From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 01/15/03-08:57:54 AM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Sandy King wrote:
>
>> ... I am certain that one would not be able
>> to tell the difference between a toned argyrotype, VDB or kallitype,
>> for example, putting aside the POP and DOP issues, of course, which
>> with certain negatives might result in a particular look.
>
>
>Sandy, I could swear that about 1 month ago you wrote that you found kalli
>subtler, richer & more delicate.. Certainly Carmen did...
>
>Wasn't that you? Have you changed your mind?
>
>Judy
>.
Judy,
I don't recall using those words but I do agree with Carmen that the
kallitype is "richer," if her use of the word is same as mine, i.e.
greater depth in the shadows. In all of my work, using a variety of
papers, I have been able to get more Dmax in the shadows with
kallitype than with VDB. However, as I may have mentioned in the
previous message to which you allude, the difference between a
well-made kallitype and a well-made VDB, both toned, are more subtle
than dramatic.
If I were to use the same negative and make two best prints, one a
VDB and one a kallitype, I would expect a fairly obvious difference
between the two, with more depth in the shadows of the kallitype.
However, outside of a direct comparison of this type I doubt very
much that I would be able to identify as to process any given VDB,
argyrotype or kallitype print, assuming that the prins were toned the
same way.
However, to clearly state the case, I absolutely prefer kallitype to
either VDB or argyrotype for three reasons: 1) extra depth in the
shadows, 2) greater control of contrast, and 3) as a DOP process I
can use it as a proofing system for carbon. And, as I previously
noted, although kallitype appears to be a more complicated process
than VDB there is really not much difference between the two when
both are processed for maximum permanence.
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST