From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/13/01-02:38:51 PM Z
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, fb wrote:
>
> I don't know: this version working or not because I never tried it but the
> Pellet process was probably the favourite copy method of the
> architectural drawing from the 1870-s. Probably the origin of the
> "blueprint" word.
Cassell's gives a few other names, says Pellet's own formula was a trade
secret, but gives one from "Dr. Liesegang," adding that use is for
technical drawings, since a camera negative wouldn't work -- which
probably explains why mention so rare in most *photo* books & magazines of
the time.
It required a separate "fixing bath" (or Pizzighelli's did) and also -- it
says -- was liable to stains & a light blue deposit. Today we may give
more heed to the sheer amount of chemicals (then they would lick an
emulsion to test and gargle with something like silver nitrate).
Otherwise, I guess it was swell...
Judy
>
> About the contemporary conservation literature there are a lot of Pellet
> prints in several collections/akf-s.
>
> About the description (of the Schmidt-s book) the sensitiser has a butter
> like consistency when ready to use so it can be a rather dope brew.
>
> I hope my correction message was visible on the list because the full
> system was stupid yesterday I got back a bunch of pieces from my
> message and an another message about an another question from 9 Oct.
> :---(
>
> Balint Flesch
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST