From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 06/27/00-07:38:32 AM Z
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Sarah Van Keuren wrote:
>
> Sil, I am surprised that you have not seen handsome untoned VanDyke prints.
> It is true that with a low contrast negative or when the chemical solution
> is not dry or on certain papers, a muddy grayish or yellowish print can be
> the result, but I have seen hundreds of gorgeous untoned VanDykes ranging
> from nearly black and hard to distinguish from palladium to rich chocolate
> browns to more reddish browns like cherry wood. The variations in color are
> related to the printing paper and to exposure time plus other variables.
Ditto ditto ditto. We have trouble figuring the variable between a reddish
print and a brownish one (except heat always makes browner, if not
brown-black) but the color is almost always splendid, often the major
charm in a well -- *student* -- print. It's possible Sil is using some
snob paper, you know the kind they use in platinum print that's miffed at
doing lowly VDB.
I suspect the tartaric acid is important. I tried a variant formula once
(see PF #!, it was I believe also Bob Schramm's formula #2, or close to
it), used citric instead of tartaric, was a bust -- color drab, also
didn't stay on the paper, tended to wash off in the fix.
Judy
> When you say that VanDyke uses only ferric ammonium citrate and silver
> nitrate, I notice that you have omitted the 15 grams of tartaric acid that
> are part of the common formula for making a quart of solution. I have always
> wondered just what the tartaric acid did. Is it possible that it is what
> makes the prints of my students and myself more pleasing in color than the
> VanDykes you describe?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:46 AM Z CST