Hi Bob,
You wrote:
> I know that the fine detail comes partly from the fact that the image is
made up of EXTREMELY small particles of silver/mercury...definitely NOT the
> larger silver grains resulting from amplification caused by modern
developers. Now what I am wondering is what wonders of detail are available
> from modern lens' <snip>
I have had the great fun of making a few dag's at two of The George Eastman
House workshops (taught by Ken Nelson, along with Roger Watson). It is a
beautiful process and one I could see myself pursuing seriously.
As I understood from the classes, the astounding resolution of a dag has
more to do with the fact that only the top two or three layers of silver
molecules
are sensitized by the iodine/bromine. The clarity was attributed more to
the lack of diffusion through the *far* more numerous layers of molecules
typical in modern film and paper - not to mention that it is something of a
"direct positive" process, eliminating both intervening negatives and also
the need for projection.
Working with Ken and Roger at The GEH lab, one realizes the risks (the very
real risks) involved in making these images are quite manageable. However,
I would never recommend anyone trying it at home without the kind of
introduction The GEH workshops provide.
As Ken said at the class, there are more people who have climbed Mt Everest
today than are making daguerreotypes....
Best - Jon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48