RE: Argyrotype Paper Problem

Darryl,

As I said, I have a fair amount of experience printing with
Argyrotype and in comparing both the process and results to both
vandyke and kallitype and I honestly can not find any advantage, save
for the fact that an untoned Argyrotype may have slightly better
permanence than an untoned vandyke or kallitype. But anyone who is
half way serious understands that all of these processes must be
toned for permanence so that point is moot for me.

I am not sure where you see any processing advantage when compared to
vandyke? Both require the same number of solutions and processing
times are virtually identical. There is some color shift that can be
obtained with agryrotpe by humidification of the paper before
exposure, but toning will change the color of either a vandyke or
Argyrotype toward the color of the metal. And of course, neither
vandyke or Argyrotype allow any significant control of contrast so
you must develop your negatives specifically for these processes.

So in the end I simply don't see that the results with Argyrotype are
in any way different or better than what is possible with regular
vandyke, and there is no question in my mind but that vandyke has
some significant processing advantages when compared to Argyrotype,
primarily in the fact that it is much less paper sensitive and
coating is easier.

Both vandyke and Argyrotype require fewer processing steps than
kallitype, but on the other hand you have wide contrast control with
kallitype of the same type that is possible with palladium and
platinum printing. I do prefer kalitype of these three processes but
it is for sure more complicated than either vandyke or Argyrotype so
perhaps it should not be on the table in this discussion.

I think you should understand that my comments are not meant to pick
a fight with anyone but merely to offer my opinion about the relative
merits of these processes. I am perfectly aware of the fact that
beautiful work can be done with the Argyrotype process. I simply
believe that you can have the same thing for less effort and expense
with plain old vandyke, assuming you must tone any plain silver image
on paper.

Sandy

>Sandy, I'm noy trying to pick a fight, but you were fairly short,
>direct and emphatic that argyrotype was THE problem without a solution
>or suggestion for the questioning party. That's a brickbat from where
>I sit.
>
>I don't disagree with most of what you've stated now about paper or
>Tween in the coating (I don't even use tween and still get good
>coating with a Richeson brush). But most users would probably agree
>that Cranes paper works well with Argyrotype.
>
>Now as far as " ...the final result is neither better, or even
>different, from what can be obtained with either vandyke or kallitype
>with less trouble and expense." I'd probably disagree, Van Dyke is
>three solutions and Kallitype, depending on version is several steps
>and a somewhat complicated formuli and/or variations. I'm just plain
>lazy and like less solutons to mix when I want to print and less
>complications as I print. I think Argyro is less trouble. I suppose we
>might differ on what is "trouble." I'm in awe of anyone shooting with
>ULF cameras.
>
>The cost of Argyro is driven up by silver oxide, but that's solved
>(not as easily!!) by precipitating silver nitrate with sodium
>hydroxide (and not Drano as I tried once). Sulfamic acid is readily
>available from a variety of sources too. I get mine at Home Depot for
>$5.00 a lb. So I can make a liter of Argyro for $31.68, or less than
>1/10 of what it is sold for by Silverprint. With a Cranes Cover 23X29
>sheet at about $1.00, cut down to (4) 11.5 X 14.5 sheets I can make a
>full 11X14 of 8X10 with nice brushed borders for about 30 cents. So
>the cost is pretty darn cheap when done efficiently. I know you like
>Kallitypes, I do too, but I think the Argyro process has some
>admirable qualities, plus like I said... I'm lazy (and cheap too).
>
>Darryl
Received on Fri Sep 9 06:55:34 2005