From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 11/18/02-03:45:58 PM Z
<snip from Judy>
> That is, it failed to make clear if you didn't already know that this is
> not authentic vintage tintype. I would have suggested a chapter title on
> the order of, "Modern Tintype." The "tintype" here uses modern emulsion
> in a bottle and black enamel spray paint. For all I know this makes works
> MORE beautiful than vintage tintype, but I hate to see the distinction
> lost or blurred.... to beginners as well as professionals.
Yes, this is true; it is the "modern" way of tintyping.
> The question of Jane Hinds Bidaut and how she makes her tintypes is not
> answered or even addressed in this book... I had heard that she does use a
> modern emulsion, and know of no reason not to, especially given the beauty
> of some of her results. But unless you have some other info, I wouldn't
> say "this is how J.... etc.". (Her name isn't in Jill's index.)
This is what it says in Antiquarian Avant-garde: "...Bidaut makes a
photgraphic positive and uses it to create a tintype positive on a dry plate
of anodized aluminum, coated with variants of a commercial silver emulsion".
Yes, I am making the assumption that the commercial silver emulsion she uses
is the same that Jill Enfield talks about in her book, but there seems to be
a good case for making that assumption, as Bidaut herself is not using the
vintage tintype either. And the original poster was asking about how to do
tintypes a la Bidaut if I remember correctly. Bidaut's work also appears in
Christopher James' book, and he, too, says she does the "modern" form of
tintype, which he has also included in his text. But, short of asking her
directly, and if I had her email I would, what emulsion she uses (Rockland
kit, Ag Plus....) I should state that Enfield's chapter "may" produce an end
result "similar" to Bidaut.
>
> It well may be a better value for the money than others, and there were in
> fact a couple or three items in this book I need to try -- but certain
> processes (eg., gum, carbon, & albumen) are entirely absent... so no
> direct comparison holds...
Yes, being partial to gum, I also would like to see that included in a book
on alt process. Carbon and albumen...no matter; but then Sandy King might
disagree with me there :) Hence, checking out a table of contents on a book
does one justice to make sure it includes what you are looking for. For a
$21 investment at Amazon, it is WELL worth the price. I was interested to
see it include 5 processes (of the 50!!) that I teach in my experimental
class, which I technically don't term alt process but which I post a lot
about here on this list: polaroid, liquid emulsion, enlarged negs, IR, and
hand coloring. But then again, there was NO book on the market that
included in its Table of Contents what I teach in my class, and that is why
I had to write and self publish my own textbook. I have no traditionally
labeled alt process stuff in my workbook as I find it well covered
elsewhere. And furthermore, Judy, I'm WAITING for you to publish your own
gum printing workbook. What gives?
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST