From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/05/01-11:58:37 AM Z
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> Actually, perhaps this whole mordancage discussion is better on the
> pure silver list than alt process because I don't even know if it qualifies
> as an alt process, even tho it is in Christopher James' book...
CHRIS !!!! I mean really, you are the folks saying mordancage is what you
make of it, not a rigidly defined process... and dare to imagine it
"belongs" on "pure silver" list !!!!!????? Oh Chris, 20 minutes on bread
and water for that.
Meanwhile, I found the Marriage file -- the problem having been that I
tidied it up with a nice new folder, so didn't recognize it when I had it
in hand. It has several pages of my handwritten notes, which I will copy
and send you (if you promise to write the summary for Post-Factory), most
of which call for "cupric sulphate" with nitric acid, some for cupric
chloride with acetic or citric acid. However, one calls for cupric
sulphate with acetic acid. This I labeled EB-3, and noted that it's from
"Relief Patent." (Several formulas accrued from looking up the original
patents, which you could do then in the open stacks of the NY Public
Library photo annex on west west west 43rd St. )
This was US Patent Office #2,494,068 dated Jan 10, 1950, "Photographic
Relief Image" by Robert Speck, assignor to Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester,
NY (and is not the "relief patent" cited above).
I'll send you the page, but note here his 2 formulas:
"Example #1"
copper sulfate 33 grams
potassiium bromide 10 grams
acetic acid (28% solution) 13 cc
Hyprogen peroxide 25% solution 105 cc
water to 1 litre
"Example #2"
copper sulfate 50 grams
potassium bromide 15 grams
acetic acid (28%) 15 cc
potassium alum 15 grams
water to one litre
The text explains advantages of these formulas over the usual, and adds
description of process, and variations... I do not see the words "cupric
chloride" anywhere (tho I did scan hastily). There are other patents and
references listed, one of which led me to the Henney & Dudley "Handbook of
Photography," etc.
The folder also has a copy of a page from April 21, 1944 British Journal
of Photography (from same NY Public Library Annex, which at the time had
the crumbling ORIGINALS of these publications it handed to us upon
request, all now probably gone gone gone, replaced by microfiche which
turns out to fade much faster): "Notes on Etch-Bleach Baths by A.
Marriage. (An asterisk after his name leads to a footnote "Research
Laboratories, Kokak Lt., Wealdstone, Harrow, Middlesex."
He credits EJ Wall, "Practical Colour Photography," 2nd Ed, London 1929,
p. 91, and gives 2 formulas, one with cupric sulphate & nitric, the other
with cupric chloride & acetic, also other notes on variables of the
process. He seems to find the cupric more reliable.
I suspect however, some factor in the paper. Were your students using
RC??? (I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that anyone would undertake a labor-intensive
photo art process on RC paper, but the world so rarely asks my advice, let
alone permission.)
My other formulas include some from Glafkides, and another patent, the
"Monroe patent," also the "Neblette Handbook, p. 124." I don't think
they're all that different, and I in fact found the several I tried rather
forgiving -- that is, they could be re-used later, worked with drug store
peroxide (didn't require bomb grade) etc. etc. But then I was using a
paper of the period, Brovira #6, so who knows ?
Note also that altho cuprous, and cupric do have different meanings in
chemistry (I seem to recall), I think "copper" covers it for these
purposes. Also, it's "sulfate" or "sulphate" depending on where you live
and when. The English I believe still add the redundant letters, but we
love the English (especially today, vive Tony Blair!) and so forgive
peccadillos such as redundant "u" in "colour" & so forth.
Finally, Chris, & Jon, it was my understanding that when you work on an
already fixed print you use the loosened photograph, transferring it to
another paper or letting it flutter in situ (which is what the only ones
I've seen -- the Opalniks -- look like). So that *wouldn't* be a reversal,
which I seem to recall you (Chris) said today all are ??????
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST