Gandolfi and Mike: thank you so much!
An old lady. and no: it isn't my mother...
Made with "Rembrandt lightning", which is something compleately different than the techniques you can read about at the web... (which to my understanding, has all to do with motion picture making)
Printed with liquid emulsion on heavy paper - selenium toned.
A couple more Van Dyke Brownprints:
From a type 55 Polaroid negative
and a full-plate ambrotype on black glass:
Joe...love that 2nd VDB!
Found one more VDB:
from a 5x7 negative given the Sabattier treatment
I learned this sentence long time ago: "I don't remember what I did, but I'll never forget it.."
This applies to this cyanotype I found lying somewhere in my house...
For purposes of clarification, there has been no change in the forum guidelines on image posts appropriate for the core forums vs. what should be posted in The Lounge. Additionally, there is no disagreement on the matter between myself and Kirk. The only difference relates to how my earlier comment in this thread has been (mis)-interpreted, for whatever reason.
If an image is identified as originating from small format film, medium format film shot in an MF camera, or small-format digital, it should be posted in The Lounge, since such images are "off-topic" to the core forums. Images posted in the core forums are expected to be large format (4x5 film or larger), or those LF adaptations that we have historically allowed (medium-format film shot with a view camera, or from a digital back on a view camera [the digital equivalent of an MF film adapter]).
The points I was trying to make earlier were that:
1) if the capture device is not identified, we have no means of determining whether it is "large format" or not, and
2) that the format of the original capture is usually not germane to a discussion of the alternative printing process (as traditionally defined).
If the original capture format is really pertinent to the particular printing process discussion, and it doesn't qualify as "large format", the discussion should be posted in The Lounge.
Administratively, we can move non-LF thread starters to The Lounge, but cannot start new threads from a response in an existing thread, and attribute that thread to the original poster. Thus, non-qualifying responses have to be deleted.
So, to some extent, the issue becomes one of honesty of presentation and respect for the purposes of the forum. It is certainly possible for someone to post a small-format digital capture, not mention its origin, and pass it off as a large format image (the photo equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell"). We would hope that people here would be more honest, however, and simply post the (presumably interesting) image in the appropriate area - The Lounge.
Over the years, we have gone through several iterations of individuals wanting to extend the definition of "large format" to include high-pixel-count images made with small-format digital cameras (either directly or via "stitching" - combining multiple images). Our image policies reflect the fact that we have no interest in doing so, or in changing the name of the site to "The Any Format Photography Forum".
How about alternative capture without a camera vs alternative printing.
Direct x-ray on 2 - 11x14 sheets of HP-5 then scanned and joined in photoshop.
This should bring up a few questions regarding what is appropriate LF and what is not. No camera used here and the 2 11x14 sheets of HP-5 would be considered the end product. Would the sheets of film as end product be considered alternative if prints are normally the final product? Film is a silver gelatin product but on a plastic base. Would Man Ray's Rayograms be considered LF and alternative if they were done on 11x14 film or at least something as large as 4x5? If were talking alternative then let's discuss a truly alternative process.