From: clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 02/09/02-10:42:22 AM Z
Sandy et al:
You may be right about James' quoting of secondhand sources without the
necessary qualifications/disclaimers. I hope that when I mentioned the
book's technique my disclaimer was clear in that I had just read it without
actually trying it myself. If that was unclear, I sincerely apologize. With
that said, I will suggest one possible avenue for VanDyke contrast increase.
I have actually done some work with the Argyrotype, a semi-related process
and have had some luck increasing the contrast by adding some additional
sulfamic acid. No profound increase, but noticeable on a test wedge. Would
it be possible to increase the tartaric acid in the sensitizer and achieve
the same effect in the VanDyke process?
Clay
----------
>From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Book by Christopher James
>Date: Sat, Feb 9, 2002, 9:51 AM
>
>Judy Seigel wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, George Huczek wrote:
>>> I'm glad that you are not the only one who found many of the images in the
>>> book to be disappointing! I don't mind seeing nice work done using any
>>> technique -- and there are a few nice pictures in the book made with
>>> pinhole cameras and Holgas I will admit -- but I am of the opinion that it
>>> would have been better to include more "straight" images. There are a
>>> small number of nice ziatypes, but not enough balance showing good
>>> photography. My bias is towards less experimental work that can be
>>> understood by looking at it instead of by reading the caption which states
>>> what the artist was trying to achieve.
>>
>>George, I wish you would expand on that. I'm serious. What is "good
>>photography"?
>
>
>I am afraid that my less than half serious comment about the image
>content of Christopher James' book may have detracted from a real
>serious concern about the reliability of some of the information in
>the book. I wasted the better part of an afternoon trying to get more
>contrast in a vandyke print following a method James describes in
>detail in the book. I now don't believe the method works at all,
>which suggests that James simply regurgitated something someone else
>said back when without actually testing it himself. That would be ok
>if the method were presented as theory but that is not the case.
>
>Which makes me wonder if other information in the book may be
>presented as fact when in reality it is but untested theory. For
>example, and staying on the subject of vandyke, do the toning
>procedures work as described? Can one actually get brown/black
>aubergine colors from lead acetate? Can one effectively tone a
>vandyke with a 30:1 selenium toner with hypo clear?
>
>Sandy King
>
>
>--
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST