Argyrotype

Chris wrote:

>
>I'm puzzled by problems with, since it was the easiest of all
>processes with me, almost brush n' go. However, I used absorbent papers,
>not sized ones, and I betcha Judy is right, that the solution is sitting on
>top of the surface instead of being absorbed enough before exposure. I used
>Rives, Buxton, vellum, and others and altho the Buxton was wonderful (less
>grainy than Rives), for the price it was not worth the hassle. Both papers
>are nicely absorbent, and I have never felt the need to size, and gotten
>very dark darks. My solution was exactly the same as...Christines' was it?
>And no added sulfamic. Is, btw, the silvering out a bronzing, perhaps, as
>appears in other processes? Anyway, go out and buy a sheet of Rives and
>give it a whirl.
>
>To get specific, Ware says sizing should be aquapel or alkyletene (sp) dimer
>sized.
>chris

Well, I am certainly not surprised that someone has had trouble with
argyrotype. I tried this process with literally dozens of papers and
I never got anything close to decent Dmax with any of them. And if
the terribly expensive Buxton is the only paper in the world that
works decently with the process one would be much better off in terms
of expense to just make palladiums or platinums.

And besides, I can never spell the process correctly unless someone
leads me into it and I can cut and paste from their message, as I
have done here!!

Sandy King
Received on Wed Jan 7 23:29:22 2004