From: Scott Wainer (email@example.com)
Date: 02/24/03-05:45:04 PM Z
Re: Kallitypes - Photo-Minature 47Hi Sandy,
I should add that I took Stevens at his word regarding the level of difficulty in getting an even coating with a colloid added to the sensitizer and must confess that I have personally never tested the concept. His book is not a very good manual for making kallitypes but I have a great deal of respect for the methodology and exhaustiveness of his testing procedures so trusted his results on this.
One question. Did you make comparison prints to see if the addition of the the small amount of gum arabic made any difference in the final appearance of the image? I am not certain if you attribute the richer chocolate color to the use of gum arabic or to the use of GP-1 toning prior to fixing.
Please take what I say with a grain of salt. I do not have any great experience with kallitypes and was not doubting what Stevens said or his testing but I quite often find that what does or doesn't work for one person is the exact opposite for me; and vice-versa.
Yes, I did do a comparison - though I admit that my tests were not very exact (more subjective than not). I printed the same negatives on both Stonehenge and Coventry Rag with and without the gum arabic. Chemistry and process remained the same; as did the toner. I did find that the sensitizer with the gum arabic was a bit slower - about 10% - and I had to increase the exposure to get the same amount of detail in each print.
Looking at contrasting highlight and shadow areas, I do find a softening and slight blueing of the edges but it seems to blend well with the image content (Eastern State Penitentary in Philadelphia). That might be what Stevens was talking about in reference to apparent sharpness but it works well for my intentions. The contrast also seems slightly greater with the gum than without but may be attributed to the length of exposure (I really should get in the habit of including a step wedge).
The color difference I would have to attribute to the gum arabic. The prints without seem less substantial and a little anemic though I think more tests are needed; trying to judge from three sets of prints leaves a lot of room to play.
Here is the post I was refering to about the sepia toner:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy King" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Kallitypes
> The black granular residue you see in the bottom of the tray after
> development is soluble iron that was cleared from the print during
> development. You will want to filter this before using the developer
> again as an accumulation of iron in the developer will make clearing
> the print more difficult. Sodium acetate is a developer that clears
> the print very well when you first use it but I have the impression
> that it does not hold up as well for re-use as sodium and ammonium
> citrate. I may be wrong about this since I really have a lot more
> experience with the citrates but the few times I have used sodium
> acetate it appeared to me that it did not have as much staying power.
I never experienced the soluble iron residue before but I was using a
different developer then. I chose the sodium acetate because I had some in
the back of my chem cabinet from doing palladium prints but have ordered
some sodium citrate to try.
> No idea about the "fluffy carbon balls."
I figured that out after my post. I was using Kodak tank and tray cleaner
and the sensitizer reacted with the residual in the sink.
> Also, no experience in bleaching and re-developing in sepia. Sounds
> interesting though so if you do it let us know the results.
I tried the sepia on prints made on Coventry Rag and Stonehenge. Using
normal, under, and over exposed prints that received a pre-fix toning bath
with gold-citric acid (until grayish) I found that the sepia effected
primarily the mid-tones (a bright purplish-red). The shadow areas lightened
somewhat with a deep purple cast. The highlights seemed un-effected; neither
lightening or changing color. The more over-exposed the print the more of a
split-tone was created. In general, I preferred the normal (to slightly
over-exposed) prints to the under or over exposed ones. I found that papers
without additional sizing seemed to bubble and separate (front to back) and
papers with additional sizing (gelatin w/o hardener) seemed to suffer very
little from the bleaching. I plan to test other papers, pre-fix toners, and
developers with the sepia to see what I can get. I also plan on trying the
sepia as a pre-fix toner as I liked the results I have gotten so far.
> Gold toning alone gives a very beautiful and distinctive
> purple/blue/black color. However, it is very important to clear the
> print completely before toning in gold, and was it for a few minutes,
> as it will combine with any remaining silver salts in the paper and
> cause a stain in the areas that were brushed with sensitizer.
> Sandy King
My method of clearing before the first toner is to place the print in a tray
of water and gently agitate for 60 seconds. I then refill and agitate four
more times. I have had very good success with this method though I find that
the paper really needs additional sizing to stand up to the soaking and
*abuse* I subject it to.
As always, thanks for the comments,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:09 AM Z CST