From: Manuel (MEC00001@teleline.es)
Date: 03/17/01-10:56:24 PM Z
Hi all:
John R. Hurlock in the article "Warming Up To Cold Mercury" (The Daguerreian Annual 1998) wrote:
"...Where previously I had been developing using mercury, this time I decided to try using the Becquerel method of development as described in Gerard Meegan's article in the Daguerreian Annual 1991(1). But I found that getting the right color during the fuming process was a fustrating experience, and the exposure times appeared to be much longer than I had previosly experienced with hot-mercury development. Furthermore, I was frequently disappointed when a fog veil appeared at the end of the development process. after finally achieving a neutral-toned Becquerel plate, I found the appearance didn't satify me..."
Bob Schramm ( article "How an Old Alternate- Process Printer from a Small Town in West Virginia Learned to Make a Daguerreotype" -Post-Factory # 4-) heat liquid mercury to about 175 ºF ,60 ºC, (daguerreotypes must be exposed to mercury vapor).
Gerard Meegan wrote a Chapter (1, Becquerel- Developed Daguerreotypes) in the book " Coming into Focus: A Step-by-Step Guide to Alternative Photographic Printing Processes" by John Barnier (editor).
+ Bequerel process develop plates without mercury vapor. No danger developer but very slower
+ Hot Mercury, good developer but very dangerous and expensive (fume hood)
+ Cold-Mercury development , good, less dangerous and more cheap that Hot Mercury ( a polycarbonate vacuum desiccator) and more fast that Becquerel process.
My question: Is the Cold-Mercury developer the best alternative for Daguerreotype?. Do you have any experience about it?
Thanks.
Manuel Estébanez
Spain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST