From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 01/25/02-12:43:31 PM Z
Years ago I used to sit in the UCLA research Library and read the old photo
journals. It's a great way to get a feel for the culture of photography in
the 18th and early 19th Centuries. The Kallitype came into vogue c. 1905 to
1922 or thereabouts. There were constant complaints from the establishment
that members of the photographic underclass were sneaking Kallitypes into
competitions labeled as platinums. That should tell you something. Even in
the old days platinum paper was expensive, too expensive for many to use so
the Kallitype appeared to enjoyed considerable vogue.
I've mentioned this before but it has been a few years so I will repeat it
for the newcomers:
Despite the fact that the kallitype enjoyed widespread use and in fact was
used by some name brand photographers, they are quite rare in collections.
I've discussed this with Van Deren Coke and James Enyeart and both agree
they are rare. Both have headed up major collections and both headed the
Eastman House so a fairly good reliable source. There are several
explanations for this:
1. They all faded into oblivion.
Not likely as it was my take that most were toned in gold, pt or pd but
even without toning they tend to be more durable than thought. I have a
friend who has a kallitype of mine made in the late 60's or early 70's in a
sunny room near a window and most of it is still perfect. The edges are
stained due to the rubber cement I used to mount the print with! (Yes we
all had to learn the hard way.) If they faded then we are likely to have
seen some of the faded ones in collections.
2. Only bad photographers used the process and are not in collections.
Hardly likely. It was also thought of as a proofing method so some big
names may have used it for proofing.
3. They have been falsely labeled as platinums. This is my best guess. I
have seen "platinums" at auction that I was highly suspicious of due to the
amount of solarization in the shadows. Of course many Kallitypes do not
have any solarization so not all can be detected.
One of the standard tests for a platinum print is to put a drop of hydrogen
peroxide on it. If it bubbles due to the catalytic action of the platinum
then it is a platinum print. Your platinum toned Kallitype will bubble too.
Not a recommended procedure to do to a Steiglitz print at your favorite
auction house while the curator is showing the print out of the mat.
Well made and processed silver prints on matte paper can easily masquerade
at platinums. No platinum papers have the thick overcoating of colloid that
silver or albumin prints have to my knowledge. But there were developers
and papers made to make silver prints that looked like platinums. One quick
and easy way to distinguish the two is to run the corner of the print
between two teeth. The slickness of the gelatin will be obvious. Of course
the auction house curator will need a kick in the chest to get her
breathing again after she's seen you doing this. I've done this on the sly
before and only on the corner of the print in the margin and have found
more than one silver gel listed as platinum.
-- Dick "The Tooth" Sullivan
I'm probably banned from most galleries now.
At 09:19 AM 1/25/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>This has been discussed somewhat incompletely in
>other threads. I am curious to know the going
>opinions on the visual similarities between
>platinum (and or) palladium prints and their
>cousin the kallitype. Some seem to think that a
>good kallitype can be indistinguishable from a
>platinum print in tonality and tonal range;
>others disagree. I wonder if anyone has done a
>controlled comparison?
>
>-Paul
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
>http://auctions.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/15/02-11:47:41 AM Z CST