From: Joachim (joachim@microdsi.net)
Date: 12/12/01-08:03:14 PM Z
Thank you for the discussion and references. I have seen the terms used so
interchangeably that I thought the difference was more historic than the
minor chemical variations in the silver-iron sensitizer common to both, as
the nature of the developer is more in the character of a toner I
appreciate your time and interest. Joachim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Gerling [mailto:keithgerling@att.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:55 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Van Dyke & Gum
>
>
> Joachim asks:
>
> >I have never had a clear
> >understanding of the difference between Van Dyke and kallitype -
> could you
> >explain? Thank you. Joachim
>
> They are similar processes, and to add to the confusion, Van Dyke
> prints are
> sometime referred to as kallitypes. True kallitypes are made by
> sensitizing
> paper with solutions of silver nitrate and ferric oxalate, and after
> exposure, developing in a bath of Sodium Acetate, Rochelle Salts, or a
> number of other agents. Van Dyke prints are made from one
> solution: A mix
> of silver nitrate, tartaric acid, and ferric ammonium citrate, and the
> exposed print is "developed" in water. Van Dyke is easier, but you're
> pretty much stuck with the same brown color. By varying the developer,
> kallitypes offer a greater range of tones.
>
> There are plenty of web-resident sources of information on these
> processes,
> that do far better justice than my capsule summary. One place to start is
> Dick Sullivan's site:
> http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/process.htm which has
> papers on many processes, including a good one on kallitype. For
> Van Dyke,
> there is this: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Vandyke/vandyke.html
>
> Keith
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST