Re: Argyrotypes!

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Sandy King (sanking@CLEMSON.EDU)
Date: 01/14/03-10:27:59 AM Z


Epona wrote:

>Woo-hoo!
>
>I made my first Argyrotype last night! It's awful, but who cares, I made
>an image! It was my first hand coated print. I used a glass rod - it
>came out awfully streaky. Either too little solution was used or the
>Crane's platinotype was too absorbent - the area at the beginning of the
>stroke seems "denser" than the other end of the print. And it's
>terribly flat - I'll have to add another gram of sulfamic acid I fear.
>This same negative looked good as a POP print.
>
>So thanks to everyone on the list, especially Michael Healy and Darryl
Baird, for their encouragement and advice.

Congratulations on your first hand-coated print! But why would anyone
want to begin their journey in making hand-coated prints with the
Argyrotype? Argyrotype is capable of excellent results but it is very
paper specific and I have found it virtually impossible to get
acceptable results with the great majority of papers. Cyanotype,
vandyke or even traditional kallitype would give much more consistent
results and are useful processes with a wide variety of papers.

Also, my advice would be dump the rod and coat with a hake brush, or
better, the magical Richeson. The coating rod makes sense for a
really expensive process like pt/pd but for silver processes it is
more important to get a fairly thick coating on the paper and avoid
streaking and I have found it far easier to do this with brushes than
with a rod.

OK, just my thoughts on the matter and I am sure there are others of
different mind.

Sandy King

-- 

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST