From: Sandy King (sanking@CLEMSON.EDU)
Date: 04/24/03-11:34:44 AM Z
Peter Marshall wrote:
>
>Sandy,
>
>1. When I tried out the process, the point seemed to be that they were
>visually identical to platinum and platinum-like kallitype prints.
>
>2. Satista has a cost advantage over platinum, which was the reason for
>its introduction. I think the archival properties are likely to be
>dependent on the amount of iron left in the print and the state of
>division of the silver in the image. Platinum toning has been claimed to
>increase the stability of kallitypes.
>
I don't want to make too big a deal of a name, but after reading a
little more about Satista I am inclined to classify it as a variation
of traditional kallitype (based on ferric oxalate). Virtually
everything that you do with Satista can also be done with traditional
kallitype and the only really unique aspect, at least to my way of
thinking, is the glycerine development procedure. And of course if
you look at the history of kallitype you will find that there have
been many variations on develoment over the years. Stevens, for
example, describes kallitype as Type I and Type 11, with the major
difference whether the silver is incorporated into the sensitizing
solution and coated on the paper, or incorporated into the developer.
Note: I do not consider VDB a form of kallitype. VDB is based on
ferric ammonium citrate and the final result does not have the
richness of a kallitype based on ferric oxalate.
So, for what it is worth there appear to me to be three major
variations of the silver-iron process being practiced today.
1. Kallitype, based on ferric oxalate, including Satista and both
Type 1 and Type 11 kallitype as described by Stevens.
2. VDB, based on ferric ammonium citrate.
3. Argyroptype, based on silver oxide.
Sandy King
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 05/01/03-11:59:55 AM Z CST