Collodion - Wet Plate Images

[seezee]

Michael, you might reach out to Michael Ashby at Studio 1409, down here in Norman. He is knowledgable about wet plate and many other alternative processes.

[guyatou]

Michael, you might reach out to Michael Ashby at Studio 1409, down here in Norman. He is knowledgable about wet plate and many other alternative processes.

Thanks, I'll check out his site and get in touch. Surprised to find out there are folks doing wet plate in Oklahoma that I don't know, it's a small community. I've gotten a lot of advice, inspiration and my dark box from Mark Zimmerman.

[ndg]

Collodion - OWH
Lighting - Blue LED lights in 2x Impact Octacools
Lens - Voigtlander Euryscop Series II, No 7 at f5.6
Exposure - 8s
Size - 8" x10" alumitype

"Pure Terror"

[paulbarden]

New 8x10 ambrotype, made with the Kodak Ektar on the Deardorff

[seezee]

Oh my!

[Randy]

New 8x10 ambrotype, made with the Kodak Ektar on the Deardorff

Paul - just beautiful!

I have a two part question, but you may not know the answer to the 2nd part:
1 - how much do you under expose wet-plate for ambrotypes?
2 - any reason that would not also be applicable to dry-plate?

[paulbarden]

Paul - just beautiful!

I have a two part question, but you may not know the answer to the 2nd part:
1 - how much do you under expose wet-plate for ambrotypes?
2 - any reason that would not also be applicable to dry-plate?

Thanks Randy.
Exposing for Ambrotypes is hard to define, because what you do is one of two things to start: either a guesstimate of the exposure and make a plate, or make a "test strip" plate, which you expose in increments - like 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds and up. Then you evaluate the results (of either) by processing, and view on a black background to estimate the proper exposure for the next plate. When I want to make a proper negative of the same scene I did as an ambrotype, I then make a plate with 2 to 3 times the exposure. A ten second ambrotype would become 40-80 seconds exposure to make a good negative. So you see, it works the other way around: you test for proper exposure for ambrotypes, then multiply by 2 to 3 to make a negative.
Its worth pointing out that I don't use a meter for this process - I have gotten pretty good at estimating the exposure under most of the scenarios I commonly make wet plate pieces. If I'm not really sure of my guess, I make a test strip plate first.

As for dry plate ambrotypes: although I have never done it, I assume it CAN be done. After all, ambrotypes are just underexposed negatives.

[Randy]

Thanks Paul, I guess a test strip plate is the proper method. I had read that ambrotypes are usually about 2-3 stops under exposed wet plate negs. I collect antique ambrotypes and when I have taken them apart to clean, when viewing the negative image they do "appear" to be about 2-3 stops under exposed when compared to a proper exposed negative. I just have yet to read of anyone making ambrotypes from dry-plate negatives.

[Nodda Duma]

I know of at least one person who has made an ambrotype from my dry plates so I guess you can do it. I believe they underexposed as well probably by a stop or two, and my experience with how underexposed plates look means that you’re probably on the right path.

[edgately]

Mounted a "new to me" Voightlander Euryscop Portrait Series III No. 6 lens on my camera the other night. Here is a quick test plate I made in my garage.