouldn't
be a number of emulsions with different characteristics on the market).
Inconsistency from batch to batch is why most people test new emulsion
batches before they use the film. At least I do. All of my friends and
acquaintances who are decent photographers seem to test new emulsion
batches also.
If the film companies don't produce absolutely consistent results from
batch to batch from the same formulas and under strict working conditions
(although they do manage, for the most part, to maintain consistently
within certain ranges), then how can someone working on a small scale
achieve consistency with other peoples' formulas? That was my whole point
in mentioning why even the "big guys" have their days (or in some cases,
months and years).
In replying to the postings of people asking for formulas, I especially
wanted to point out that someone else's formulas and procedures are not the
end of the process; on the contrary, they are the beginning. I would liken
the published formulas and the theory behind them to the books of
exercises--scales, student pieces, and compositional theory--that a
beginning musician learns. Once that musician has mastered the basics, then
he/she may well go on to compose musical pieces or, on the other hand,
concentrate on nuances of performing other people's work, much the same way
as a student of emulsions will give his/her own interpretation to published
formulas or go on to create his/her own formulas. (By the way, I'm
currently working on Bach's Goldberg Variations, so I do have some
experience in this area.) You mentioned in this post about the commercial
film companies having a difficult time because they didn't have all the
information from the German film companies. I've read most of the reports
that interested me (I skipped some of the stuff on diazo--not my cuppa);
and in the several dozen reports I read (and I mean several dozen
literally), the formulas and procedures are at least as detailed as the
formulas one comes across in the emulsion literature (in many cases, far
more detailed). The point being that there is no way to write down a
formula in such detail that it can account for all the variables of
workers' methods, materials, environments, and needs. Even though the
chemists after WWII didn't have the "complete" formulas, as you assert,
surely the people replicating the Brilliant paper had access to such
information (that was my understanding from the people I talked to). Yet,
they also had years of work ahead.
It was also my point in commenting on some of the commercial work (re: the
German film formulas and the Allied film companies) that a person's
developing a working emulsion either based on a published formula or on
his/her reading is not an easy task, but that it is also not impossible to
fabricate many emulsions, as long as the emulsion worker educates
him/herself so that when things go wrong or are inconsistent he/she will at
least have some idea of how to begin to test and fix the problem. As you
noted, the industrial emulsion chemists eventually figured it out. To quote
Alexander Pope, "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or
taste not the Pierian spring."
And to cite a more recent success, Jim Browning started from ground zero.
He wasn't born full grown like Athena from the head of Zeus.
There are indeed some emulsions that a person without sophisticated
equipment cannot hope to replicate. However, anyone who has looked at some
of the tremendously exciting (and truly great work) done by photographers
and reserchers in the 19th and early part of the 20s century can see for
him/herself what is possible. Many of us would consider the way they worked
as "primitive"--our most outstanding emulsion scientists/artists in that
period worked with very limited theoretical knowledge in comparison with
what we have now and with very simple laboratory equipment. What they were
capable of producing, however, was far from primitive. What did they do?
Their homework.
If more people had continued working outside of the industrial envirnoment,
we would perhaps have a larger (and more current) body of practical
applications of the theoretical canon on which to draw--perhaps something
analogous to the interesting work one sees presented by the persons
contributing to this list. For example, look at the recent approaches by
several people on this list active in platinum work. By mentioning this, I
do not mean to slight others who are contributing just as richly in other
areas, such as gum and carbon. This is just one example.
I believe it is one of the tragedies of photography that independent
research on silver-gelatin emulsions on a nonindustrial scale did not
continue. People who are interested in working with emulsions on this type
of scale face a number of difficulties, not only in regard to the lack of
open information on emulsion fabrication (rightly so, from the industrial
point of view--no company wants to give away its secrets) but also from the
lack of mentors who can pass on their knowledge to a new generation. We no
longer have the Abneys, Wilsons, Eders, Walls, Valentas, Vogels, etc. as
resources, people who freely shared their results, and many of the texts
and articles on their important contributions to emulsion fabrication are
difficult to impossible to find. I am heartened somewhat by the recent
interest in collodion work but on the other hand am dismayed that research
is not being done to apply some of the theory and practical techniques we
have learned with gelatin emulsions to the body of early collodion
literature, for example, developing formulas and procedures for a
panchromatic dry-plate collodian emulsion. As an example of some of the
fine work being carried out and disseminated in areas of alt processes, see
Judy Seigel's periodical. I only wish that emulsion enthusiasts had a
similar vehicle. My purpose in addressing the list was to encourage people
interested in emulsions while at the same time giving them some idea of the
task they faced and some resources that I have found useful. I feared that
someone trying an emulsion (or several emulsions) that ended in disaster
would become discouraged. I hoped to reach out to such workers and let them
know that those sorts of problems can be dealt with in a rational way
(i.e., a thorough study of the field). Emulsions are not "cookie cutter"
perfect. However, we have a tremendous body of industrial theory and
research on which to draw and that could be applied for small-scale
fabrications. Yet, without mentors and ready access to information, we
"draw" slowly.
I hope that those people on the list who are interested in pursuing the
study of emulsions will persist in spite of the difficulties. As far as
what is and is not possible, I am ever amazed at the ingenuity (and
persistence) of artists.
Again I say, creating color emulsions is beyond
>the skills of most people. The original post also asked about infrared
>formulas. Equally difficult because of the strict requirements for this
>type of material.
An infrared emulsion is that difficult? Abney did it in 1880, with
collodion no less. This is the sort of loss of knowledge that I am talking
about. We keep reinventing the wet plate.
>
>Jim Browning's formula does work in the hands of a careful worker. Mr.
>Browning spelled out the procedure, and from the copy I have, it's not too
>difficult. He was very through in his explanation. I suggest you read the
>information - it is all basic stuff and because it is not a multi-layer
>material like color materials are, it is easily reproducible.
You want me to do what? Read Jim Browning's materials? Oh my. Oh dear.
Actually Jim Browning's formula is called the Browning/Adams matrix film.
I'm the Adams portion of that. So I'm aware it works. I spent a big chunk
of my life working on that emulsion with Jim, and I'm not so senile that I
don't remember it. I suggest that YOU go back and reread it. The name Rae
Adams is not all that common for a woman. Surely you made the connection?
Sometimes I wonder why I even get up in the morning.
>>
>You quote E. J. Well, and it is true. But I doubt he was specifically
>referring to the average worker.
Yes Wall was. It's a beginning textbook. It was one of the first things I
read (and reread). But don't take my word for it. Read the book yourself.
It is, after all, the standard textbook in the field. After reading Wall, I
went back and started with the collodion literature about 1860 and worked
forward.
I assume that if complex emulsion creation
>is something some novice wants to attempt, with no equipment, no knowledge
>in what is required, no chemistry skills, etc., he is in for a tough time
>of it. For the careful worker, however... it is not a difficult task to
>accomplish the production of simple emulsions. I have personally seen the
>development labs in Rochester where some very complex emulsions are made,
>and it is costly to do, takes experience, extreme monitoring and a whole
>lot of effort and smarts from a whole lot of clever people to create a new
>test emulsion.
Well, Eder created a t-grain emulsion around the turn of the century (the
one at 1900, not the one we're in now). He didn't call it that, but that is
what it is. The old guy was a pretty good tinkerer. The formula and others
based on it were published in a number of periodicals, with good reason. Of
course, he had far more variation in the crystal structures than modern
t-grain films. In order to achieve the homogeneous nature of modern t-grain
emulsions, it does take money and a sophisticated laboratory. But Eder's
emulsion is really something. Imagine that--being able to make your own
t-grain film. Makes me come all out in goosebumps.
>So, Rae... you wanted me to issue a rebuttal, there it is. I am not some
>List Member speaking out of a hole in his you know what... I have knowledge
>about many of these topics. When I speak it is from a knowledge base.
>Either from hands on experience, reading my collections or talking with
>people who were around when things were a bit different. I consider myself
>an Expert and I can speak with plenty to back myself up.
I will certainly take your word for the rest of your knowledge and never
contemplated for a minute that you were "speaking out of a hole in his you
know what," although I'm not sure I know what a "you know what"
is--nevertheless, whatever it is, I didn't contemplate it, nor do I
understand how someone could speak out of it (whatever it is). On the
contrary, though, regading your knowledge base of the Browning/Adams matrix
formula AND process, as far as I'm concerned, you, sir, are no Rae Adams.
In conclusion, I hope that more people will take up the studies of
emulsions, and I hope that some energetic person (or persons) younger and
healthier than I am will assume the task of disseminating information. As
digital imaging gradually assumes a larger and larger portion of the
technological resources of what were film companies (for example, Kodak has
publicly stated that it considers itself an imaging company at this point)
and some traditional processes, such as dye transfer, are abandoned by the
large commercial firms, I believe that a well trained cadre of small-scale
emulsion workers can make valuable contributions to fabricating custom
emulsions to meet the esoteric needs of traditional gelatin-silver workers
and also alternative process workers.
I also would hope that any further discussions will take place off list in
order to keep the volume of mail down. Although I enjoy the exchange of
ideas, I don't believe that the level of interest at present warrants
further lengthy postings on list. I am a firm believer that, at some
point,the more you run over a dead cat, the bigger and flatter it gets.
Rae Adams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:54