From: Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Date: 06/23/00-10:28:37 PM Z
Any way to get the whole, uncut version?
S. Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Salted Paper and THE VARIABLES
>
> With all due respect to Andre (and I'm so delighted when anyone agrees
> with me about anything that I feel positively churlish to disagree!), has
> it occurred to you, the list, anybody, that expecting a great print on
> your very first try is ---- optimistic? (Tho I have been given to
> understand that salted paper takes a neg of practically 3.0.)
>
> As for the questions now asked re selenium toning color, dilution,
> effect, and so forth -- permit me to mention Post-Factory and an article
> Liam is writing for it about make-your-own-POP emulsion, which he is too
> (pathologically ) modest to mention: It came in at something like 30,000
> words, and is, I regret to say being pared to a mere 7000 or so, at least
> for part I (to allow room for the address label, etc.), but the content to
> a FASCINATING degree is how the VARIABLES of paper, balance, ratio,
> temperature, dilution, humidity, timing, source of gelatin and godwat what
> else, all laid out and charted meticulously and explicitly by our hero,
> affect every other factor, INCLUDING and especially color (or as he
> insists, some things you just have to accept, "colour").
>
> Nor do I think this is apples and oranges... in any event, having just
> read through this stunning opus (tho, Liam, not all of us eat molecular
> weights for breakfast), coming upon the flat question "what dilution of
> selenium," or even "does it work," strike me as not usefully or anyway
> definitively answered without, well, maybe 4000 words.
>
> best,
>
> Judy
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Andre Fuhrmann
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All!
> >
> > After the first messages on salted papers on Wednesday I felt an itch
> > to try it out. So I coated Arches Aquarelle twice with salted (3%)
> > gelatine (2%) and after thorough drying applied silver nitrate 12%
> > twice. What I found left mixed feelings. The images printed out
> > vvvvery nicely but after fixing (5% hypo) they were reduced to very
> > flat images indeed. More overexposing didn't help the flat
> > appearance. So I suppose that the process is for _extremely_ hard
> > negs only. and indeed with my hardest negs I got some acceptable
> > results -- but only after I watered down the hypo to 2-3% where I
> > left the prints for 8 mins. Now I naturally wonder how stable the
> > images will be. Frustration came to a climax when I perused my
> > beautiful Nadar book (published by Schirmer & Mosel). The Nadar
> > prints are so stunningly beautiful with their luminous shadows and
> > bright but well-separated highlights! How on earth did he do it? I
> > conclude that the salted paper process has very great potential but
> > is also very far from being fool-proof. One possible source of my
> > ill-success is perhaps the use of household salt. Perhaps it is too
> > impure for the purpose, leading to chemical fogging. But then, how
> > pure was the salt Nadar used in the 1860s?? The salt I used
> > contained also some iodide which, I guess, enhances the tendency to a
> > warm brown tone.
> >
> > As to the comparison with vandykes, I side -- as yet -- with Judy.
> > It strikes me as a much simpler process, easier to control, better
> > suited for nearly normal negatives and, not to forget, cheaper. As
> > to their permanence: As I write this I look at a test vandyke stuck
> > to my window 7 months ago. I covered half of it with black carton
> > (probably _not_ acid-free), the other half faces the sun for a couple
> > of hours every day: as yet no visible change. That indicates a good
> > deal of permanence, though, of course, we may have to wait another
> > 300 months to pass a judgement with more confidence.
> >
> > Andre
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:46 AM Z CST