Why the resurgence in wet-plate photography?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

...I myself became aware of WPC as something that I could actually do at home--as opposed to an antique process practiced only by a handful of expert craftsmen...

Social media may well be one of the main factors, especially if we include forum like this one. I think Bob Szabo's Reenactor's Wet Plate Forum was key in getting information out to a new generation of practitioners. However, I also agree that the ease and affordability of wet plate has a lot to do with its recent successes in comparison to other "antique processes." I am one of a handful of people who teach Daguerreotypy, an "antique process" which has many of the charms of collodion but has never taken off like wet plate, and probably never will. This is a much more difficult and expensive process (and always was), and is certainly "practiced only by a handful of expert craftsmen."

[SergeiR]

Dunno about affordability..

Kit for 60-70 CWP is about 330$ + need actual plates, Same amount of sheet film - about 200-250$.. So may be compared to Daguerrotype.. yes.. To film - nope.

Not saying its bad. I would love to learn and being able to do them (DT too) , but i shoot most of my stuff away from darkroom, so its a bit troublesome for me.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jonathan,

You make an excellent point about a potential basis for the attraction, and I think it applies to all forms of chemical imaging, to a greater or lesser degree.

Jason,

There's a young man in Seattle named Daniel Carillo, who is making Daguerreotypes. He's just begun, and I plan to visit his studio within the next week to see his plates. Carillo is best known for his WPC work -- mostly portraits of local artists. I'm looking forward to meeting him and seeing his work in person.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vaporst...n/photostream/

[cyrus]

Personally, I started getting interested in WPC for the simple reason that I was getting concerned about the continued availablity of LF film and wanted to be able to continue non-digital photography, which limited me to either dryplate or wetplate. The fact that you don't have to use cyanide or mercury etc. probably contributes to WPC's popularity over dags. I'm also concerned about the continued availablity of sensitized gel for other processes like photogravure

I think the biggest explanation is as a backlash to digital as others have mentioned.

[dwross]

For a while now I've been curious about why dry plate photography hasn't gained more ground. It's never had a "Sally Mann" effect, and without a doubt WPC has the whole instant photography thing going for it. It looks cool. These are by no means trivial reasons for embracing a process, but dry plate photography is easier on every front. Safer, too. Cheaper. The emulsion sensitivity can be far, far faster. There's still a window open for anyone to really put their own mark on a photographic process.

Without going too far off topic, I'd love to hear other people's opinions. Why not dry plate photography or handmade film? I'm a dry plate photographer and I'm in the process of trying to decide whether I'll put resources into promoting workshops, or if I'll just cocoon down into my own work. Input from the folks on this forum, for whom I have infinite respect, would be a great favor. Thanks in advance to anyone who would care to offer their opinions.

d

[tgtaylor]

I seriously doubt that the current interest in wet-plate photography, or any of the alternative processes for that matter, is a result of “backlash” against digital photography. The booming interest in alternative processes is more likely the result of a surge of interest in photography among the public in general and the natural curiosity of the more serious of those to search more deeply into the history of photography and have the desire to reproduce the results obtained by past generations of photographers. At least that is how I became interested in the alternative processes

[MDR]

Diane most good dry plate formulas seem way more complicated than their wetplate counterpart which seem very easy to mix. Your kitchen emulsion and Kevin Kleins formula are the exceptions. Don't Cocoon yourself I love your homepage and thank you for your efforts in promoting dry plate photography.

One of the things that draws people to the wp is their slowness everything takes time furthermore ambrotypes do have a very different look to dryplates even when used in the form of ambrotypes. Another thing is the romance/mystique that surrounds the Wetplate, it's a genuine 19th century process whereas Dryplate is always badmouthed as beeing to close to modern film. Especially in the US the Wetplate movement seems to be very close to the civil war reenactment crowd and if you like the time you choose the correct tool in this case wetplate.

Wish you the best of luck for your future workshops
Dominik

[jcoldslabs]

For a while now I've been curious about why dry plate photography hasn't gained more ground....dry plate photography is easier on every front.

I may be misinformed, but the reading I have done on dry plate--which is something I'd love to try--makes it seem far more complicated and exacting than wet plate, especially the emulsion drying process. Doesn't this involve a perfectly level piece of marble and an enclosed dust-free space in which to cure the plates? Wet plate seems to have more slop tolerance built into the process. If you want perfect looking plates then perhaps not, but I have seen a wide range of WPC images ranging from smooth and flawless to the haphazard, Sally Mann-style. In other words, mastery of dry plate appears more difficult, or at least that is my impression.

If you would like to disabuse me of the above notions, please do!

Jonathan

P.S. A workshop sounds like a great idea, and you're close enough for me to attend.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I seriously doubt that the current interest in ... any of the alternative processes... is a result of “backlash” against digital photography...

My anecdotal data--from in-depth conversations with the 100+ students I have taught over the past six years--suggests that this indeed is the case; most are not satisfied with digital, and seek a more hands-on approach. I don't mean to say they are Luddites, most bring digital cameras with them to the workshops, and the professionals all use digital capture, but many are seeking something else for personal expression.

For a while now I've been curious about why dry plate photography hasn't gained more ground...

Denise, we can also ask why so few of the collodion cult make wet-plate negatives, and the answer is the same, it lacks instant gratification and wow-factor of watching it pop from negative to positive. In any case, I would love to take a workshop.

[Jimi]

I've been thinking about this wet/dry plate thing during the last few days... and I guess the big turn-off is the seemingly complicated process from a bunch of silver nitrate up to the dry plate, ready for exposure. Like just finding (or making) the burette, it entailed details (on APUG) about using a special sort of protection glasses when bending a glass tube over a burner...

If it would be possible to break down even more, getting people into just doing the coating (of silver emulsion) on plates and then drying... then I guess you could get some people up and running. Rockaloid dryplate kits. Or whatever have you - to get people on the wagon.

But on the other hand... people are doing Calotypes, which makes collodion and dryplates seem like kindergarten, with the myriad recipes and finicky paper selection, so yes, why? I guess it comes down to not enough critical mass. We need more dudes and dudettes hanging around Facebook and youtube and Flickr, doing things with dryplates/DIY film, showing what you can do and that it is not hard.