From: Joe Portale (jportale@gci-net.com)
Date: 03/11/01-08:04:38 PM Z
The problem of permenance with kallitype may in fact be a non-issue. There
are many reasons, historic, urban myth and just plain bad PR why kalli's
were concidered to be less than permanent. The earliest kallies were in
fact pretty transitory. The use of a sodium thiosulfate fixer was not a
common practice. Herschell and Talbot, in their early work, both used
common table salt as a fixer. Also, the first generation kalitypes were
compounded with the impure brown ferric ammonium citrate. The later
versions and today, use the more pure green FAO. This lack of chemical
purity with the AFO would be a root cause of early image failure.
If one were to trace the historic time line, it would be pretty obvious that
the kallitype was eclipsed by the platinum print. To cite a paper from the
1880's, a French chemist (whose name slips my mind, and I don't want to stop
and look it up) stated that the basic chemical structure of silver based
photo processes is unstable. Where as the structure of the platinum image is
far more stable. This assumption was based on a test where a kallitype,
callotype and platinum print were subjected to such refined techniques as
splashing various acids upon the image. Nitric, hydrochloric and sulfuric
acids will attack silver, as will just about every acid known. Platinum is
reacts to aqua regia. Drop sulfuric or nitric acid on a platinum print and
nothing will happen. That is unless the acids are very strong and left for a
time.
As with Callie, I have Van Dykes that have been siting in a frame on my wall
(in various houses) for well over ten years. They look as good as the day
they were made. I forgot who did this, but a kallitype was actually
attached to the inside window of a car. This person drove around with the
print in the back window for two years without showing any sign of
degrading. If my memory serves me, this person lives in a very sunny
climate where the effects of the sun would be very apparant.
Dick Sullivan stated that he believes that one of the reasons that
kallitypes are considered not permanent is the lack of examples in museums
and galleries. People being people, if the untrained eye could not tell the
difference, what prevented a nineteenth century photographer from selling a
platinum print and delivering a kallitype? Hey folks, there were jerks and
bores all through history. Today, who would be willing to preform a
destructive assay testing technique on a 150 year old picture in a museum or
gallery to find out which precious metal it was made from?
My own therory is that since the kalli was pushed aside by platinum and
other processes, it actually became a amature medium. Platinum by the way
actualy cost more per capita in the late 100's and early 1900's than it does
now. (even at the new Mother Russia needs money rates.) This cost would have
pushed the platinum print to only the successful commercial photgrapher and
the well heeled amature. Since the state of photography as an art was not
really considered during the late 1800's, many of the amature kalli's were
tossed by the makers after a time. How many of you still have your undergrad
stuff laying around? Additionally, as the hobby kallitypists died off, many
of their prints ended up in the trash bin as the executors of the estate
cleaned out the property. Another consideration is that since kalli's
became an amature medium, there may have been less care in the processing,
storage and materials used. I would hazard a guess that a major factor in
the failings of kallitype permanence would be with the paper. Cheap
stationary paper would not be as stable as a fine artists paper. What is
the single most common mistake amatures make when printing pictures? In my
experience is lack of proper fixing and washing.
I would submit that the kallitype is actually very archivial. That any
failings of earlier images could be traced straight back to inferior
chemical materials, paper, processing technique and marketing hype.
Debate?
Joe Portale
Tucson, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Callie Type <kallitype@hotmail.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2001 4:32 PM
Subject: Kallitype Permanence (was Real People)
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
+++the rest clipped+++
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST