From: Callie Type (kallitype@hotmail.com)
Date: 03/11/01-05:24:36 PM Z
Along with everyone else, I've heard the scare stories about the
impermanence of kallitype. I've heard that the small silver grain size and
the various paper-effects make it more vulnerable to environmental stress.
This could very well be the case, and it does make me a bit nervous. Not so
much because I'm worried about my own work: I don't sell it and have no
plans to do so in the near future. But I am concerned that someone else
might take my lead, print some masterpieces, and have them fade in thirty
years. Nevertheless, I will relay my own experience, and let you make the
call:
1) My first kallitypes were made over 15 years ago. My negatives lacked the
needed contrast to make effective prints, so I used up the chemistry making
a series of photograms of weeds and flowers. I wasn't particularly serious
about these works, so I might have been exercised less than perfect
diligence in their fixing and washing. They still look the same as the day
they were made. Some of them have been hanging up on my bulletin board for
a number of years, and all of them have endured such tortures as being
stored amongst other non-archival work prints, stashed between the pages of
books, etc. Every now and then one of them turns up, and I'm surprised at
how good it looks.
2) About five years ago I again became interested in kallitype. Reacting to
the rise in price of the noble metals, as well as having discomfort with the
politics of their countries of origin, I found that kallitype could
reproduce all of the nuances of a noble metal print. Prints made during
this time have been hanging in normal room light ever since, with no change.
3) Additionally, I have had a small test strip attached to the inside wall
of the box holding my UV light bank. For over a year it has been blasted
with UV whenever I print. Literally weeks worth of light. No change.
4) Repeated challenges on this list and elsewhere for any evidence,
anecdotal or otherwise, to support the notion of vulnerability of kallitypes
have resulted in only two tidbits that I'm aware of: a) Judy Seigel's print
that slipped under her furniture (sorry, Judy, but isn't scientific, and I
know you didn't intend it to be), and b) some supposed surmisals on the part
of Mike Ware that resulted in his inventing the Argyrotype process (which is
pretty nifty. but I digress). As a matter of fact (and equally
unscientific), Richard Sullivan has publicly suspected that many historic
Platinum prints may actually be kallitype, but I digress again.
So, until evidence to the contrary is revealed, I'm pretty comfortable with
the permanency of kallitypes.
I'm not sure what you mean by stability, but I'll assume you're speaking
again to the subject of permanence. My own procedure is simple:
1) Develop the print in acidified Sodium Acetate. Wash briefly.
2) Clear with two baths of EDTA
3) Fix with two baths of Sodium Thiosulfate (five minutes in each)
4) Wash
It works for me!
>Now, if we might direct our discourse toward the real purpose of the list,
>it would be nice to hear some of your thoughts on the permanency of
>kallitype. And specifically, which developing procedures should one follow
>to get maximum stability with the process.
>
>Sandy King
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST