Wet Plate Collodion questions answered here.

[paulbarden]

New to the Wet Plate Collodion process? It can be intimidating, and there is a steep learning curve. If you have questions (and you will!), the more experienced members here can hopefully answer them for you here.

Paul

[Tin Can]

Tell me about egg white plate edge application
Please

[Ari]

I'm waiting for the materials and some hardware to arrive. B&S 4x5 wet plate kit shipped today.
Film holder, tank, plates and lens are coming soon.

I started this back in 2015, managed to get 2 good plates out of the 40 or so I tried, and decided to shelve wet plate as my daughter was starting to walk and get into stuff.
I'm not sure why it stopped working for me after the first few promising plates. Maybe the silver bath and my home-made tank didn't get along. Maybe I mixed something wrong. I never found out and sold my gear soon after.
Back then I had very few troubleshooting resources, but I'll be posting here when I can with any and all questions.

[Tin Can]

I look forward to your participation

[paulbarden]

Tell me about egg white plate edge application
Please

Ahh yes, “edging the plate”. What is this and what is it’s purpose?

It’s the application, by Q-tip, of a dilute solution of egg albumen and water to the outer 1/8” of the cleaned surface of a piece of glass, prepared for making an Ambrotype (positive image on glass) or a negative.*

What is the reason for doing this? Even on a meticulously clean Piece of glass, the collodion doesn’t want to adhere tightly, especially at the edges of the plate. By applying a thin band of dilute albumen to the outer edges of the glass, the adhesion of the collodion is greatly improved. If the collodion is going to lift off the glass, it always starts to peel away at one of the edges, so this prevents that from happening. You still have to be meticulous about cleaning the glass**, but edging with albumen is the final step that guarantees adherence.

Materials:
One egg white
500ml of distilled water
A glass jar for storage
A whisk, or equivalent.

How to:
Separate the egg white from the yolk, and discard the yolk. Do not get any yolk in the whites or you’ll have to discard it and start again!
Put the egg white and the distilled water in a very clean (preferably glass) bowl and whip it thoroughly. Discard the frothy part and pour the clear portion in a jar for storage (lasts in the fridge for about 6 months). I use small mason style jars which have a metal lid, so I put a film of thin plastic over the mouth of the jar before fitting the lid; exposure to metal lids can induce rust which you don’t want.

To apply the albumen, just dip a Q-tip in the solution, and run the Q-tip along the top edge of the glass to leave a 1/8” line of albumen. It takes some practice to find a way to drag the Q-tip along the edge to make a clean line, but it’s not difficult.
Allow the albumen at least ten minutes to dry, and you’re ready to pour collodion and make a plate. You can prepare several pieces of glass days in advance and that won’t be a problem. I like to have 8 or 10 plates prepped and in the rack, ready to use at any moment.

*the main difference between an Ambrotype and a glass collodion negative is the density (a negative takes about two times as much exposure as a positive) and the formulation of the developer used.
** Cleaning a piece of glass involves not only a thorough scrubbing with a mixture of Calcium carbonate ("whiting", or powdered chalk) in water and alcohol, but the edges of the glass should be "de-burred" by rubbing the sharp edges, both top and bottom, with a sharpening stone (or equivalent), to take off the sharp edges, and make a rough edge that helps the collodion adhere to the plate. Some people use sandpaper to de-burr the edges, and that works fine too. I prefer a sharpening stone because it will last for years and is a more precise tool for the job, IMO.

[cuypers1807]

I avoid applying albumen by making the edges of the glass rough with sandpaper. The emulsion just needs something to hang onto so it doesn't slide off the edge.

[paulbarden]

I avoid applying albumen by making the edges of the glass rough with sandpaper. The emulsion just needs something to hang onto so it doesn't slide off the edge.

Yes, sometimes the rough edges can be enough to hold the collodion to the glass, but I have had an occasional plate shuck the collodion, so I like to edge with albumen, that way it always sticks. Edging with albumen adds an extra step, its true, but it takes a few seconds to do it, so I think its worth it. By all means, see if you can manage without the albumen edging, but the plate has to be meticulously clean to succeed.

[Tin Can]

This is an issue for me. Years ago I bought 200 5X7 glass plates to use for Dry Plate, per Denise Ross http://thelightfarm.com/ Lost momentum and never used them

I used Howard Glass http://www.howardglass.com/index.html on the recommendation of someone here

I had them polish the edges, they packed them very well with interleaving paper and extremely clean. I still have them...and they fit my wood plate holders

So, I suppose I will need to test and see if albumen is needed

I also need to test if they are clean enough right now

If not I ordered the Lund Cleaning clamp, as I tried a normal twin screw clamp and realized it was a waste of time

One day perhaps we can copy and paste this new thread into a better home...

[Mark Sawyer]

I've had good luck sanding the glass edges with a belt sander to help the collodion stick. I also round the corners just a hair. I consider it necessary to avoid little cuts to the fingers while handling the plates anyways.

[paulbarden]

This is an issue for me. Years ago I bought 200 5X7 glass plates to use for Dry Plate, per Denise Ross http://thelightfarm.com/ Lost momentum and never used them

I used Howard Glass http://www.howardglass.com/index.html on the recommendation of someone here

I had them polish the edges, they packed them very well with interleaving paper and extremely clean. I still have them...and they fit my wood plate holders

So, I suppose I will need to test and see if albumen is needed

I also need to test if they are clean enough right now


Wet Plate clean isn't the same as "clean from the supplier", I expect. The issue here is that to clean glass for collodion, the surface has to be lightly etched by an abrasive, which is what the calcium carbonate is. Anecdotally, I gather some people have had success by putting a load of glass through a dishwasher cycle and found that sufficient, but I have not tried it myself, so I can't say if that works or not. I prefer to stick with tried and true methods and use whiting and elbow grease.

Frankly, I wouldn't waste the $$ on a cleaning clamp. Its quite unnecessary. You can get a piece of rubber hobby mat and just lay it down on your work surface and it will hold the glass without risk of breakage. For 8x10 glass, I place a damp tea towel on the kitchen counter and clean my glass on that. The damp towel holds the glass very nicely. The plate vise Lund sells is for standard thickness window glass, NOT the thin stuff. Without support under the thinner glass, it will break when you attempt to clean it.

What is the thickness of the Howard glass? I've considered buying their 1.3mm glass, but I found my local dollar store sells 8x10 picture frames that have 1.2mm glass in them (sometimes its closer to 1.5mm), so that's what I use these days. Its the same thickness that Jason Lane uses for his dry plates.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Some people also use amino silane as an additive to salted collodion to support adhesion. I think it is primarily use for Carbon printing. I tried it in place of albumen and did not find that it was effective. Has anyone used it?

[Tin Can]

Yes, I know that frame, really nice glass MCS Format Frame 8x10 (https://www.pfile.com/product/j-ff-81/?r=GB-J-FF-81___BL&utm_source=google%2Bproducts&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=GB-J-FF-81___BL&gclid=CjwKCAjw5cL2BRASEiwAENqAPnJorzE8NNGSFbwcCvq0KTV4wrLq6EDG33F5fXu7ig50zA3ArEaEBhoCwaMQAvD_BwE)

I just measured one 5X7 it is 1.5 mm, using a too big Digi caliber. Probably 1.6 mm

Ok, I read about cleaning the glass, but nobody ever mentioned that is roughs the surface. Makes total sense!

So does the other cleaning advice

I am NOT buying a Dishwasher!

Too late on the clamp, it will be useful for larger sizes

I spent decades working very fragile shims, by hand, my fingers are clubs but do know how to be very gentle.

Glass is far stronger if it has no flaw

I cut one down to 1/2 plate last night

I used to sell tools, so I like buying them too.

[Oren Grad]

Moved to a new home.

Have at it, and enjoy!

[Two23]

My plan is to start trying glass negatives very soon. I will start with 4x5 since that's easiest to work with, and I have a ton of 4x5 dry plates I screwed up. I might try putting those in the dishwasher to clean them. Will have to wait until my wife isn't home.


Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

Some people also use amino silane as an additive to salted collodion to support adhesion. I think it is primarily use for Carbon printing. I tried it in place of albumen and did not find that it was effective. Has anyone used it?

When I bought my B&S kit three years ago, I followed the instructions for using Amino silane to get better adhesion on glass, and all it did was make a mess of plates and ruin a batch of collodion. I found that a careful cleaning of glass was all that was needed to get good adhesion. I recommend pursuing good cleaning techniques and don't bother with Amino silane.

[Ari]

Funny, a friend who is very well-versed in WP told me the same thing today wrt the B&S kit.
She also added that the 7% nitric acid, for maintaining the silver bath, is unnecessary.
Anyone have similar views on the nitric acid?

[Tin Can]

Somewhere and long ago I read that some people made a penny clearing used Plates to recycle bad ones


My plan is to start trying glass negatives very soon. I will start with 4x5 since that's easiest to work with, and I have a ton of 4x5 dry plates I screwed up. I might try putting those in the dishwasher to clean them. Will have to wait until my wife isn't home.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

Funny, a friend who is very well-versed in WP told me the same thing today wrt the B&S kit.
She also added that the 7% nitric acid, for maintaining the silver bath, is unnecessary.
Anyone have similar views on the nitric acid?


I added the recommended drops of nitric acid to my first bath, about 500ml in a Lund 5x7 tank. All looked very good. In February I bought a Lund 8x10 tank that holds 1.5L. I dumped the 500ml in and mixed up 1L new silver solution and dumped it all together. The tins didn't seem as crisp and the contrast seemed lower. I couldn't figure out what was going on all of a sudden. Then I remembered I had not added any additional nitric acid. I checked pH and it was around 6. I added about a dozen drops of acid until the pH was about 4.5. There is a subtle but noticeable difference in the tins now--more crisp. Many "instructors" tell you to add the acid but don't over do it. Frem what I remember John Coffer and Mark Osterman recommend the acid drops, but apparently Quinn does not.


Kent in SD

[Tin Can]

PH is likely very important, water may have a PH variable

But I really don't know yet

Found this video, Ari, 'liked' it 5 years ago

Mixing Silver Nitrate for Wetplate Collodion Photography

https://youtu.be/UXV_OIDkNY4

[Tin Can]

Just noticed on FB Quinn has a live event at 1000 MTS time, perhaps we all should switch to Zulu time as it's less confusing world wide

"Join me tomorrow, May 30, at 1000 hrs MST for the Studio Q Show LIVE!
Come talk about the wet plate collodion process! We'll talk about technical problems, philosophical problems, and even ontological problems (if you want)."


This means my lawn mowing is delayed, first dry day in 9 days

[paulbarden]

Just noticed on FB Quinn has a live event at 1000 MTS time, perhaps we all should switch to Zulu time as it's less confusing world wide

"Join me tomorrow, May 30, at 1000 hrs MST for the Studio Q Show LIVE!
Come talk about the wet plate collodion process! We'll talk about technical problems, philosophical problems, and even ontological problems (if you want)."


This means my lawn mowing is delayed, first dry day in 9 days

Grass can wait.

Quinn has been doing these live Q&A broadcasts for a few months now, in part to remain “social” in a time that in-person interactions aren’t possible in the normal way, and in part to help promote the book. (I genuinely believe Quinn’s motivation is primarily the former) These broadcasts are typically 90 minutes long, give or take, and he’s been doing many of them via Zoom, so people can participate in a classroom style manner.

Quinn has decades of experience in the wet plate collodion process - he knows what he’s doing. He knows how to guide a novice through the learning phase to get consistently good work, and how to avoid the common mistakes a new practitioner is inclined to make. In the video Q&A sessions, he has a very casual, conversational style, and that makes him accessible. But he’s also a bit inclined to ramble (and he knows it) so it takes some effort on the part of the viewer to sort and digest the information he’s presenting. But trust me, it’s worth it. Not everyone appreciates his style, but he’s personable and committed to helping people learn. That counts for a lot. I suggest you tune in for an episode and decide for yourself!

[paulbarden]

I added the recommended drops of nitric acid to my first bath, about 500ml in a Lund 5x7 tank. All looked very good. In February I bought a Lund 8x10 tank that holds 1.5L. I dumped the 500ml in and mixed up 1L new silver solution and dumped it all together. The tins didn't seem as crisp and the contrast seemed lower. I couldn't figure out what was going on all of a sudden. Then I remembered I had not added any additional nitric acid. I checked pH and it was around 6. I added about a dozen drops of acid until the pH was about 4.5. There is a subtle but noticeable difference in the tins now--more crisp. Many "instructors" tell you to add the acid but don't over do it. Frem what I remember John Coffer and Mark Osterman recommend the acid drops, but apparently Quinn does not.


Kent in SD

There’s a couple of things going on here: if you mix a previously used silver bath with a new bath then you’ve got a silver bath that’s 2/3 virgin silver in there. The contrast isn’t going to be the same as the well-used bath. After you’ve made a few plates, the performance would improve: a brand new silver bath tends to be low in contrast and more inclined to fogging. By adding a bit more nitric acid, you “sped up” that process. Adding acid to a new silver bath Isn’t wrong, but it isn’t always necessary. In Kent’s case, the evidence suggested it would help set the bath straight, and it did.

So why do some practitioners not recommend it? In many instances it’s just not necessary: most brand new silver baths are closer to pH 5.0 when made than what Kent experienced. (Most purchased distilled water is already mildly acidic, did you know?) It’s useful to know the pH of the bath beforeadding nitric acid by default, because if you start with a bath at pH 5, and add more acid, you’re likely to end up with an excessively acidic bath. That will have two effects: your plates will be very contrasty, and your plates will be much less light sensitive (a much lower ASA). It’s best to avoid both of these conditions, especially the latter. So, I don’t recommend blindly adding nitric acid to a virgin silver bath without testing its pH first. It may be quite unnecessary.

[Two23]

PH is likely very important, water may have a PH variable

But I really don't know yet

Found this video, Ari, 'liked' it 5 years ago

Mixing Silver Nitrate for Wetplate Collodion Photography

https://youtu.be/UXV_OIDkNY4

Only use DISTILLED water for mixing silver
I use distilled water for all chemicals.

Kent in SD

[Tin Can]

Me too, and drink it

I have 30 gallons on hand, always


Only use DISTILLED water for mixing silver
I use distilled water for all chemicals.

Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

PH is likely very important, water may have a PH variable

But I really don't know yet

Found this video, Ari, 'liked' it 5 years ago

Mixing Silver Nitrate for Wetplate Collodion Photography

https://youtu.be/UXV_OIDkNY4

Funny to make an 8 minute video demonstrating something that can be illustrated in 2 minutes or less.

The person who made that video omitted something from the demo that could lead to misinterpretation: after testing pH and bottling up his AgNO3 solution, he says it’s ready for making the first plate. That is not quite correct! Before making plates with a brand new silver bath, it must be “excited” by introducing iodides and bromides. This is done by pouring collodion on a cleaned plate of glass and putting it in the silver bath for 6-10 hours (overnight is what most people do). This allows the iodides/bromides to leach into the bath and kick start the process. A new bath put into service without this priming step will produce very poor plates; low contrast, fogging, etc.

So I find it a bit misleading in that video to suggest the new bath is ready to be put into service. Some people will interpret thus to mean it is 100% ready to go, which it is not. It must have salted collodion introduced into it to “excite” the bath. Don’t skip this step or you’ll make some really bad plates at the start!

[goamules]

It's the Misinformation Highway. Everyone is an expert, except they're not. But they want to be. But they're not..... rinse and repeat.

That's why I liked Coffer's Doer's Guide. It was hand written back when I learned, and xeroxed hard copy to you! He drew little pictures to explain points. He had a "mythbusters" thing going for a while, when the internet "experts" started to raise their heads....after 2 months of doing wetplate. Or worse, after just reading about it then commenting to newbie questions with wrong answers.

Later, Coffer added some DVDs that show him doing things, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And a moving picture a million. They were great, he's sitting in a tent, old cork top bottles all around, and a chicken walks under his feet as he's talking!

[drewf64]

Quick follow up to the posts re: albumenizing the plate edges .......
Some people, my self included, choose to albumenize the ENTIRE plate as recommended by Quinn Jacobson, for situations where you will be RE-DEVELOPING glass plate negatives to achieve additional density.
Because the albumen layer is very thin and difficult to see, I "round" (with sandpaper or stone) the upper right hand corner in the way similar to film notch cutting.
*** When I hold the plate in portrait orientation with the rounded corner in the upper right position, the albumenized side (and later the emulsion side) is facing me.
Takes two minutes to do when cutting the plate & sanding edges and quickly confirms which side is up/down.

[Tin Can]

My plan is still the one Garrett recommended, use one source for edumacation, at first I was going Coffer, now spent my $75 on Quinn

Waiting patiently for the Book of Quinn and in 5 minutes watching interactive live feed Quinn, I pointed to earlier


It's the Misinformation Highway. Everyone is an expert, except they're not. But they want to be. But they're not..... rinse and repeat.

That's why I liked Coffer's Doer's Guide. It was hand written back when I learned, and xeroxed hard copy to you! He drew little pictures to explain points. He had a "mythbusters" thing going for a while, when the internet "experts" started to raise their heads....after 2 months of doing wetplate. Or worse, after just reading about it then commenting to newbie questions with wrong answers.

Later, Coffer added some DVDs that show him doing things, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And a moving picture a million. They were great, he's sitting in a tent, old cork top bottles all around, and a chicken walks under his feet as he's talking!

[Tin Can]

Seems I lost Quinn on FB

Can't find him now, searching shows he has migrated a bit this year

Maybe next time

[paulbarden]

Quick follow up to the posts re: albumenizing the plate edges .......
Some people, my self included, choose to albumenize the ENTIRE plate as recommended by Quinn Jacobson, for situations where you will be RE-DEVELOPING glass plate negatives to achieve additional density.
Because the albumen layer is very thin and difficult to see, I "round" (with sandpaper or stone) the upper right hand corner in the way similar to film notch cutting.
*** When I hold the plate in portrait orientation with the rounded corner in the upper right position, the albumenized side (and later the emulsion side) is facing me.
Takes two minutes to do when cutting the plate & sanding edges and quickly confirms which side is up/down.

This is a perfectly good approach to albumenizing a glass plate, yes.

One note: if you plan to redevelop the plate using the iodine rehalogenation method Quinn advocates, you can do it without albumenizing the whole plate if you use Ferrous sulfate in the redeveloper formula rather than Pyrogallic acid. This is because Pyrogallic acid tends to shrink the collodion, whereas the Ferrous sulfate does not.
Ive used the iodine redevelopment process (with Ferrous sulfate) on my negatives without any issues, and a thin band of albumen on the outer edges of the glass is sufficient to hold the collodion on the glass.

[drewf64]

This is a perfectly good approach to albumenizing a glass plate, yes.

One note: if you plan to redevelop the plate using the iodine rehalogenation method Quinn advocates, you can do it without albumenizing the whole plate if you use Ferrous sulfate in the redeveloper formula rather than Pyrogallic acid. This is because Pyrogallic acid tends to shrink the collodion, whereas the Ferrous sulfate does not.
Ive used the iodine redevelopment process (with Ferrous sulfate) on my negatives without any issues, and a thin band of albumen on the outer edges of the glass is sufficient to hold the collodion on the glass.

Thanks, Paul ... great heads-up!
I will try the ferrous sulfate after I run down my pyro supply!
Drew

[paulbarden]

Thanks, Paul ... great heads-up!
I will try the ferrous sulfate after I run down my pyro supply!
Drew

Drew, bear in mind that FeSO4 and Pyrogallic acid behave differently in a redeveloper formula, the latter being a staining agent more than a reducing agent. I have personally only used FeSO4 in the redeveloper and found it works very well, but Quinn advocates for Pyrogallic acid, as he feels it gives a slightly more nuanced result. I can't speak to that, but my negatives are rich in tonality and deliver plenty of nuanced values. Here is a scan of a recent glass negative, redeveloped using FeSO4 redeveloper: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49936123887_83c126e761_k.jpg

[Two23]

I've been using the ferrous sulfate and it works well for me, once I figured it out. Last month I bought some copper developer and tried it. I love the color but have yet to get a good result. I went back to the ferrous sulfate.


Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

I've been using the ferrous sulfate and it works well for me, once I figured it out. Last month I bought some copper developer and tried it. I love the color but have yet to get a good result. I went back to the ferrous sulfate.


Kent in SD

Kent, I am referring to FeSO4 in a REdeveloper formula, not a developer. A redeveloper is something done to a glass negative after processing, fixing and washing to build additional density on the plate. This is generally done to make the negative more suitable for albumen and salt printing, as these POP processes require a lot of density in upper values to make a good print.

[drewf64]

Drew, bear in mind that FeSO4 and Pyrogallic acid behave differently in a redeveloper formula, the latter being a staining agent more than a reducing agent. I have personally only used FeSO4 in the redeveloper and found it works very well, but Quinn advocates for Pyrogallic acid, as he feels it gives a slightly more nuanced result. I can't speak to that, but my negatives are rich in tonality and deliver plenty of nuanced values. Here is a scan of a recent glass negative, redeveloped using FeSO4 redeveloper: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49936123887_83c126e761_k.jpg

Paul:
The tonality of this negative is incredible!! I have admired your work in FB Collodion sites many times ... Outstanding work!

*** Yesterday I asked two questions in Kent's "The Fisherman" post as a follow-up to the advise that you detailed for Exposing & Developing Collodion POSITIVE plates. (my questions are in post #8.) I am not sure that i posted in the best location ...
* I am looking for help for exposing & developing collodion NEGATIVES.
1. What would be your recommended starting developing time for collodion negatives?
2. What starting exposures would you recommend for:
A. Direct sun portraits? and
B. Open shade with north light for portraits?
3. Additionally, is it reasonable to "lock in" this developing time and adjust exposure to achieve desired density? (in the same manner that you advised for Positives ...)
I am new to wet plate: making only negatives (to make albumen prints); using a B&S wet plate collodion kit; diluting the developer 1:5 (per their guide); 300mm CZ Jena Tessar f4.5 lens.
*** I have been all over the place with exposures and developing times ... I need to re-group and re-start with a fixed developing time!
Thank you!
Drew

[paulbarden]

Paul:
The tonality of this negative is incredible!! I have admired your work in FB Collodion sites many times ... Outstanding work!

*** Yesterday I asked two questions in Kent's "The Fisherman" post as a follow-up to the advise that you detailed for Exposing & Developing Collodion POSITIVE plates. (my questions are in post #8.) I am not sure that i posted in the best location ...
* I am looking for help for exposing & developing collodion NEGATIVES.
1. What would be your recommended starting developing time for collodion negatives?
2. What starting exposures would you recommend for:
A. Direct sun portraits? and
B. Open shade with north light for portraits?
3. Additionally, is it reasonable to "lock in" this developing time and adjust exposure to achieve desired density? (in the same manner that you advised for Positives ...)
I am new to wet plate: making only negatives (to make albumen prints); using a B&S wet plate collodion kit; diluting the developer 1:5 (per their guide); 300mm CZ Jena Tessar f4.5 lens.
*** I have been all over the place with exposures and developing times ... I need to re-group and re-start with a fixed developing time!
Thank you!
Drew

Hi Drew, sorry I missed your questions yesterday!

1. recommended developing time for negatives: I see you are using the Bostick & Sullivan kit, and I recall that it includes its house brand of developer concentrate, yes? I used to use it, but I don't remember the dilution and development times. I do know it recommended a much longer development time for both positives and negatives than a standard recipe dictates. They recommend up to 60 seconds for positives, right? Something like that. The thing is, the B&S developer uses both Glacial Acetic Acid and Sugar as restrainers, so it can be on the plate far longer than what you would do with a standard developer. If I remember correctly, I found 30 seconds for positives was ideal with the B&S recipe, and at least 60 seconds for negatives. These days I make up developers from scratch, because there are circumstances where you need to tweak the formula to get best results (in warmer weather, for example: you need more restrainer). But there's nothing wrong with the B&S developer. I suggest you follow their instructions, but lean toward the shorter times.

2. Exposure times: You need to find your own method for determining exposure times. A lot depends on what lenses you use, etc., and your exposure technique has to be tailored to your equipment. But I can tell you this: I gave up trying to use a light meter two years ago. The best thing is to learn to make informed guesses. You can either make a "test strip" plate first, if you are really unfamiliar with the lighting conditions, or simply take a guess, make the plate, and then evaluate it and adjust for the next plate. I've never made portraits in full sun (I dislike the light qualities), and in open north shade I find I typically get exposures between 5 and 30 seconds with a lens in the f3.5 to f5.0 range. Trial and error will get you acquainted with exposures!

3. Developing negatives: You will have a bit of leeway when developing negatives, since there is more restrainer/less FeSO4 in a negative developer, and that lets you leave the developer on the plate longer, if needed. With the developer formula I generally use, it lets me develop a good plate in as little as 30 seconds, or as long as 90 seconds, but I generally aim for 60. Is it a good idea to standardize your development time for negatives, and adjust exposure to fit? Yes, definitely. If you start out using the same "middle ground" development time every plate, and adjust exposure to fit that time, you will learn how to produce consistent work far faster than someone who is always adjusting development to fit the exposure.

I think you'll find you learn more and advance your technique faster if you stick with the optimal development time, and make everything else fit that time.
I look forward to seeing your work. That Tessar will be a pleasure to work with!

Paul

[Tin Can]

Paul, would you say the B&S kit I bought was a mistake?

Meaning should I have simply 'mixed' all chemistry myself?

If so, which one data source (book) is best to follow?

Lastly, it is impossible for me to take a class in person anywhere, which most recomend.

[cuypers1807]

Using the B&S kit to start is a smart move. There are so many variables in wet plate. Knowing the chemistry is mixed properly allows you to just focus on technique.

[paulbarden]

Paul, would you say the B&S kit I bought was a mistake?

Meaning should I have simply 'mixed' all chemistry myself?

If so, which one data source (book) is best to follow?

Lastly, it is impossible for me to take a class in person anywhere, which most recomend.

Not at all! The B&S kit is ideal for a new practitioner. It’s what I bought when I started wet plate three years ago (in fact, almost exactly three years, to the day) Why is it ideal, when it seems everyone eventually moves on to making their own chemistry?

Because the Bostick & Sullivan kit spells everything out very clearly in their instructions, making a tricky process appear as simple as possible. Not all of the techniques The B&S kit describes follow traditional protocol (the use of amino silane, and their somewhat unusual proprietary developer recipe, for example) but their kit helps make it easier for someone learning for the first time.

The B&S developer is a good example - t’s a Ferrous sulfate developer, which is traditional, but it is a concentrate that uses two restrainers rather than one: a chemical restrainer (Acetic acid) and a physical restrainer (the sugar). Why do they use two restrainers? It allows the user to leave the developer on the plate far longer than they normally can if using a traditional developer recipe. That is a very useful thing for a beginner! Applying the developer can be one of the most difficult aspects of the process: it’s not easy to flow developer evenly and quickly, and have it remain on the plate for only 12-15 seconds! (And the larger the plate, the greater a challenge this is. I definitely recommend sticking with smaller sizes at first, like 4x5) So if you have 60 seconds to work the developer on the plate using the B&S formula, then you have more time to distribute the developer over the entire surface without leaving bare spots on the plate (which will result in blank black regions). I won’t kid you, flowing developer on the plate quickly and evenly, without spilling it off the plate is a real dexterity trick, but it can be learned. It might be helpful to practice with a bare aluminum plate and water, just to get a sense of what has to happen. Of course, the physics of using the real materials is different, but at least you can get an idea how the action works.

One thing I will add to my comments about the B&S kit is this: they ship you Old Workhorse collodion, and it’s an excellent recipe that will give you good results used as either a positive collodion or a negative collodion: it’s versatile. However it does have one drawback: of all the collodion recipes, Old Workhorse is the most difficult to evaluate visually during the plate development. With most recipes of collodion, you can see how the development is progressing and make split second decisions whether to arrest development at (for example) 45 seconds rather than 60 seconds (using the B&S developer). Old Workhorse doesn’t exhibit visual evidence of the development as conspicuously as some recipes do. This isn’t a huge issue, but I wanted to mention this because as your skills progress, you may want to buy (or assemble for yourself) a different recipe that will let you see more clearly how the plate development progresses. It’s a minor point, but something you may want to be aware of as you proceed. This is yet another reason to try to standardize the development time during your early learning phase. If you eliminate development time as a variable, you’ll understand the exposure component much more easily and you’ll get good results more reliably.

Eventually you will likely want To make your own chemistry from the component ingredients, but not everyone does and that’s okay. Opting to buy premixed chemistry doesn’t make you any less of a wet plater.


Using the B&S kit to start is a smart move. There are so many variables in wet plate. Knowing the chemistry is mixed properly allows you to just focus on technique.

I agree. This is a good reason to stick with prepared chemistry from one of several reliable suppliers. My personal choice is Brian Cuyler at UV Photographics. He offers several variants of collodion recipes, varnish formulas, and developers. You can explore DIY chemistry later, when you feel confident in your techniques.

As for which resource is “best” to use as a guide to making your own chemistry, I think that’s somewhat arbitrary. I have three manuals in my library: the Osterman manual for beginners, both the 2015 and 2019 editions of Quinn Jacobson’s books, and John Coffer’s manual. The Osterman book is the most basic of them all, and it doesn’t offer instruction beyond making positive images on glass or aluminum. It’s an excellent beginners book, but if you want to make negatives and prints (albumen, salt, aristotypes, etc.) then you’ll need a more expanded guide. Both Coffer and Jacobson offer far more information in that regard. Both ‘The Doer’s Guide’ and ‘Chemical Pictures’ go into great detail about wet plate related processes like POP print making, glass negatives, etc. and both provide hours of video instruction to help you get acquainted with the processes.

Both Coffer and Jacobson guide books are excellent. In a way, their biggest difference is in their teaching style. John Coffer is definitely more of a “character” in his approach to teaching, but he knows how to deliver good content. So does Quinn - he’s just a bit more formal. I find I use both of their manuals at times, since both contains unique information relevant to how I work. Could you get by with just one or the other? Yes, absolutely. But I would recommend Quinn’s 2019 edition of Chemical Pictures if you want to pursue making POP prints from negatives: he provides instruction for a variety of POP techniques, whereas John Coffer only talks about Albumen Prints.

You won’t go wrong with either the Jacobson manual or the Coffer guide. I’ve got both and I find value in each, but if you have to pick just one, either will get you where you want to go.

[Tin Can]

Good to know

I am waiting for the Quinn book ordered from Amazon 5 days ago, must be print to order and maybe have it June 5th

I am one of Amazon's best customers, since...no data...

[Tin Can]

Paul , I will standardize asap

As always

Thanks for the reply

[paulbarden]

Paul , I will standardize asap

As always

Thanks for the reply

Happy to be of service. I’m available to answer questions as they arise!

[paulbarden]

Good to know

I am waiting for the Quinn book ordered from Amazon 5 days ago, must be print to order and maybe have it June 5th

I am one of Amazon's best customers, since...no data...

I doubt Quinn's 2020 edition Amazon is offering is "print on demand" since the item sis stated as being "in stock" for immediate shipping.

[drewf64]

Hi Drew, sorry I missed your questions yesterday!

1. recommended developing time for negatives: I see you are using the Bostick & Sullivan kit, and I recall that it includes its house brand of developer concentrate, yes? I used to use it, but I don't remember the dilution and development times. I do know it recommended a much longer development time for both positives and negatives than a standard recipe dictates. They recommend up to 60 seconds for positives, right? Something like that. The thing is, the B&S developer uses both Glacial Acetic Acid and Sugar as restrainers, so it can be on the plate far longer than what you would do with a standard developer. If I remember correctly, I found 30 seconds for positives was ideal with the B&S recipe, and at least 60 seconds for negatives. These days I make up developers from scratch, because there are circumstances where you need to tweak the formula to get best results (in warmer weather, for example: you need more restrainer). But there's nothing wrong with the B&S developer. I suggest you follow their instructions, but lean toward the shorter times.

2. Exposure times: You need to find your own method for determining exposure times. A lot depends on what lenses you use, etc., and your exposure technique has to be tailored to your equipment. But I can tell you this: I gave up trying to use a light meter two years ago. The best thing is to learn to make informed guesses. You can either make a "test strip" plate first, if you are really unfamiliar with the lighting conditions, or simply take a guess, make the plate, and then evaluate it and adjust for the next plate. I've never made portraits in full sun (I dislike the light qualities), and in open north shade I find I typically get exposures between 5 and 30 seconds with a lens in the f3.5 to f5.0 range. Trial and error will get you acquainted with exposures!

3. Developing negatives: You will have a bit of leeway when developing negatives, since there is more restrainer/less FeSO4 in a negative developer, and that lets you leave the developer on the plate longer, if needed. With the developer formula I generally use, it lets me develop a good plate in as little as 30 seconds, or as long as 90 seconds, but I generally aim for 60. Is it a good idea to standardize your development time for negatives, and adjust exposure to fit? Yes, definitely. If you start out using the same "middle ground" development time every plate, and adjust exposure to fit that time, you will learn how to produce consistent work far faster than someone who is always adjusting development to fit the exposure.

I think you'll find you learn more and advance your technique faster if you stick with the optimal development time, and make everything else fit that time.
I look forward to seeing your work. That Tessar will be a pleasure to work with!

Paul



Thank you for your detailed reply, Paul ... GREATLY appreciated!!
* I will lock in a development time and progress from there!
* One of your comments in reply to Tin Can's question earlier today about the B&S supplies was particularly enlightening as I am using a B&S kit with developer diluted 1:5 for negatives as per their directions along with their collodion mixture.
I have been having trouble seeing ANY image come up at times ... so I just kept increasing exposure and/or increasing development time. Of course, this effort has not been productive and served only to confuse me!
Good to know that that is a characteristic of the B&S Ol' Workhorse Collodion.
* Does the Coffer Ol' Workhorse Collodion perform in this way as well or is the recipe somehow different??
* Which of the many Collodion recipes out there are best suited for NEGATIVES? Coffer #7? Jacobson "negative" formula? UVP - xxx? I shoot with natural light only, 80% in open shade/North sky light.
THANK YOU !!
Drew

[goamules]

The issue of an image not appearing very much is not related to the formula. It's related to how old the formula is, as well as possibly how old it's component raw collodion. I've seen this many times before (no pun) with my own home made Old Workhorse. It will show a strong, vivid blue image under development when it is fresh. 3-4 months later it's dim. A few months later you have to just guess when to stop. But the image quality is about the same. I don't know why this happens, but by the time it does for me, I know my exposure times and it's not an issue. But trust me, if you make a batch with fresh collodion and when it's just beginning to ripen (2 weeks is prime), it will show a very strong image developing. Here is some of my fresh Old Workhorse:

https://live.staticflickr.com/2939/14352756082_901248a8fa_c.jpg

In a nutshell - they sent you an old batch (or the two parts have old collodion in Part A), or it got too aged. B&S makes great kits though, I reviewed them a few years ago for an article.

There are tricks to revive it...too much to go into here. Also, keep it cold when not being used. It only lasts a few weeks at room temp, but can last a year if kept cold.

[paulbarden]

Thank you for your detailed reply, Paul ... GREATLY appreciated!!
* I will lock in a development time and progress from there!
* One of your comments in reply to Tin Can's question earlier today about the B&S supplies was particularly enlightening as I am using a B&S kit with developer diluted 1:5 for negatives as per their directions along with their collodion mixture.
I have been having trouble seeing ANY image come up at times ... so I just kept increasing exposure and/or increasing development time. Of course, this effort has not been productive and served only to confuse me!
Good to know that that is a characteristic of the B&S Ol' Workhorse Collodion.
* Does the Coffer Ol' Workhorse Collodion perform in this way as well or is the recipe somehow different??
* Which of the many Collodion recipes out there are best suited for NEGATIVES? Coffer #7? Jacobson "negative" formula? UVP - xxx? I shoot with natural light only, 80% in open shade/North sky light.
THANK YOU !!
Drew

Hi Drew, good to hear from you!
Old Workhorse, no matter who makes it, is the same recipe and it behaves the same way whether you make it yourself (I do this) IR buy it from any one of several suppliers. It is just an unfortunate trait of this recipe. I used to find it very frustrating, watching for signs of shadow development, but then I just standardized the development time and things started to become clear.

Negative collodion recipes: I’ve used Coffer’s #7 and Quinn’s Negative Collodion. Both work very well. I’ve found that Coffer’s #7 ages very quickly and is much more inclined to produce unwanted artifacts around the plate edges once its 4-6 weeks old (and older). That may or may not be a problem, depending on your goals. Quinn’s recipe lasts much longer, is cheaper to make (fewer salts) and appears to have very similar traits to Coffer’s #7. You could easily choose either and get satisfactory results.
Since I always have some Old Workhorse available, I sometimes use that fir making negatives: it’s perfectly suitable for that, though John Coffer says that it makes a “softer” (less contrasty) negative than a formula specifically for negatives. In my experience, the differences are subtle. I have made many excellent negatives with Old Workhorse that I often redevelop or intensify as a final step.


The issue of an image not appearing very much is not related to the formula. It's related to how old the formula is, as well as possibly how old it's component raw collodion. I've seen this many times before (no pun) with my own home made Old Workhorse. It will show a strong, vivid blue image under development when it is fresh. 3-4 months later it's dim. A few months later you have to just guess when to stop. But the image quality is about the same. I don't know why this happens, but by the time it does for me, I know my exposure times and it's not an issue. But trust me, if you make a batch with fresh collodion and when it's just beginning to ripen (2 weeks is prime), it will show a very strong image developing.

In a nutshell - they sent you an old batch (or the two parts have old collodion in Part A), or it got too aged. B&S makes great kits though, I reviewed them a few years ago for an article.

I don't disagree with Garrett, but my own experience has not been much like his. I've made Old Workhorse from scratch myself, and the developing image is difficult to see (compared to many other recipes) no matter how new or old it is. Yes, it gets worse as the collodion ages, but I have not found it to be great even when quite fresh. Maybe its the developer recipe I use, I don't know. As I said, its not a major flaw and shouldn't deter people from using it. But if you prefer to work by being able to SEE the image forming on the plate as the developer does its job, then Old Workhorse may not be your best choice. My opinion, of course. YMMV

As regards the B&S collodion: they state on their web site about their Old Workhorse "We pre-mix this collodion and let it age for a couple of days before sending it out." I've bought it from them in my starter kit, and after the first batch got used up, and I can attest to the fact that what they ship is quite well aged, not just "a few days old": its deep red, which signifies that it has aged for (probably) a month or more. So unless their kits have changed significantly in the past three years, you can expect your Old Workhorse collodion is going to be quite ripe and will be difficult to judge by visual development.

[Tin Can]

Addendum...............Amazon is fast, the hydrometer I ordered Saturday is here now

The Quinn book just shipped now from South Carolina to be delivered Friday

That’s 7 days to ship an ‘in stock’ item

Who knows, it is coming...

I have made 82 orders in 6 months from old buddy Amazon

Most were very fast




I doubt Quinn's 2020 edition Amazon is offering is "print on demand" since the item sis stated as being "in stock" for immediate shipping.

[Bill Rolph]

I have a question regarding some intermittent soapy looking artifacts on my positive plates, made with the BS kit and trophy aluminium, such as on the two attached images. I'd appreciate any insight into what causes these. Thanks.
204405204406

[drewf64]

Hi Drew, good to hear from you!
Old Workhorse, no matter who makes it, is the same recipe and it behaves the same way whether you make it yourself (I do this) IR buy it from any one of several suppliers. It is just an unfortunate trait of this recipe. I used to find it very frustrating, watching for signs of shadow development, but then I just standardized the development time and things started to become clear.

Negative collodion recipes: I’ve used Coffer’s #7 and Quinn’s Negative Collodion. Both work very well. I’ve found that Coffer’s #7 ages very quickly and is much more inclined to produce unwanted artifacts around the plate edges once its 4-6 weeks old (and older). That may or may not be a problem, depending on your goals. Quinn’s recipe lasts much longer, is cheaper to make (fewer salts) and appears to have very similar traits to Coffer’s #7. You could easily choose either and get satisfactory results.
Since I always have some Old Workhorse available, I sometimes use that fir making negatives: it’s perfectly suitable for that, though John Coffer says that it makes a “softer” (less contrasty) negative than a formula specifically for negatives. In my experience, the differences are subtle. I have made many excellent negatives with Old Workhorse that I often redevelop or intensify as a final step.



I don't disagree with Garrett, but my own experience has not been much like his. I've made Old Workhorse from scratch myself, and the developing image is difficult to see (compared to many other recipes) no matter how new or old it is. Yes, it gets worse as the collodion ages, but I have not found it to be great even when quite fresh. Maybe its the developer recipe I use, I don't know. As I said, its not a major flaw and shouldn't deter people from using it. But if you prefer to work by being able to SEE the image forming on the plate as the developer does its job, then Old Workhorse may not be your best choice. My opinion, of course. YMMV

As regards the B&S collodion: they state on their web site about their Old Workhorse "We pre-mix this collodion and let it age for a couple of days before sending it out." I've bought it from them in my starter kit, and after the first batch got used up, and I can attest to the fact that what they ship is quite well aged, not just "a few days old": its deep red, which signifies that it has aged for (probably) a month or more. So unless their kits have changed significantly in the past three years, you can expect your Old Workhorse collodion is going to be quite ripe and will be difficult to judge by visual development.

Hello Garrett & Paul:

Thank you both for your insight and replies .... greatly appreciated and needed!!
You have both provided very valuable & interesting information.
I received and mixed the B&S kit about 4 weeks ago. The collodion was "straw yellow" on day one, became a deeper yellow after two weeks, and now, at four weeks, it is golden. No red.
Developer is diluted 1:5 as per their recipe for negatives.
The few times that I did get faint images were a few days ago and two weeks ago.
For the last two sessions I mixed fresh 1:5 developer and slightly used 1:5 developer (4-5 plates thru) 50 / 50. I do not see that this resulted in any increase in density on a finished negative plate and I had limited visibility of the density of the plate during development.
I have poured and developed 35 plates (4.5 x 6.5 inches) over this period, roughly four plates each session for 8 sessions.
The Collodion was pale yellow on day 1; deep yellow after two weeks; and golden now after a total of four weeks.
I am planning to lock in my NEGATIVE development time at two minutes and make a bunch of plates. Sound reasonable to you?
Need to cut another batch of glass down to size first!
Again .......... THANK YOU for your interest and assistance!
Drew

[Two23]

I've been keeping my collodion in a refrigerator and not had a problem. When out in the field and temp is over 75 I keep an ice pack in the cooler bag that has my chemicals. So, what's a good commercially available collodion for negatives?


Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

I've been keeping my collodion in a refrigerator and not had a problem. When out in the field and temp is over 75 I keep an ice pack in the cooler bag that has my chemicals. So, what's a good commercially available collodion for negatives?


Kent in SD

Lea Formula 7 is good for negatives, but it ages quite quickly: plan to use it up within two months.
UVP 4 is good for negatives also, and being a two cadmium recipe, it’s very slow to age and with proper storage can remain usable for many months.
Also formulated by UV Photographics is a proprietary “house blend” called UVP-X. It uses 2 bromides and 2 iodides which makes for faster collodion (about 1 stop faster than most other recipes). It is also a very stable recipe, so you can expect it to remain usable for about a year if stored properly (cool, dark). I recently finished a bottle of UVP-X that was 18 months old and still worked well! (Though it had lost some speed).

To a degree, collodion recipes just aren’t that different when it comes to results. However, the following is generally true about salted collodion recipes: the iodides in a recipe contribute to contrast, and the bromides help create more middle values. Though it may seem counterintuitive to say, positives (tintypes) don’t need to be as contrasty as negatives. So a collodion recipe for producing good negatives will typically have more iodide than bromide. But I must say that in my experience, all but the most extremely contrasty scenes will produce a negative that’s fairly low in contrast regardless of which collodion recipe you use, in which case they benefit from some intensification or (better still) re-development to build density and contrast.

What you need to decide once you’ve made a negative is: what will it be used for? if you’re going to scan it for post-processing, or make a traditional silver gelatin darkroom contact print from it, then you may not need to intensify/redevelop the negative. I’ve found a property exposed negative with good contrast will print on a grade 2 or grade 3 paper. But if you intend on printing your negative on albumen or salt paper (or even platinum/palladium) then the extra density achieved by redevelopment or intensification is pretty much mandatory. How you choose to make a negative is going to depend on how you’re going to use it. This is where Quinn’s book is going to be very helpful to you.

Also bear in mind that there are so many variables in the process that no two people will have exactly the same results when seemingly using the exact same techniques. Your output is going to depend on 1) the state of your silver bath (it’s age, pH, silver content, etc.), 2) your choice of developer, 3) your water quality, 4) temperature and humidity on any given day, 5) your choice of collodion, and it’s age, and of course 6) your technical proficiency. That’s a lot of variables. So take what advice I offer as being just “general recommendations”. What works for me may not work for your circumstances. A certain amount of trial and error is going to be needed for each practitioner to find their sweet spot.

PS: I hope you haven’t been storing collodion in a fridge that’s also used for food! No matter how tightly capped, a collodion bottle still leaks Ether fumes which can be absorbed by food items.

[Tin Can]

Good suggestion. I am getting 4 cold packs a month with my eye drops


I've been keeping my collodion in a refrigerator and not had a problem. When out in the field and temp is over 75 I keep an ice pack in the cooler bag that has my chemicals. So, what's a good commercially available collodion for negatives?


Kent in SD

[Two23]

PS: I hope you haven’t been storing collodion in a fridge that’s also used for food! No matter how tightly capped, a collodion bottle still leaks Ether fumes which can be absorbed by food items.


No. Stored in a small dorm sized refrigerator. I only keep a very small quantity--the B&S kit. Ether/collodion kind of makes me nervous. Have heard only good things about UVP-X. Will wait until I use up what I have before ordering a bottle though. I'm trying to minimize on hands.


Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

No. Stored in a small dorm sized refrigerator. I only keep a very small quantity--the B&S kit. Ether/collodion kind of makes me nervous. Have heard only good things about UVP-X. Will wait until I use up what I have before ordering a bottle though. I'm trying to minimize on hands.


Kent in SD

Yeah, I try to limit how much Collodion/Ether I have on hand at any given time, too.

204410
Seriously, I never store large amounts of Ether for long without either using it in a Collodion mix, or mixing 50/50 with Ethanol for long term storage. If you mix the Ether with Ethanol, it stabilizes the Ether and you no longer need to worry about creating explosive peroxides in your Ether. Its also very handy to have an Ether/Ethanol bottle available to add to a collodion that has become too viscous through evaporation of the solvents.

[iosef86]

Hi all! This is my first time on the forum, and i'm hoping for a little insight. I just set up a first attempt at a home wet plate collodion darkroom (first time using wet plate, but i have quite a bit of previous experience with other alt processes), and I'm having some trouble getting the right density in my images. Initially I thought it was an exposure issue, but even with more exposure the image is very thin. Does anyone have any input on what factors can help increase the density of the images?

I've attached my first two sample images below, both wet plate ambrotypes, shot on acrylic, with the backs blacked out.

Any input is appreciated, thank you!

218172218173

[paulbarden]

Hi all! This is my first time on the forum, and i'm hoping for a little insight. I just set up a first attempt at a home wet plate collodion darkroom (first time using wet plate, but i have quite a bit of previous experience with other alt processes), and I'm having some trouble getting the right density in my images. Initially I thought it was an exposure issue, but even with more exposure the image is very thin. Does anyone have any input on what factors can help increase the density of the images?

I've attached my first two sample images below, both wet plate ambrotypes, shot on acrylic, with the backs blacked out.

Any input is appreciated, thank you!

218172218173

Please provide details about how you are exposing these plates. Are you using strobes, or daylight? (If strobes, how much power are you using?) How are you estimating exposure? How long are you developing the plates, etc?

[iosef86]

Please provide details about how you are exposing these plates. Are you using strobes, or daylight? (If strobes, how much power are you using?) How are you estimating exposure? How long are you developing the plates, etc?

Thank you! They are both daylight exposed, new collodion and chemistry kit from Bostick and Sullivan, and they were exposed at f4.5, the one on the left for 3 seconds, the one on the right for 8 seconds. I used a light meter to judge the exposure (at an ISO of 3, it gave me a reading of 5.6 at 2 seconds - it wouldn't go down to ISO 2, and there's no stop on my meter for 4.5, so I compensated where I thought possible for the exposure) I used trays to process, as i'm waiting on delivery of sensitizer and fix tanks. They were developed for about 45 seconds each, washed and then fixed.

This is the chemistry set that I used: https://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/1077.html?category_id=440 (https://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/1077.html?category_id=440)

[paulbarden]

Thank you! They are both daylight exposed, new collodion and chemistry kit from Bostick and Sullivan, and they were exposed at f4.5, the one on the left for 3 seconds, the one on the right for 8 seconds. I used a light meter to judge the exposure (at an ISO of 3, it gave me a reading of 5.6 at 2 seconds - it wouldn't go down to ISO 2, and there's no stop on my meter for 4.5, so I compensated where I thought possible for the exposure) I used trays to process, as i'm waiting on delivery of sensitizer and fix tanks. They were developed for about 45 seconds each, washed and then fixed.

This is the chemistry set that I used: https://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/1077.html?category_id=440 (https://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/1077.html?category_id=440)

I'm familiar with the B&S kit. I am going to assume you've been sent Old Workhorse Collodion, which is an excellent recipe, but not always the fastest. I've had problems in the past with B&S selling me VERY well aged Collodion (too aged, IMO) which appears very dark yellow/orange or red in color, and at that point, it has lost a lot of speed and is in the 0.5 ASA range. Can you show me what color the collodion is?

If you make the assumption that the collodion is working at a speed of about 0.5 ASA, then you can be almost certain that you didn't give it enough exposure. It appears that you're using diffuse daylight, possibly through a window, facing north? Bear in mind that many modern windows use a glass that has a UV filter built in, so this can cut down the usable light by at least half. If possible, avoid making exposures with daylight coming through modern window glass, at least until you've determined whether they filter UV or not. Open shade outdoors is great.

The B&S developer is a good one: it allows new practitioners extra development time as they get acquainted with the process. (Traditional developer recipes allow for only 10-20 seconds time on the plate, which is trickier to learn to do well). 45 seconds is a reasonable amount of time on the plate. Avoid the temptation to extend the development time beyond 60 seconds when using the B&S developer, as it will start to give fog over the image.

Something else to consider, speaking of fog: it does appear there is some developer fogging over the images, and that makes me wonder about your chemistry temperature. Wet plate chemistry doesn't perform well when it gets warm! Ideally, you want to keep your chemistry under 75F (preferably 68F would be ideal). This is especially important for the developer! If the developer gets warm (80F or more) then you will certainly start to see undesirable development artifacts on the plate, like fogging and uneven streaks. I suspect there is some of that going on in the images you posted. So make an effort to keep your developer cooled to 70F as best you can, and you will get better results.

I suggest you abandon the light meter (totally useless when it comes to Collodion) and simply learn by testing exposure at the start of a session. You will quickly learn what the correct exposure is for the lighting situations you commonly use. Consider taking this approach: https://www.lundphotographics.com/index.php/blog/best-practice/in_camera_test_plates.html
Essentially, this technique demonstrates how to make a test strip plate to determine what your exposure should be. It will save you a lot of time, materials and frustration: its the fastest way to finding your correct exposure time.

[iosef86]

Hmm, the collodion is a pretty dark yellow

218174218175

It does certainly seem worth trying some test plates and increasing the exposure. I just didn't think that was the case because even with the exposure doubled, the image started to seem muddy and overexposed and the plate still seemed very thin. Also, definitely worth trying the next exposures outside instead of the window, I didn't think of the UV blockers.

And that makes sense with the developer as well, thank you! It does end up being pretty warm in my apartment, any tips on keeping the developer at an appropriate temperature? I've also heard that if the sensitizer is too acidic it can make for a weak image but I followed the directions to a T, and the test strip seemed to put it pretty squarely at a PH 4

[paulbarden]

Hmm, the collodion is a pretty dark yellow

218174218175

It does certainly seem worth trying some test plates and increasing the exposure. I just didn't think that was the case because even with the exposure doubled, the image started to seem muddy and overexposed and the plate still seemed very thin. Also, definitely worth trying the next exposures outside instead of the window, I didn't think of the UV blockers.

And that makes sense with the developer as well, thank you! It does end up being pretty warm in my apartment, any tips on keeping the developer at an appropriate temperature? I've also heard that if the sensitizer is too acidic it can make for a weak image but I followed the directions to a T, and the test strip seemed to put it pretty squarely at a PH 4

I suspect your results so far are affected by a combination of all of the issues I mentioned: exposure, developer temperature and age of the collodion (yes, that is very well aged collodion you've got, and I doubt it has a speed much better than 0.5 ASA), and to less extent, the UV cutting effect of window glass. I look at your second plate and I don't think its overexposed at all - it just looks like chemical fog has obscured the actual image. I think you'll find you need 2X as much exposure as you used for the brighter plate. Make a test strip plate!

I strongly urge you to make at least one test strip plate to see how much exposure affects the outcome. You might be surprised by what you get. If nothing else, it will help you determine how much of a role exposure is playing in the results you got, and allow you to either tune the exposure better, or concentrate on other possible sources of error. I think you'll find that cooling the developer will make a significant difference: if the plates are fogging from an overactive developer (very likely) then you cannot see how close to correct your exposure is, if its hidden behind a fog of silver. So cool that developer: mix up a volume of developer that you expect is sufficient for a session's tests, and sit it in a cooling water bath. Add ice if you have to, and test the temperature. If you can keep the developer under 70F, that is ideal. (but not below 60F) You can also keep a bottle of chilled water in the fridge to have at the ready for mixing developer at the start of a session. (I do this) It can make it easier and faster to get set up for making plates. As an aside, I hope you are using the cleanest water you have available to you? If there is a lot of mineral content in your water, you may want to consider getting bottled water with low dissolved solids for your wet plate work, especially for mixing developer. (I use Reverse Osmosis water for mixing all my chemistry)

There are other troubleshooting tips I can recommend, but first things first - cool your developer and make a new test strip plate. Then we can go from there.

PS: do you have a GOOD manual yet? The B&S instructions are good, but barely more than adequate to get a person started. Do yourself a favor and get a good manual: Quinn Jacobson's Chemical Pictures, or John Coffers Doers Guide. Both are very thorough and easy to understand. (To get a copy of John Coffer's book, you have to write to him (https://www.johncoffer.com/) and send a check: he's "off the grid")

[iosef86]

Thank you so much, that's all super helpful! I used distilled water to mix the developer, but I'll try those suggestions first and see how it goes!

I have the manual it came with, and leading up to this point, I watched a bunch of videos and tutorials on YouTube, and have some previous experience with Van Dykes, cyanotypes, and collotype; but the more information is always the better, I'll try to track those down!

[paulbarden]

Thank you so much, that's all super helpful! I used distilled water to mix the developer, but I'll try those suggestions first and see how it goes!

I have the manual it came with, and leading up to this point, I watched a bunch of videos and tutorials on YouTube, and have some previous experience with Van Dykes, cyanotypes, and collotype; but the more information is always the better, I'll try to track those down!

I hope you'll let us know how the next plates work! Good luck.

[iosef86]

Tried some exposures last night, implementing your advice! Tried an outdoor exposure, with a test strip, and the developer cooled to 65 degrees. There was quite a bit of improvement!

The test strip - (f8 with .5 second, 1 second, 1.5 second, and 2 second exposures):
218272

First exposure - (f8 with .3 second exposure):
218273

And third - (f8 with .5 second exposure):
218274

Oddly, even with the longer exposure, the second full exposure seems less well exposed. They were processed the same, and the light didn't seem to change much, but they were shot between 6:30 and 7:30 in the evening, so I wonder if there was a dramatic shift in UV light between them?
Also, I imagine the dark blotches are artifacts from tray development?

[paulbarden]

Tried some exposures last night, implementing your advice! Tried an outdoor exposure, with a test strip, and the developer cooled to 65 degrees. There was quite a bit of improvement!

The test strip - (f8 with .5 second, 1 second, 1.5 second, and 2 second exposures):
218272

First exposure - (f8 with .3 second exposure):
218273

And third - (f8 with .5 second exposure):
218274

Oddly, even with the longer exposure, the second full exposure seems less well exposed. They were processed the same, and the light didn't seem to change much, but they were shot between 6:30 and 7:30 in the evening, so I wonder if there was a dramatic shift in UV light between them?
Also, I imagine the dark blotches are artifacts from tray development?

Much better!
So yes - towards the end of the day, an hour makes a big difference in the amount of UV in the scene, so your results are not surprising.

As for the dark spots and uneven areas, there are two possible sources: 1) either the collodion did not cover the plate evenly and completely, or 2) the developer did not cover the plate evenly and quickly. (the more likely scenario) If you are developing plates in a tray, be sure to use a tray that's quite a bit larger than the plates your making. IE: if your plates are 4x5 inches, then use an 8x10 inch tray. Pour developer into the tray and tilt the tray away from you so all the developer puddles at the far end. Place the exposed plate at the end closer to you (no developer at this end) then quickly and in one smooth motion, tip the tray forward so the developer quickly covers the plate. The idea is to get the developer to cover the whole plate evenly and quickly (less than one second, (as best you can) to avoid uneven development marks. I suspect your black marks are spots where the developer didn't cover the plate when first submerged in developer.

You've got the right ideas now, and all you need to do is finesse your technique. Wet Plate isn't an easy process to perfect, but with practice you can get consistently excellent results most of the time. Most important is to maintain consistency in what you do, and don't change more than one variable at a time. Its too easy to chase the wrong variable and get lost in what you're doing that way. So keep going. You're making good progress. I suggest you practice your developer technique - that will eliminate the unwanted dark marks and artifacts.

[iosef86]

Thank you again for the input, I'm super excited about starting the process!

[carbo73]

Hi,

I've been doing wet plate collodion for almost a year, generally with acceptable results. But lately my tyntypes & ambrotypes have a lot of tiny black dots. And I mean a lot. I asume it is dirt in the silver bath, although I have filtered and sunned it several times.

So today I tried to do a severe maintenance as advised in Quinn Jaccobson's book. I used sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the bath, and it got very messi, looking like dirty milk. Then I put it in the sun for a couple of hours and it changed to a dark grey color, except the bottom, wich had still parts of whitish deposits. I filtered it and with just a couple of times it looked back transparent and nice. A bit of distilled water + silver nitrate to replenish the bath and tried it. Well, 3 plates, with different collodions and ever fixers & developers, and all only showed a fully creamy plate. As if I had ultra-overdeveloped it.

Any idea of what went wrong? I think it may be the pH, wich I think is arround 4 or 5 by now (my pH strips are difficult to read acurately). I have no nitric acid but I have glacial acetic acid. Maybe I will try to acidify it just a bit, drop by drop. Could it work?

thanks for your interest.

[Two23]

I've been doing wet plate for 2 years now. Some thoughts. First, I suggest sunning for at least two days. It takes awhile for the nasties to drop out. Second I suggest filtering through a coffee filter first and then a cotton ball pushed down into the funnel neck, do it at least twice or until the cotton ball comes out clean after running silver through it. Then check SG. Your pH of 4-5 is good. The other thing that causes black dots is using a fixer batch too long.


Kent in SD

[carbo73]

I've been doing wet plate for 2 years now. Some thoughts. First, I suggest sunning for at least two days. It takes awhile for the nasties to drop out. Second I suggest filtering through a coffee filter first and then a cotton ball pushed down into the funnel neck, do it at least twice or until the cotton ball comes out clean after running silver through it. Then check SG. Your pH of 4-5 is good. The other thing that causes black dots is using a fixer batch too long.


Kent in SD

Many thanks for your tips. The fixer tip I think it's specially relevant.

Today I managed to make this silver bath work again, although maybe it recovered on it's own (time to settle, maybe). That's because I only acidified it a bit with acetic acid, and just a bit. But now it works, and aparently quite well. My pH strips are quite difficult to distinguish betweeen 3 and 5 or 6, the hues are very similar to my eye. I need other strips, those with multiple indicators. The SG is now 1067. I made a new fixer bath with hypo.

That's a phone picture of my last tintype today (still in the water):
219195

[Two23]

Looks like you're back on track.


Kent in SD

[carbo73]

Well, after an autumn without much wet plates, I've started winter and 2022 with a lot of trials and it's problems. Although now my silver baths seem quite correct, I've been ending my supply of collodion and sandarac varnish, so I decided to (partially) made them, following Quinn Jacobson's book and recipes. It not has started well. I bought new varnish but also mixed another batch. Both dissolved my images (it's an horrible thing to watch), but the problem seems to be diminishing adding some water. In fact much more than I presumed, as manuals say add only a few drops (too much water in the varnish has it's own problems!).

And then yesterday I did my first 500 ml of Quinn's Kick Clear collodion. As the name implies, it's ripe very fast (2 hours, Quinn says) but I let it rest 24h just in case. Well, fist plates are quite a mess, with a lot of wave or spaguetti-like veil. I don't know if this is still unripe collodion or another problem, but I partially solved it letting the plate stay in the silver bath not 3 minutes but almost 5. In fact, this pattern of veil is already visible in the undeveloped plate!

Any ideas? And, as I love getting into problems, I will try make negatives, with iodine redevelopment! First trials quite messy (but I had not all the chemistry)...

223697223698223699223700

[carbo73]

Well, after an autumn without much wet plates, I've started winter and 2022 with a lot of trials and it's problems. Although now my silver baths seem quite correct, I've been ending my supply of collodion and sandarac varnish, so I decided to (partially) made them, following Quinn Jacobson's book and recipes. It not has started well. I bought new varnish but also mixed another batch. Both dissolved my images (it's an horrible thing to watch), but the problem seems to be diminishing adding some water. In fact much more than I presumed, as manuals say add only a few drops (too much water in the varnish has it's own problems!).

And then yesterday I did my first 500 ml of Quinn's Kick Clear collodion. As the name implies, it's ripe very fast (2 hours, Quinn says) but I let it rest 24h just in case. Well, fist plates are quite a mess, with a lot of wave or spaguetti-like veil. I don't know if this is still unripe collodion or another problem, but I partially solved it letting the plate stay in the silver bath not 3 minutes but almost 5. In fact, this pattern of veil is already visible in the undeveloped plate!

Any ideas? And, as I love getting into problems, I will try make negatives, with iodine redevelopment! First trials quite messy (but I had not all the chemistry)...

223697223698223699223700

Searching for information, now it seems that could be related to water in the collodion or too short time in the silver bath (or maybe both?), and Quinn Jacobson quotes a XIX C. book telling to put a bit of baking soda in the collodion to get rid of the water in it. Maybe I could try this, with a small batch of my new collodion...

[carbo73]

well, some minimal progress made, here. I've done a little trial with the baking soda: 4 grams of baking soda into 100 ml of my salted collodion, mixed for about 30-40 minutes. Then decanted and filtered. The white stripes/patches are less evident, but still present. Allowing for 5 minutes in the silver bath also helps. Is the water in the collodion the problem, or I'm following the wrong culprit?

In the image, from down to up: a) my normal new Quick Clear collodion, sensitized for about 3 minutes. b) my "baking soda treated" Quick Clear collodion, sensitized 3 minutes, c) the same as "b" but sensitized for 5 minutes or even more.

223748

PD:the dark marks are my pathetic attemps at cleaning the veil with a cotton ball.

[goamules]

Sounds like your base collodion is old. It should not be that fragile. Varnish dissolving it and a cotton ball wiping it all off are signs.
Leave it in the silver bath until when you remove the plate, there are no beading or runs of the liquid. You want it a smooth sheet of silver bath running off the plate. How many plates did you run through the bath? these signs are of a silver bath saturated with solvents from working with it too long. But that means 50 or more plates, without sunning. How is it's silver percentage, with a hygrometer? It's likely the silver bath contaminated (baking soda getting into it from the plates) or too week base collodion.

Don't add anything (too late) to your collodion. You're jumping to solutions too fast. I've never heard of anyone adding baking soda to the collodion. Don't.

[carbo73]

Well, I have not problems at all with the images themselves with my old collodion, nor the negative collodion bought last month. Just this foggy mess with my own made collodion, just 5 days old, now. And the silver bath was sunned (and filtered) for 24 hours just prior to those images. The problem, in fact, happened before % after sunning, but ONLY with my own made salted collodion. And the base collodion, bottled, was bought last november or so in a specialist chemistry shop. The gravity is arround 1055, a bit low, I know, but should work even in 1040, they say. And pH it's arround 3-3.5, although I'm having problems reading my pH strips.

Waiting up to 5 minutes with the plate in the silver bath helps reducing the problem, but then 5 minutes is way above the more usual 3 minutes and if I wait longer there would be more problems, I presume (contamination of the silver bath, less sensitivity in the plate...).

I think that is some mistake I did in the mixing, probably I added too much water, as it was the first time and had problems dissolving the cadmium bromide. In fact, the cadmium bromide was already "caked" in it's original bottle, so maybe it was damp already?

About the baking soda, Quinn Jabobson says so, at least citing XIX Century manuals, N. B. Burgess in particular (he says "saleratus", wich is baking soda). Here it is, in minute 21:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F0e5atI7uE&list=LL&index=8&t=705s

In fact, the baking soda did not dissolve at all in the collodion, as Burgess says, and in part remedied some of the problem.

I even remember having this kind of problem with a salted collodion I bought from a well known source. I used it only a few times as it gave me problems, only that bottle too. Maybe too much water or other problems in the mixing?

[paulbarden]

Well, I have not problems at all with the images themselves with my old collodion, nor the negative collodion bought last month. Just this foggy mess with my own made collodion, just 5 days old, now. And the silver bath was sunned (and filtered) for 24 hours just prior to those images. The problem, in fact, happened before % after sunning, but ONLY with my own made salted collodion. And the base collodion, bottled, was bought last november or so in a specialist chemistry shop. The gravity is arround 1055, a bit low, I know, but should work even in 1040, they say. And pH it's arround 3-3.5, although I'm having problems reading my pH strips.

Waiting up to 5 minutes with the plate in the silver bath helps reducing the problem, but then 5 minutes is way above the more usual 3 minutes and if I wait longer there would be more problems, I presume (contamination of the silver bath, less sensitivity in the plate...).

I think that is some mistake I did in the mixing, probably I added too much water, as it was the first time and had problems dissolving the cadmium bromide. In fact, the cadmium bromide was already "caked" in it's original bottle, so maybe it was damp already?

About the baking soda, Quinn Jabobson says so, at least citing XIX Century manuals, N. B. Burgess in particular (he says "saleratus", wich is baking soda). Here it is, in minute 21:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F0e5atI7uE&list=LL&index=8&t=705s

In fact, the baking soda did not dissolve at all in the collodion, as Burgess says, and in part remedied some of the problem.

I even remember having this kind of problem with a salted collodion I bought from a well known source. I used it only a few times as it gave me problems, only that bottle too. Maybe too much water or other problems in the mixing?

1) If you are seeing problems ONLY with one recipe of collodion (your home made, Quinn's formula) then there are very few possible reasons you are getting a bad result: something is incorrect in your collodion chemistry (wrong type of collodion purchased: be sure its made for photography purposes, too much water used to dissolve the salts: do NOT use more than the recipe calls for. If you have difficulty dissolving the cadmium, just warm the mixing vessel in a dish of warm water. It can take ten minutes to dissolve it, so be patient - don't add more water), Or: sometimes brand new collodion is more sensitive to the developer and you may need to add more acetic acid to it, to avoid developing the unexposed silver. It looks to me like you are developing out the unexposed silver.

2) DON'T add things like baking soda to your collodion. While it may have been done 150 years ago, the purity of chemistry back then wasn't as good as what we have now, and adding unconventional chemicals to collodion might not have the desired effect.

3) I assume when you say "The gravity is arround 1055, a bit low, I know, but should work even in 1040, they say." you are talking about the silver bath, NOT the collodion? There's no reason to measure the specific gravity and pH of collodion. The silver content of the bath is very important if you want to get consistent results, so its best to get the silver volume to as close as ideal as possible. 1.073 is considered pretty much the sweet spot, so add more silver nitrate to achieve this.

Wet plate collodion chemistry is fussy and somewhat unpredictable. What worked one day may suddenly behave badly the next day. You need to be able to diagnose problems when they happen and know how to remedy them. I strongly suggest you resist the urge to "experiment" with unorthodox materials and methods, at least until you have learned how to get consistent results using tried and true methods. Quinn's book outlines solid technical methods for the processes and if you follow them to the letter, you will get reliable results.
More often than not, (as long as your silver bath is properly cared for and has a consistent silver content) when you get veiled plates with silver depositing in the unexposed areas, then the developer is either too strong for the collodion you're using (and brand new collodion is almost always more responsive to the developer!) or there isn't enough acetic acid in it. It is not unusual to have to fine tune the acid content of the developer in order to make it work well with each different collodion, and with a collodion that's mixed new. Two weeks from now (assuming its mixed correctly) your collodion might work just fine with the developer you're using right now. The chemistry is changing all the time, and you need to know what to do when something doesn't work the way you think it should.

So first things first, I suggest you experiment with adding more acid to the developer (or dilute it with water) and see what you get. To find out for sure if the developer is acting too strong with the new collodion, pour and sensitize a plate as normal, but DO NOT expose it to white light. Go straight to the developer, and develop the plate for as long as you've been doing, then wash and fix it. If there is developed out silver on the plate, then add more acid to the developer and try again. Also, avoid letting the developer stay on the plate longer than 15 seconds. 12 seconds is probably better.

[carbo73]

Many thanks for your long reply , Paul.

1) yes, by now this development problems are only experienced in my own (first) salted collodion. I'm quite sure I used too much water, beginner's mistake!The collodion is USP, bought from an usual source for photography chemistry in Barcelona. And what you say about developing of unexposed silver could be a possibility, but I can see wavy patterns in the plate as I take it from the sensitizing bath, so the problem probably is unrelated, at least in it's root, to the developer. Maybe a diluted developer would help in mitigate it, anyway.

2) well, that can't be undone, so maybe I will try some new batch (first I have to buy more plain collodion, I exhausted my home supply, 240 ml).

3) yes I was talking about pH and gravity of the silver bath. I'm conscient the gravity is low, and probably it's too acidic, but my pH strips don't give me coherent results, I probably don't use them properly.

I'm not quite happy at all at my first trial to make myself all the wet plate chemistry, so just to keep working, I've ordered some more premixed collodion. But will try again when I have the chemicals. I've mixed developer the past year without much problems, and fixer too (plus silver bath). Sandarac varnish is quite messy to do, but seems to work. So what only remains is the salted collodion.

Thanks again for the information and help, Paul.

[paulbarden]

Many thanks for your long reply , Paul.

1) yes, by now this development problems are only experienced in my own (first) salted collodion. I'm quite sure I used too much water, beginner's mistake!The collodion is USP, bought from an usual source for photography chemistry in Barcelona. And what you say about developing of unexposed silver could be a possibility, but I can see wavy patterns in the plate as I take it from the sensitizing bath, so the problem probably is unrelated, at least in it's root, to the developer. Maybe a diluted developer would help in mitigate it, anyway.

2) well, that can't be undone, so maybe I will try some new batch (first I have to buy more plain collodion, I exhausted my home supply, 240 ml).

3) yes I was talking about pH and gravity of the silver bath. I'm conscient the gravity is low, and probably it's too acidic, but my pH strips don't give me coherent results, I probably don't use them properly.

I'm not quite happy at all at my first trial to make myself all the wet plate chemistry, so just to keep working, I've ordered some more premixed collodion. But will try again when I have the chemicals. I've mixed developer the past year without much problems, and fixer too (plus silver bath). Sandarac varnish is quite messy to do, but seems to work. So what only remains is the salted collodion.

Thanks again for the information and help, Paul.


Many thanks for your long reply , Paul.

1) yes, by now this development problems are only experienced in my own (first) salted collodion. I'm quite sure I used too much water, beginner's mistake!The collodion is USP, bought from an usual source for photography chemistry in Barcelona. And what you say about developing of unexposed silver could be a possibility, but I can see wavy patterns in the plate as I take it from the sensitizing bath, so the problem probably is unrelated, at least in it's root, to the developer. Maybe a diluted developer would help in mitigate it, anyway.

2) well, that can't be undone, so maybe I will try some new batch (first I have to buy more plain collodion, I exhausted my home supply, 240 ml).

3) yes I was talking about pH and gravity of the silver bath. I'm conscient the gravity is low, and probably it's too acidic, but my pH strips don't give me coherent results, I probably don't use them properly.

I'm not quite happy at all at my first trial to make myself all the wet plate chemistry, so just to keep working, I've ordered some more premixed collodion. But will try again when I have the chemicals. I've mixed developer the past year without much problems, and fixer too (plus silver bath). Sandarac varnish is quite messy to do, but seems to work. So what only remains is the salted collodion.

Thanks again for the information and help, Paul.

Its very unlikely that excessive water in the collodion is THE problem here, its just one of them. How much more water DID you add? Certainly if your plate is coming out of the silver bath with "wavy lines" on it, the collodion has problems, but I really think you should do a "blind plate" test (develop a plate that has not been exposed to white light) to find out if the developer is contributing to the problem also. This test is extremely valuable as a diagnostic tool, as it either confirms or eliminates the possibility of an overactive developer making unexposed silver develop out.

Question: I'm gleaning that you made up the silver bath yourself - so what I wonder is: did you add nitric acid to adjust its pH when you made it? A newly concocted silver bath will have a very reasonable pH from the moment its mixed, and rarely (if ever) is it necessary to add acid to adjust the pH. I know that Quinn talks a bit about pH of the bath, but mostly he is talking about specific pH values needed to "tune" the bath for specific purposes, like making negatives suitable for salt printing. I would point out that John Coffer - one of the most experienced practitioners of the craft - states that he never checks the pH of his silver bath, and has been using the same baths for many years without once checking its pH. As far as I'm concerned, if Coffer thinks this is a reasonable approach to the matter, then its good enough for me.
That said, I have checked the pH of my baths on occasion and not once have I found the acidity to stray from a very reasonable value, and so I have stopped testing its pH. I think pH is something you don't need to worry about, unless you see clear signs that point to this factor (Quinn talks in the book about the tell tale signs of incorrect pH)

Also, is there a reason why you have not adjusted the specific gravity (amount of AgNO3) in your bath to a more ideal value? If you've found that you're having to leave a plate in the bath for nearly twice the standard time to get good results, then this may be because the bath is getting too close to the point where there's not a healthy amount of silver in the bath. Bringing the value closer to 1.073 may help resolve some of the issues you're seeing.

Quinn has laid out a very simple process for mixing your own chemistry in his book. If you follow those instructions precisely, you will get reliable, consistent results every time. He's really made as foolproof a strategy as you can, so you'll have an easier time of it if you stick to the techniques as outlined. The collodion recipe he lists for making positives (tintypes, ambrotypes) is very simple and will deliver good results when paired with a balanced bath and the developer recipe he has matched it with. It does seem odd to me that your Sandarac is dissolving your images, especially if its dissolving your recent, home made collodion. Sandarac usually only dissolves collodion that is well beyond its optimal shelf life.

One last thing: it is very good advice in Quinn's book to mix up the salted solvents separately from the collodion, and keep it as a 2 part mix, which you only mix together when you need fresh collodion. I'm not sure what page this is on, but its described in detail in the chapter about making positive collodion. If you adopt this approach, you will never have to deal with salted collodion that has aged far beyond its most usable state.

[carbo73]

Well, when I mixed the collodion I tried to follow Quinn's book instructions to the point. But with the water maybe I added 2-3 ml more to disolve the cadmium bromide. First time doing it, and also quite scared from this stuf for all I've read about it (trying to be completely safe, doing the mix in the outside, well ventiladed, with respirator and nitrile gloves, of course). So I was anoyed that it was hard to disolve in the first 2 or 3 ml of water, and added a bit more. In the end probably it was about 5, 6 at most ml of water, distiled, of course. Maybe the problem is other, I cleaned the glassware, but maybe I should had done more. I will try the blind plate, as you say.

About the silver baths (I have two, "A" and "B"), they are in origin bought from wet plate suppliers, but by now I've added so much water and silver nitrate that probably a great deal of them is made by me. But with other's collodion now work quite fine (I had problems this summer, with a myriad of tiny black pinholes, but a lot of sun remedied this). I have to increase gravity to 1073, as you say, just had still no time as I was concentrated on trying other approaches to the problem. As you say, maybe a bath with more silver will help. I do my wet plates at my mother's home (in the room where my late father painted), not at my home, as I have no space and two children (not the kind of stuff they may try to touch). I think the pH is more or less correct, and I have never added acid to it (I only have glacial acetic acid anyway).

About the sandarac, I had problems with one bought from a supplier, and then I tried to mix it myself, and the same problems, mostly with old collodion (but my old sandarac had no problem at all with the same collodion just a day before! and was from the same supplier!). Quinn says than in Europe there are more problems with the sandarac because sometimes the alcohol is stronger that it should be. Anyway I added some water to it and now it's safe, at least for the new collodion.

As you say, the advice on Quinn's book about how to mix collodion seems very good advice, specially to get rid of the dangers of half used ether. I used all of it, mixing a part with the rest of the elements to made this salted collodion, and the rest just with salts and ethanol to stabilize it. There's a cadmium-free collodion that also uses 50%-50% ether and alcohol so I will try it with part of my supply (will feel safer mixing it, even if it has not the advantages of the cadmium salts).

[carbo73]

Some news, good news, about my own collodion. Today I did some more tintypes and worked much better; very well in fact.

First I worked on the silver bath to bring up the gravity from the low c.1055 that I have before to a much more adequate c.1071 or 72. Then I made a "blind plate", just sensitized for 3-4 minutes and direct to the developer. I looks almost completely black. In fact, as I saw it emerging from the silver bath I was much happier, because it had none of the wirly patterns and artifacts that previous plates showed, it was smooth.

Then I did some fast shots at the garden, with diminishing afternoon light. The collodion worked without major flaws this time... in 2 of the 3. The third one was a complete disaster but I know one of the culprits here (and maybe of the last days): the developer. I've been using this last weeks a developer with added silver nitrate & nitric acid (just because it was my fullest bottle). But today I tried another, just the bottom of a tried one (of the same manufacturer). Both developers have worked quite well with my older (bought) collodion. But it seems there's one that does not like at all my collodion.

I'm not sure what helped most here, the better silver bath, the change in developer, my addition (and then filtered) of baking soda... or that my collodion simply needed a bit of time to settle. In any case the plates now look good after sensitizing, and just after normal time, about 3 minutes. I hope this collodion continues to give good results, as I want to try even more things here: collodion negatives (and salt & albumen prints made with them), a revamped field dark box for 5x7 plates....

223917

[paulbarden]

Some news, good news, about my own collodion. Today I did some more tintypes and worked much better; very well in fact.

Much better! Congratulations. Please show us how you're getting on as you make more plates. You're on the right track!

[carbo73]

Finally on track. Yesterday I was able to made some more plates, both tintypes & ambrotypes (4x5) and worked quite fine. Even as I was forced to use my only UV light as it was dark already. Here's one of the images. In fact is maybe the first wet plate fully made on my own: my salted collodion, (almost) my silver bath, my developer & my sandarac varnish!

224008

[paulbarden]

Finally on track. Yesterday I was able to made some more plates, both tintypes & ambrotypes (4x5) and worked quite fine. Even as I was forced to use my only UV light as it was dark already. Here's one of the images. In fact is maybe the first wet plate fully made on my own: my salted collodion, (almost) my silver bath, my developer & my sandarac varnish!


That’s looking pretty good! Well done.

[Two23]

Finally on track. Yesterday I was able to made some more plates, both tintypes & ambrotypes (4x5) and worked quite fine. Even as I was forced to use my only UV light as it was dark already. Here's one of the images. In fact is maybe the first wet plate fully made on my own: my salted collodion, (almost) my silver bath, my developer & my sandarac varnish!

224008


You're on your way. Strive for consistency.


Kent in SD

[Andros-zz]

Hello, dear experts and lovers of wet collodion photography! Forgive me for using google translate, but I don't know foreign languages ​​well. I recently became interested in photographing ambrotypes. I have a question for more experienced colleagues. I mixed in a shot of collodion from an Old Workhorse recipe. And the result is unsatisfactory. I have a suspicion that the matter is in not very high-quality reagents .. But perhaps there is something else. Of the problems, for example, for some reason the plate does not become transparent in the fixer. Even if it lies in the fixer for a long time, it remains yellowish-whitish. This happens sometimes in places where collodion flows and its layer is thick, but in my case the entire surface of the plate remains cloudy, even in the shadows it does not acquire transparency. I changed the fixer, it's not in it. What could be the problem?

[Mark Sawyer]

Welcome to the forum!

Your problems could have any number of sources, the developer, the silver bath (did you season it?), the collodion, light leaks, exposure, some misstep in processing, the plate drying out...

Sadly, without being there to see what's happening, it's hard to diagnose a new wet plater's problems over the internet. Hopefully, there's a more experienced wet plate photographer near you who can help.

[Andros-zz]

Now I will try to describe the details. I seasoned the silver bath, and already successfully used it with a collodion of a different recipe, I also used a fixer and a developer with a different collodion and they worked great. The exposure was measured by a stepwise breakdown of the gate - in all ranges it turned out badly. Perhaps I dipped the plate too quickly into the silver bath, didn't let it dry. Perhaps I kept the plate in a silver bath for a long time, 5 minutes. Perhaps I got poor-quality reagents, the salts seem to have been stored in a humid atmosphere. I also have doubts, maybe I didn’t accurately measure cadmium bromide, it’s unlikely, but it could be. Which of the above could affect?
At first glance, the problem looks like the fixer is not working, but I tried it in two different fixers and the result is the same.

[Mark Sawyer]

Sounds like it's the collodion, as the other chemicals are known to work. The amount of salts (the bromides and iodides) is pretty forgiving as they're both well past saturated solutions, (you can't have too much as it will just precipitate out). If you dipped the plate to soon (you'd have to be working pretty fast to do that), you'd notice an odd wrinkly texture to the collodion. I doubt it's from the salts being in a humid atmosphere, as they're in solution now.

I'd also suspect light was getting on the plate, either being fogged in the camera or by an unsafe safelight in the darkroom, but if you're seeing a difference in exposure on a step-scale-exposed plate, it's probably not that.

I'm stumped.

[paulbarden]

I have twice encountered a similar problem, and both times it was using newly mixed salted collodion. The same collodion behaved normally a week later. It seems sometimes new collodion needs several days to "settle" before they are truly usable.
If Andros has proven that a different collodion used with his usual silver bath and other chemistry, then that suggests its that specific collodion. I suggest letting it sit for another week and try it again.

Longer times in the silver bath are not likely to fix any issues you have with plate quality. Its unlikely that the collodion didn't set properly before you put it in the silver bath, unless you put it in the bath less than 1 minute after pouring the plate. Poor quality salts, or measuring incorrectly could give you bad results, but the only way to know would be to get new salts and make a new batch. The fixer is not the issue, if you've demonstrated that it works with other films/collodion.

I suggest letting the collodion age for a few more days and then try again.

[Andros-zz]

Yes, I mixed this collodion less than a week ago. I heard that this recipe matures quickly so I decided to give it a try without waiting two weeks. So it's very likely that this is the issue. And as for the components, I'm not very sure, apparently they were stored in a humid environment. Therefore, I will repeat shooting on this collodion in a week, and if the result does not improve, then I will go to a collodionist friend in a neighboring city and stir from his proven components. Another such question. Am I doing the right thing, when making collodion, I first dissolve the salts in two milliliters of water and only then pour them into the collodion solution?

[paulbarden]

Another such question. Am I doing the right thing, when making collodion, I first dissolve the salts in two milliliters of water and only then pour them into the collodion solution?

My technique is:

1) dissolve the salts in 3ml of distilled water
2) mix the appropriate volumes of Ethanol and Ether and mix them well
3) add the 3ml of water and salts solution into the alcohol + ether
4) Add the appropriate volume of collodion to the above mixture.

Which recipe are you using to make your collodion?

[Andros-zz]

Thanks for answers!
I made collodion from an Old Workhorse recipe.
240 ml collodion
200 ml alcohol
200 ml ether
1.6 g cadmium bromide
1.4 g ammonium bromide
5.0 g ammonium iodide
I reduced the content of all components by half, keeping the proportions.
There was no mention of water in the recipe, but I dissolved each salt in 1-2 ml of distilled water and then poured into collodion already diluted with alcohol and ether.

[paulbarden]

Thanks for answers!
I made collodion from an Old Workhorse recipe.
240 ml collodion
200 ml alcohol
200 ml ether
1.6 g cadmium bromide
1.4 g ammonium bromide
5.0 g ammonium iodide
I reduced the content of all components by half, keeping the proportions.
There was no mention of water in the recipe, but I dissolved each salt in 1-2 ml of distilled water and then poured into collodion already diluted with alcohol and ether.

Old Workhorse MUST ripen for at least two weeks before it is properly ready for use.

Here is the recipe from my notes:

“OLD WORK HORSE” John Coffer
Collodion Recipe

Bromo–Iodized Alcohol Mixture:
In a Glass Beaker Dissolve:
• 0.8 gram Cadmium Bromide {Metal Salt}
• 0.7 gram Ammonium Bromide {Metal Salt}
Into 3 ml DISTILLED Water

To this ADD & Dissolve:
• 2.5 gram Potassium Iodide {Metal Salt}

ADD: 100 ml 190 Proof GRAIN Alcohol

Ether–Collodion Mixture:
In a another Glass Beaker (or Graduated Cylinder)
Combine 120 ml “PLAIN COLLODION USP”
With 50 ml of ETHER

***** ALWAYS Add ETHER TO COLLODION *****

STIR and Add Bromo–Iodized Alcohol Mixture TO Ether–Collodion Mixture

Needs to ripen for Approximately 2 Weeks

[Andros-zz]

Many thanks for your answers and your invaluable experience!
In this case, I will wait another week, and then I will try the collodion and write the result. If the result is still unsatisfactory, then I will try to find better quality reagents and repeat the mixing.
Does the order of blending have a big effect on the result? I have seen different information on this subject, but the opinion of a successful collodionist is especially important.

[Andros-zz]

Today I tried again to take a picture on my collodion. And now it works as it should. He really needed some time to insist. Thanks for the support and advice! I am sure that I will turn to you, experienced collodionists, for help more than once. Inspiration to you and successful shooting!

[paulbarden]

Today I tried again to take a picture on my collodion. And now it works as it should. He really needed some time to insist. Thanks for the support and advice! I am sure that I will turn to you, experienced collodionists, for help more than once. Inspiration to you and successful shooting!

Excellent news, Andros! I was 99% certain you'd discover that the collodion just needed more time to ripen properly. Now you know what to do in the future!

[largeformatposer88]

I couldn't find the answer to this (doesn't mean it's not there), but how long is a silver nitrate bath good for? In other words, how many plates could I sensitize? I have been reading about sunning/heating the bath a few times a year, and this suggests the shelf life is relatively long.

I ask this because I have almost finished building my first DIY 11x14 sliding box camera, and I am weighing the pros and cons of using wet plate (which I have done with 5X7 several years ago) or using Rockland's liquid light emulsion for dry plates (which I have done in a ton of different formats for tintypes and ambrotypes and some weird stuff with enlargers).

If I can make a one silver nitrate bath that can be used many times, this would save me a TON of money in the long run. I know it is not a cheap alternative per say, but I have most of the stuff I would need already, just not the silver nitrate.

Thank you!!

[Mark Sawyer]

My silver nitrate bath is well over ten years old and has had well over a thousand plates through it. With occasional maintenance and replenishing, I expect many more years out of it.

[Two23]

I've been doing tin types steadily for the past two years, mostly 5x7 but also 4x5 and 8x10. I'm finding I need to sun the silver and filter intensely about every 60 tins or so. I sun it for about two days, check the specific gravity and add more water/silver solution to bring up the volume. I also end up adding some silver as well to bring it to proper SG. I sometimes boil it off a little bit to get rid of the solvent build up, maybe every 200 plates or so. I'm going to guess you can do about 50 11x14 before needing to at least sun it and add more silver solution to bring up the volume. If you don't do this you'll be getting little black dots all over the plate. Silver maintenance is easily the biggest pain in the butt of wet plate.


Kent in SD

[largeformatposer88]

Thank you!! This is encouraging!!

[paulbarden]

I couldn't find the answer to this (doesn't mean it's not there), but how long is a silver nitrate bath good for? In other words, how many plates could I sensitize? I have been reading about sunning/heating the bath a few times a year, and this suggests the shelf life is relatively long.

I ask this because I have almost finished building my first DIY 11x14 sliding box camera, and I am weighing the pros and cons of using wet plate (which I have done with 5X7 several years ago) or using Rockland's liquid light emulsion for dry plates (which I have done in a ton of different formats for tintypes and ambrotypes and some weird stuff with enlargers).

If I can make a one silver nitrate bath that can be used many times, this would save me a TON of money in the long run. I know it is not a cheap alternative per say, but I have most of the stuff I would need already, just not the silver nitrate.

Thank you!!

The silver bath can last indefinitely, if properly maintained. John Coffer states that some of his silver baths are twenty-plus years old and still fully functional.

You may know by now that "maintenance" involves regular filtering, monitoring of the specific gravity of the bath (to measure how much silver you've taken out) and replenishment of the silver nitrate content. You will also have to occasionally sun the bath to let the alcohol evaporate and prompt the debris to settle out for filtering. There are other maintenance actions you may have to take further down the road as well, but replenishing, filtering and sunning are the main ones.
Note: I'm one of those practitioners who will warn you not to boil your silver bath for "heavy maintenance": you are in danger of creating silver fulminate in the process, and that compound is outrageously dangerous (explosive). There are alternatives to boiling your silver bath - get a good manual and learn the techniques. Quinn Jacobson's "Chemical Pictures" is a good option. (Quinn's not the most organized writer, so the book isn't the most coherent volume on the subject, but the actual information in the book is excellent, as long as you have the patience for his writing style)

Regarding the cost of maintaining the silver bath: Replenishing the silver content of the bath is something that must be done regularly. Measure the SG and top up the bath as needed. Many practitioners add a gram of AgNO3 after every plate making session. If you make 50 plates and then choose to replenish, you may find you are adding 20 or more grams of Silver to top it up. So its still not cheap to maintain the bath - you have to replace the silver you take out every time you sensitize a plate. But yes, its far cheaper than making a fresh bath every time after you've made 50 plates! I'll say it again: get yourself a good manual that describes these practices in more detail. John Coffers "Doers Guide" is another excellent source of information.

[Tin Can]

Thank you!! This is encouraging!!

Good to know exactly what Sunning does

Thank you

[largeformatposer88]

The silver bath can last indefinitely, if properly maintained. John Coffer states that some of his silver baths are twenty-plus years old and still fully functional.

You may know by now that "maintenance" involves regular filtering, monitoring of the specific gravity of the bath (to measure how much silver you've taken out) and replenishment of the silver nitrate content. You will also have to occasionally sun the bath to let the alcohol evaporate and prompt the debris to settle out for filtering. There are other maintenance actions you may have to take further down the road as well, but replenishing, filtering and sunning are the main ones.
Note: I'm one of those practitioners who will warn you not to boil your silver bath for "heavy maintenance": you are in danger of creating silver fulminate in the process, and that compound is outrageously dangerous (explosive). There are alternatives to boiling your silver bath - get a good manual and learn the techniques. Quinn Jacobson's "Chemical Pictures" is a good option. (Quinn's not the most organized writer, so the book isn't the most coherent volume on the subject, but the actual information in the book is excellent, as long as you have the patience for his writing style)

Regarding the cost of maintaining the silver bath: Replenishing the silver content of the bath is something that must be done regularly. Measure the SG and top up the bath as needed. Many practitioners add a gram of AgNO3 after every plate making session. If you make 50 plates and then choose to replenish, you may find you are adding 20 or more grams of Silver to top it up. So its still not cheap to maintain the bath - you have to replace the silver you take out every time you sensitize a plate. But yes, its far cheaper than making a fresh bath every time after you've made 50 plates! I'll say it again: get yourself a good manual that describes these practices in more detail. John Coffers "Doers Guide" is another excellent source of information.


Thank you so much for this info. I will check out the "Doers Guide" for sure!

[MajorGlory78]

Hey guys and girls, I was wondering if you people could help me troubleshoot an issue with my first ever collodion plates.

The main problem is a fogginess or veil over the images (the images themselves are lacking in contrast, but this could be a side-effect of the fog).

A short description of my chemicals, process and tests I've done today:

- I have bought a premixed, ready-to go set of chemicals from a supplier:
- Collodion (manufacturing date 20-10-2022)
- Silver nitrate solution
- MD9 Developer (ready to use as is)
- Fixer

I have left a glass plate with collodion in the silverbath for about four hours (as instructed by the photographer giving the workshop a few weeks back) before starting.

I am using a Stenopeika 8x10 camera, using 4x5 aluminium plates in a 4x5 reducing backplate. The camera 'seems' to be completely dark inside.

After the first plates came out and, after developing, rinsing, fixing and rinsing again, where pretty foggy and with hardly any contrast I decided to rule out the camera and the dark-room red light by sensitizing a plate in the darkroom and after four minutes, in complete darkness (not even the red light on), develop it directly without ever exposing the plate. It was quite a challenge doing it all by feeling around :D. At first, after developing and fixing it this way, it seems pretty dark (still a hint of fog, so not completely black as I would expect, but not much). As soon as it is drying, it does seem to turn even more foggy again.....

The causes I can think of are:

- Collodion not ripe enough
- Silverbath not 'activated' enough
- A problem with the developer, either with the chemicals or the way I am using it (too long or too short)
- ....

In order to rule out the silverbath not being activated, I have decided to put a clean glass plate with collodion in the bath overnight....

How to rule out these options, or, even better, what options am I completely overlooking?

Thanks for your time and wisdom.

Anne

[paulbarden]

Anne,
The most common culprit for fogged or hazy plates is overdevelopment. I am not familiar with the specific developer you've stated you're using (Its from Mamut?), but the manufacturer must have stated the optimal development time, yes? With wet plate collodion, if you exceed the ideal development time, its very likely that you will start to develop even the unexposed areas, thus fogging the whole plate.

It would also be a good idea to do the "no exposure, develop plate" test with the safelight on: pour the collodion, sensitize it in the silver bath, remove it and let it sit under the safelight (at a safe distance) for a couple minutes, then develop it exactly according to instructions - not a second longer! Rinse and fix it, and evaluate. You should have a clear plate with no silver developed on it. Its likely that your safelight is "safe" for collodion, but its a good idea to test for sure. I'm betting that your developer is too active for the collodion (and your atmospheric conditions), or you're leaving it on the plate too long. Collodion isn't like film; you can't just leave it in the developer longer to get more density, because you will just get a fogged plate if you ver develop. Better to do a new plate and adjust exposure to get it correct. The development time is one variable you should keep the same every time, and adjust exposure to match it.

One other variable to consider: if the temperature where you are is warmer than 75F, then you need to re-evaluate the developer you're using. Warm conditions are the enemy of wet plate work. If your developer is too warm, its much more likely to fog plates, even if the development time is correct.
In warm/hot weather, you adjust your developer by either diluting it with water, or adding more acetic acid to restrain its activity.

[MajorGlory78]

Hello PaulBarden,

Thank you for your reply! You where (for what I described as problem) spot-on! Since I couldn't find any conclusive documentation for the developer I am using, I interpreted your advice somewhat: I started working backwards on developing non-exposed plates until I got the clean, dark result. From 30 to 20 seconds (in steps of 5 seconds) the fog remained. Somewhere between 15 and 10 seconds it didn't occur! Succes! (or so I thought). The images from the camera however where still pretty vague and foggy. So I did a new test with a non-exposed plate, but this time in the camera (with the lens cap on, I opened the cassette for 20 seconds, closed it, and developed). To my relief I still got nice and black plates. The camera and cassette seem to be fine! So what was it then?

I figured the results looked somewhat like overexposed images. I decided to do my light meseaurement not on ISO 1 (as I was adviced to do earlier) but on ISO 3....The exposure time was much less (of course) but details where emerging in the image! I am now working with measurements of ISO 2 and keeping the development time to a strict 15 seconds. For now, this seems to be the best of both worlds. I will experiment more (once I get my new plates in......I wasted quite a lot this weekend). I feel the plates could do with a little more exposure time....but that seems to be the fun part: What is my perfect mix of exposure and development....

That being said, your reply put me on the right track and I am (re)gaining confidence in the process and equipment. So thank you once again!

Edit: In order to help people with the same chemicals in the near future, I ordered my chemicals pre-mixed from Mamut Photo:

- Premixed Collodion LILIANA
- Developer MD-9

[paulbarden]

Hello PaulBarden,

Thank you for your reply! You where (for what I described as problem) spot-on! Since I couldn't find any conclusive documentation for the developer I am using, I interpreted your advice somewhat: I started working backwards on developing non-exposed plates until I got the clean, dark result. From 30 to 20 seconds (in steps of 5 seconds) the fog remained. Somewhere between 15 and 10 seconds it didn't occur! Succes! (or so I thought). The images from the camera however where still pretty vague and foggy. So I did a new test with a non-exposed plate, but this time in the camera (with the lens cap on, I opened the cassette for 20 seconds, closed it, and developed). To my relief I still got nice and black plates. The camera and cassette seem to be fine! So what was it then?

I figured the results looked somewhat like overexposed images. I decided to do my light meseaurement not on ISO 1 (as I was adviced to do earlier) but on ISO 3....The exposure time was much less (of course) but details where emerging in the image! I am now working with measurements of ISO 2 and keeping the development time to a strict 15 seconds. For now, this seems to be the best of both worlds. I will experiment more (once I get my new plates in......I wasted quite a lot this weekend). I feel the plates could do with a little more exposure time....but that seems to be the fun part: What is my perfect mix of exposure and development....

That being said, your reply put me on the right track and I am (re)gaining confidence in the process and equipment. So thank you once again!

Edit: In order to help people with the same chemicals in the near future, I ordered my chemicals pre-mixed from Mamut Photo:

- Premixed Collodion LILIANA
- Developer MD-9

Anne,
I'm glad you've narrowed things down to the point you're getting images. Finding the balance between exposure and development is often the biggest challenge for new practitioners, so your difficulties aren't unique. If the developer you're using is anything like most standard positive developers (I suspect it is) then 10-15 seconds development time is considered optimal under most conditions. Its best to stick to the shortest development time it takes to get a good image, and avoid going longer.

Keep at it - I'm sure you'll get good at it very quickly. Please show us your work, when you feel ready to share!
Paul

[Two23]

For positives I generally will take a test plate with 4 strips of increasing exposures on it (2-4-6-8 seconds) and see which exposure time looks best when developed at 15 seconds. As for boiling the bath, I do it when I start getting tiny black dots. I add about 30% more distilled water, sun for two days, then boil for 10 minutes, filter well. I've yet to read of any explosions when bath is boiled for a short time and it stays liquid.


Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

For positives I generally will take a test plate with 4 strips of increasing exposures on it (2-4-6-8 seconds) and see which exposure time looks best when developed at 15 seconds. As for boiling the bath, I do it when I start getting tiny black dots. I add about 30% more distilled water, sun for two days, then boil for 10 minutes, filter well. I've yet to read of any explosions when bath is boiled for a short time and it stays liquid.


Kent in SD

Personally, I don't think its a good idea to advise a brand new practitioner to boil their silver bath (Anne: look up "Silver fulminate"). Its not likely going to be necessary for him to consider doing, at least not for a couple years.

And yes, a test strip is an excellent way to determine correct exposure, especially when starting out.

[MajorGlory78]

Thanks for the extra info Two23, and thanks for the nuance PaulBarden, don't worry, I think any honest given advice is useful. It is up to me to do my research on any risks concerning certain steps. I have read quite a lot about Wet Plate before and I have followed a local workshop here in the Netherlands before getting my hands dirty (litterally, despite the gloves ;) ). Unfortunately I ran out of plates this weekend. I have tried 'cleaning' one or two when they where still wet, but no matter how properly I try to clean them, the Collodion won't flow properly on a used plate and the image does not seem to appear properly. So re-using plates was a no-go.

P.S. I know this sounds funny to non-dutch people (in fact, It even sounds funny to most dutch people). In some parts of the country 'Anne' is a guys name here. In my case it is :D

[Andreas]

Hi Anne,
I made my first silver tank with dark red plexiglass. Unfortunately I found out that the stuff is pretty transparent to UV light and I fogged many plates before switching to a black tank. I now use a very bright yellow LED with not a hint of fogging.
I agree with Paul Barden's advice and keep my collodion cool, which also prevents a too quick evaporation of ether and alcohol.
Andreas

[paulbarden]

Thanks for the extra info Two23, and thanks for the nuance PaulBarden, don't worry, I think any honest given advice is useful. It is up to me to do my research on any risks concerning certain steps. I have read quite a lot about Wet Plate before and I have followed a local workshop here in the Netherlands before getting my hands dirty (litterally, despite the gloves ;) ). Unfortunately I ran out of plates this weekend. I have tried 'cleaning' one or two when they where still wet, but no matter how properly I try to clean them, the Collodion won't flow properly on a used plate and the image does not seem to appear properly. So re-using plates was a no-go.

P.S. I know this sounds funny to non-dutch people (in fact, It even sounds funny to most dutch people). In some parts of the country 'Anne' is a guys name here. In my case it is :D

Hi Anne,
My apologies - it never occurred to me that Anne was sometimes a man’s name in some countries! I’ve not encountered this before. Sorry.

Reusing trophy plates doesn’t work very well, no. They clean off fairly well if you scrub the under hot water with a non-scratch kitchen pad, but you still have to wipe them very clean with 50/50 alcohol/ether to make them clean enough to reuse. However, by that point you’ve scratched up the black surface enough to make them “second grade”, so they’re really only useful for making test strips. Do you have access to plain glass? It takes extra work to cut and prepare glass, but the results are superior to trophy plate (better blacks, better tonal scale, imo). Glass is generally more readily available than trophy plate!

I’m glad you’ve studied the medium well, and done a workshop. There’s a lot to learn with this process, and the more you know at the start, the better your results will be.

Paul

[MajorGlory78]

Good morning all,

I have experimented with my safe-light and it doesn't seem to influence the images. So that is a relief. I think I was overexposing my images. This causes everything to act as a highlight which makes the image appear super fast. That is why I had to stop the development process so fast (within 10 seconds). I've done some further reading and I see that most wet-plate photographers expect a plate with good exposure to be developed between 15 and 20 seconds. Once I get my new plates, I will work on that. I believe that getting the perfect exposure (either by light-metering or by gut feeling) will be my biggest learning challenge in the coming period.

I have chosen to buy most equipment and chemicals ready-made and pre-mixed for now. In the future I do expect to mix my own chemicals (mainly from a cost perspective). Considering the many many variables I already have to tackle in the photographic process itself, that seemed wise. I got really lucky: The large format camera I wanted to buy on large a second-hand platform turned out to be from a wet-plate photographer (who sadly passed away), so a silver bath (black acrylic) and a fixer bath (same, but with a clear front panel) were included in the deal. I store my chemicals in the darkroom which is a bit below room temperature and (of course) pretty dark most of the time ;).

Thanks again for all your input. I will definitely share my work here once it is getting somewhere!

[Ichi]

Hello, I am not really sure if this is the right place to ask questions, but I ask anyways. I hope anyone who is knowledgeable and experienced could answer my question. It is about the shelf life of collodion.

Question:
Does the shelf life of mixed collodion vary depending on the plain collodion used?

I always mix a small batch of working collodion (Ostermann’s instant formula)

The sensitivity of mixed collodion was good and remained the same for three months (from April thru July this year).
In other words, I used up the plan collodion within three months and during that time, the speed didn’t change much. I tried to keep the bottle of mixed and half-used collodion bottles in my cooler with some ice packs.

In August I opened a bottle of new plain collodion and mixed a small batch of working collodion again. It was OK for the entire month of August, but I found the sensitivity started to deteriorate when I had a photoshoot in the middle of September. I would say it got slower about 1 stop.

It means the first working collodion lasted 3 months while the second working collodion lost its sensitivity in 1.5 months.

Is it possible to happen one plain collodion lasts longer than the other?

Side notes:
I always use the same plain collodion.
Cadmium bromide and potassium iodide are about 10 months old.
I used a premixed solution of ether and grain alcohol to make both working collodions.

Thank you in advance.

[paulbarden]

Hello, I am not really sure if this is the right place to ask questions, but I ask anyways. I hope anyone who is knowledgeable and experienced could answer my question. It is about the shelf life of collodion.

Question:
Does the shelf life of mixed collodion vary depending on the plain collodion used?

I always mix a small batch of working collodion (Ostermann’s instant formula)

The sensitivity of mixed collodion was good and remained the same for three months (from April thru July this year).
In other words, I used up the plan collodion within three months and during that time, the speed didn’t change much. I tried to keep the bottle of mixed and half-used collodion bottles in my cooler with some ice packs.

In August I opened a bottle of new plain collodion and mixed a small batch of working collodion again. It was OK for the entire month of August, but I found the sensitivity started to deteriorate when I had a photoshoot in the middle of September. I would say it got slower about 1 stop.

It means the first working collodion lasted 3 months while the second working collodion lost its sensitivity in 1.5 months.

Is it possible to happen one plain collodion lasts longer than the other?

Side notes:
I always use the same plain collodion.
Cadmium bromide and potassium iodide are about 10 months old.
I used a premixed solution of ether and grain alcohol to make both working collodions.

Thank you in advance.

My guess is that the second batch probably aged faster because the temperatures were warmer from August 1st on. (assuming you're in the northern hemisphere, and in a moderate-to-warm climate) Salted collodion ages faster in hot weather. It also ages faster if its exposed to light. Otherwise, there's no reason your collodion would age faster, if you're using the same materials, the same salts and the same recipe.

[Ichi]

My guess is that the second batch probably aged faster because the temperatures were warmer from August 1st on. (assuming you're in the northern hemisphere, and in a moderate-to-warm climate) Salted collodion ages faster in hot weather. It also ages faster if its exposed to light. Otherwise, there's no reason your collodion would age faster, if you're using the same materials, the same salts and the same recipe.

Many thanks for the helpful comments!
I am located in Tokyo and the temperature and humidity get high during summer. So as you wrote, the heat might have affected the second batch.
Actually, last week I mixed a third batch using the plain (raw) collodion that I used for the second batch, in the hope of saving at least the plain collodion. After mixing the second batch last August, 2/3 of the content was remaining, so I kept the lid tight and stored it in my cooler.
However, the speed of this third batch was almost the same as the second batch, 1 stop slower than the first batch.
Considering everything now, the plain collodion might have aged by the high temperature. I tried to change ice packs in my cooler every day but there were times when I saw the temperature inside the cooler was around 84°F! when I forgot to change...
What is the ideal temperature to store salted collodion and a once-opened plain collodion bottle?
Thank you!

[paulbarden]

Many thanks for the helpful comments!
I am located in Tokyo and the temperature and humidity get high during summer. So as you wrote, the heat might have affected the second batch.
Actually, last week I mixed a third batch using the plain (raw) collodion that I used for the second batch, in the hope of saving at least the plain collodion. After mixing the second batch last August, 2/3 of the content was remaining, so I kept the lid tight and stored it in my cooler.
However, the speed of this third batch was almost the same as the second batch, 1 stop slower than the first batch.
Considering everything now, the plain collodion might have aged by the high temperature. I tried to change ice packs in my cooler every day but there were times when I saw the temperature inside the cooler was around 84°F! when I forgot to change...
What is the ideal temperature to store salted collodion and a once-opened plain collodion bottle?
Thank you!

Have you taken into account that in the winter months, the changes in the quality of light (Assuming you are photographing in daylight?) will translate into much longer exposures. The amount of UV in winter light is much less, and so it takes longer to make an equivalent exposure. So, I wouldn't assume that your collodion is truly slower, even though its brand new. It could be the nature of winter light.

That said, plain (unsalted) collodion doesn't age like salted collodion. You can expect it to remain usable for years, even stored at 85F for periods. (not ideal, but not likely to shorten its life)

[Ichi]

Have you taken into account that in the winter months, the changes in the quality of light (Assuming you are photographing in daylight?) will translate into much longer exposures. The amount of UV in winter light is much less, and so it takes longer to make an equivalent exposure. So, I wouldn't assume that your collodion is truly slower, even though its brand new. It could be the nature of winter light.

That said, plain (unsalted) collodion doesn't age like salted collodion. You can expect it to remain usable for years, even stored at 85F for periods. (not ideal, but not likely to shorten its life)

Thank you very much for your answer. It is very helpful.
Sorry that I should have mentioned before but I use strobes for my portrait work (ambrotype), so everything, except for room temperature, is exactly the same for the August shoots and October shoots.
But it then just occurred to me that another thing that I would need to take into consideration is the temperature of chemicals, especially the developer.
Obviously, there is about a 10F degree difference between August and October.
I stick with the 15-second developing time no matter how fast or slow images appear. I now think that when it is cold, images don’t appear as fast as how they appeared when it was hot in summer, but I was just simply stopping the development after 15 seconds. That explains why the images developed with a cooler developer appeared darker than the images developed with a warmer developer, which made me think the salted collodion (2nd and 3rd batch) aged suddenly. I didn’t really pay attention to the temperature of the developer…but I guess the 10F difference might have caused 1 stop difference. How does my assumption sound to you?

Also,
Even if the bottle of plain collodion is opened and has been stored half full, it doesn’t age like salted collodion if the lid has been tightly closed.
Do I understand you correctly?
Also, do the other chemicals(Cadmium bromide, potassium iodide, ether, and grain alcohol) remain usable for years?

Thank you!

[MajorGlory78]

Hello fellow wet-plate lovers,

After two weekends of pouring, soaking, exposing, developing, fixing, cursing and yelling I am now getting my first workable images! I was still wondering about a few things and I hope you guys can help me answer those questions.

232427

The image is not the kind of work I intend to produce, but the old camera was a willing (and most importantly, not moving) subject for today. I was wondering about the (mostly) tiny black spots on the image. They seem to be some kind of dirt. Where would this come from most likely? The silverbath? Or the fixer? (Or somewhere else?). And the second question is: What causes the 'flow' marks that are best visible on the right side of the image? I am not saying I find them ugly, they do seem to add to the image but since I want to do portrait work in the future, it would help if I new and understand things like that.

Thanks!

[paulbarden]

Hello fellow wet-plate lovers,

After two weekends of pouring, soaking, exposing, developing, fixing, cursing and yelling I am now getting my first workable images! I was still wondering about a few things and I hope you guys can help me answer those questions.

232427

The image is not the kind of work I intend to produce, but the old camera was a willing (and most importantly, not moving) subject for today. I was wondering about the (mostly) tiny black spots on the image. They seem to be some kind of dirt. Where would this come from most likely? The silverbath? Or the fixer? (Or somewhere else?). And the second question is: What causes the 'flow' marks that are best visible on the right side of the image? I am not saying I find them ugly, they do seem to add to the image but since I want to do portrait work in the future, it would help if I new and understand things like that.

Thanks!

Excellent work, Anne. You're making good progress.

My guess about the black spots would be that its dust introduced into the collodion when you pour the plates. Your silver bath hasn't been used enough yet to have contaminants to cause those marks, so its more likely to be junk that gets on the plate as the collodion is poured. Its very difficult to avoid dust completely - its normal to have some marks like this on a plate. Consider the cleanliness of the environment where you pour the collodion and see if there is a cleaner (less dusty) place to do this operation.

[MajorGlory78]

Hi all,

Another day, another issue ;)

I've learned a lot, which is good:

- I was rinsing to hard, this caused damage to the collodion
- Less developer means a more 'even' image
- The collodion I use seems to work best when measuring roughly for ISO 1 (I know the issues with metering in daylight depending on the amount of UV that is actually there or not). This is remarkable, because the manufacturer of the collodion claimes ISO 3-5. What could be the case is the fact it was very, very cloudy here the last days. Since clouds do seem to block a LOT of UV light, this might explain why my current images are working when treating them as ISO 1. On a sunny day, the ISO 3 claim could very much be true I guess?


But I can't seem to get the results I expect. The images that are good seem to be to dark to my eye. I will add two images to demonstrate what I mean:

The first image is direcly from my scanner (unvarnished). The image is pretty 'clear': Even tonality, details present, full of contrast. But I'd like to get the images less dark.
232508

When working with digital, I would simply correct the curves, which (again, only to demonstrate) I have done in gimp. Which results in the second image:
232509

What I don't yet seem to understand is: Should I expose longer? Or should I develop longer? I am hesitant to develop longer with the developer I use, because as we figured out earlier in this thread, as soon as I seem to hit that 12-14 second mark when developing this much feared 'fog' appears.....

I have tried both. As soon as I extended either the development time or the exposure time the jug lost all details or even 'vanished' against the background....

Any hints? Thanks again for your time!

[paulbarden]

Hi all,

Another day, another issue ;)

I've learned a lot, which is good:

- I was rinsing to hard, this caused damage to the collodion
- Less developer means a more 'even' image
- The collodion I use seems to work best when measuring roughly for ISO 1 (I know the issues with metering in daylight depending on the amount of UV that is actually there or not). This is remarkable, because the manufacturer of the collodion claimes ISO 3-5. What could be the case is the fact it was very, very cloudy here the last days. Since clouds do seem to block a LOT of UV light, this might explain why my current images are working when treating them as ISO 1. On a sunny day, the ISO 3 claim could very much be true I guess?


But I can't seem to get the results I expect. The images that are good seem to be to dark to my eye. I will add two images to demonstrate what I mean:

The first image is direcly from my scanner (unvarnished). The image is pretty 'clear': Even tonality, details present, full of contrast. But I'd like to get the images less dark.
232508

When working with digital, I would simply correct the curves, which (again, only to demonstrate) I have done in gimp. Which results in the second image:
232509

What I don't yet seem to understand is: Should I expose longer? Or should I develop longer? I am hesitant to develop longer with the developer I use, because as we figured out earlier in this thread, as soon as I seem to hit that 12-14 second mark when developing this much feared 'fog' appears.....

I have tried both. As soon as I extended either the development time or the exposure time the jug lost all details or even 'vanished' against the background....

Any hints? Thanks again for your time!

1) I don't use a light meter. I recommend that you learn to estimate the amount of time needed for correct exposure. Experience will guide you well. The problem with a light meter is that it doesn't measure UV, which collodion is most sensitive to, so you wil find that your meter is misleading you a lot under certain lighting conditions.

2) I think 1ASA is typical for most standard collodion recipes. By the time the collodion has aged 4-6 weeks, expect that value to drop by half

3) Your sample image gives me the impression it could have received another 1/2 stop of exposure. You shouldn't increase development time to compensate for lack of exposure because all you will do is quickly approach the point at which you're developing out unexposed silver, fogging the plate. Keep development times consistent. If the plate is too dark, make another and increase exposure.

I am wondering if you're trying to compare your image results to standard developing-out paper prints? Tintypes do not have the same tonal range: the lightest values will always have density (if you wish to retain details) that appears dark compared to a modern paper photograph.

That said, if you are not getting bright enough high values, there are a couple of things to consider. The first is: the age of your collodion. As collodion ages, the contrast increases. So if your collodion is only a few weeks old, you'll find that it gets more contrasty and the whites appear brighter once its aged another 4-8 weeks. Having some older collodion around can be useful when you want extra contrast.
Secondly, you can experiment with adding small amounts of Saltpeter (Potassium nitrate) to your developer, which will give a boost in brightening the whites. You can read about it here (https://www.alternativephotography.com/say-goodbye-to-cyanide-a-less-toxic-approach-to-fixing-wet-collodion-plates/) Read the whole article, but pay special attention to the part titled Developer Research. Finding the right amount of Saltpeter to add to the developer may take some trial and error on your part, but the recommendations in that article are a good place to start.

[jforney_54]

I'm looking to restart a project using wet plate. I have some bottles of collodion on hand, unopened from Bostick & Sullivan. Suffice it to say they are old...like 5-7 years old (or more). Been stored in the garage at ambient temp year round (Denver).

Can anyone comment on the efficacy of dated collodion? I have little hope its still useful...just looking to confirm.

Thanks

[paulbarden]

I'm looking to restart a project using wet plate. I have some bottles of collodion on hand, unopened from Bostick & Sullivan. Suffice it to say they are old...like 5-7 years old (or more). Been stored in the garage at ambient temp year round (Denver).

Can anyone comment on the efficacy of dated collodion? I have little hope its still useful...just looking to confirm.

Thanks

Is it already salted with bromides/iodides, or are we talking about plain collodion (nothing added)?
Salted collodion of that age will be pretty much useless, but plain collodion might still be usable.

[jforney_54]

Paul, yes it is just plain collodion...nothing added.

I may just have to give it try and see how it goes.

Thanks

[paulbarden]

Paul, yes it is just plain collodion...nothing added.

I may just have to give it try and see how it goes.

Thanks

The test will be if you can pour a plate with it and not have it slide off the plate in shreds at the slightest touch. The issue is that it gets very soft with age.

[Mark Sawyer]

Besides getting soft, old collodion also gets very thin with age, pouring almost like water. Let it set up on the plate a while or it will be too thin after being drained off. Better to just order new collodion, I'm afraid.

[Ichi]

Hi, I work on wet plate photography and these are part of the scanned images of the plates that I recently made.
Can you identify these white and black marks (spots)?
Both of them are ambrotypes. They were not from one shoot session though.
I used a moderately new collodion and developer. My silver bath has been recently maintainanced (1 month ago).
Is it possible to have these marks (dusts?) if the plates aren't clean enough?
Thank you in advance.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UJvjhVmxKgG78yqs7

[cuypers1807]

Hi, I work on wet plate photography and these are part of the scanned images of the plates that I recently made.
Can you identify these white and black marks (spots)?
Both of them are ambrotypes. They were not from one shoot session though.
I used a moderately new collodion and developer. My silver bath has been recently maintainanced (1 month ago).
Is it possible to have these marks (dusts?) if the plates aren't clean enough?
Thank you in advance.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UJvjhVmxKgG78yqs7

The dark marks are most likely from not washing the plate long enough after fixing. What fixer are you using? Rapid fix needs a longer and more thorough rinse than KCN.

[Ichi]

Thank you for your comments.
I use Rapid Fix diluted 1:4 (KCN is not available in Japan, unfortunately). I wash the plate for about 20 mins. I may be better off using Perma Wash.

[Ichi]

Title: Aerating silver bath
Is there any method to measure if the silver bath needs to be aerated except for checking with smell, and also to be sure that the bath no longer contains ether and alcohol after aeration? I have a health issue with smelling things.

Also what is a safe way to aerate the silver bath that I can do under cold winter weather (temperature, outside 5C inside 20C /Humidity 40-50%)?
Anyone who has a fish tank aerator to remove excess ether and alcohol?
Thank you in advance.

[pau3]

I have recently rediscovered this wonderful thread. Let me start by thanking all the people that has contributed here.

I think, however, that the use of glycerin to postpone fixing or washing when working in the field has not yet been covered.
I have read a few things around the web, and I have tried some, but I am not completely sure if I'm doing
things correctly or if I could do other things.

In the last few days I've been doing the following. After exposing the plate, I develop it and give it a quick rinse.
Then I flow the plate with a mixture of equal parts of glycerin and distilled water. I leave the liquid on top of the plate
for a couple of minutes, drain it and finally I place the plate horizontally in a black box(*). Next day, once at home,
I wash the plate(s) and fix them. Usually, I also redevelop them. This procedure seems to work fine.
The only drawback is that, since the plates are only developed and not fixed and I don't have enough experience yet
to judge the exposition from the unfixed plates, I often find that the plates could have benefited from a longer exposure.

Then, my questions are the following.

1) Is the procedure, described above, correct? In particular, I am not sure if only flowing the plate with glycerin is the right
thing to do. It seems to work, though.

2) Could I develop, fix and, after a quick rinse, flow the plate with the above procedure? In this way, at least I could better
judge the exposition and leave the rest of the steps (final rinse and intensification) to the next day.

I have found that fixing and washing plates in the field is rather impractical.

3) Has anyone compared two identically exposed and developed plates, one of them fixed in the usual manner and the other
one flowed with glycerin and fixed the next day? Are they identical or the arrested fixing has some effect on the result?
I will do the test next week, but maybe someone has already done it.

(*) The black box is a dedicated box, light tight, designed to store plates horizontally.

[cuypers1807]

I just carry a rack that fits in a tank of water and fix on site so I know I exposed the plate correctly.

[pau3]

This is a follow-up of my previous post on the use of glycerin to postpone fixing/washing of plates
when working in the field. I am interested in the method because I want to shoot negatives and I prefer
to do the intensificatioin step in a more controlable environment, besides the saving in water and hardware
that one needs to carry to the field.

I have performed the following test. I shot three identical plates, in the sense that they were given the same exposure
and were developed during the same amount of time. The plates had albumenized edges. I must say that
my skills are not goog enough to obtain three really identical plates.

The first plate was developed, fixed and, after a quick rinse, flowed with 50% glycerin. Finally, it was stored in a dark box.

The second plate was developed, rinsed and, without fixing, flowed with glycerin. It also went to the dark box.

The third plate was fully processed, with a final intensification with iodine/ferrous sulfate.

After 36 hours, I processed the first and second plates, giving them the same intensification as the third one.

Finally, I varnished all three plates with sandarac varnish.

Besides the differences due to pouring errors, all three plates seem to be identical. To be sure, I will print them as soon as
I get back to my darkroom, but I'm quite confident that the method works.

This is the tintype I shot to assess the exposure of three plates:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53120169576_48ddba6964_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2oW3KJG)

La Taiadella, Catalunya. Agost 2023. (https://flic.kr/p/2oW3KJG) by Pau Martín (https://www.flickr.com/photos/27566883@N06/), on Flickr

[Eric in Vegas]

I bought some pre-cut standard 5x7 trophy plates for my Zebra v2 5x7 holder. The fit is so tight that I have to sort of force the plate into the holder and its difficult to get them out. I suspect this will cause problems when I attempt my first wet plates. I'm guessing that I need to have my plates trimmed a tad smaller...maybe 1/16" so that there is a tiny bit of play? Is it typical to have to make tiny adjustments to the plates, perhaps using a file?

[Eric in Vegas]

244629
I took my first tintypes today and my images all seem to come out dark (this image has also been varnished). I kept increasing exposure so I don't believe underexposure is the cause but the sun may have been outpacing my exposure adjustments. Could this be an under or over development issue?

Also, most of my images had a slight bit of fog but not over the entire image but rather like foggy artifacts. Interestingly enough, when I was cleaning some of my plates to reuse them, I found that these artifacts wiped away with a wet finger. I wouldn't think this would be good for the emulsion...has anyone encountered this, and if so, any ideas on how to prevent this?

[paulbarden]

244629
I took my first tintypes today and my images all seem to come out dark (this image has also been varnished). I kept increasing exposure so I don't believe underexposure is the cause but the sun may have been outpacing my exposure adjustments. Could this be an under or over development issue?

Also, most of my images had a slight bit of fog but not over the entire image but rather like foggy artifacts. Interestingly enough, when I was cleaning some of my plates to reuse them, I found that these artifacts wiped away with a wet finger. I wouldn't think this would be good for the emulsion...has anyone encountered this, and if so, any ideas on how to prevent this?

So, I'd need to know more about your materials and methods before I could give you advice: what chemistry are you using, how old is it, which collodion, which developer, etc? How long are you developing the plates?
Yes, it's possible that the light intensity was dropping as you made each plate, but it's hard to say without knowing specifics: by how much did you increase exposure each time?
RE foggy artifacts: this is likely what is called "oyster marks" which is exposed silver from a previous exposure being redeposited on the next plate, leaving marks around the plate edges. Yes, it can be wiped off gently with a cotton ball when the plate is in the wash water. Most of us have to do some degree of cleanup in this manner. The way to limit how much of this you get is to clean the plate holder after every single plate - use a Q-tip to wipe any leftover silver nitrate out of the plate holder before inserting the next plate for exposure. This will eliminate 90% of the contaminated silver marks.

[ethics_gradient]

244629
I took my first tintypes today and my images all seem to come out dark (this image has also been varnished). I kept increasing exposure so I don't believe underexposure is the cause but the sun may have been outpacing my exposure adjustments. Could this be an under or over development issue?

Also, most of my images had a slight bit of fog but not over the entire image but rather like foggy artifacts. Interestingly enough, when I was cleaning some of my plates to reuse them, I found that these artifacts wiped away with a wet finger. I wouldn't think this would be good for the emulsion...has anyone encountered this, and if so, any ideas on how to prevent this?

You lose about a stop or so of brightness under varnish - basically the wet plate in the fix is around what it'll look like after varnishing, but it brightens up a bit when it dries in between. I always scan plates when they're dry, they tend to look quite dull after varnishing.

The best way to get a good exposure is to do a test plate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxMR0NPY7og&ab_channel=LundPhotographics) and keep your development time consistent; I see way too many people trying to both change exposure in camera and then develop by inspection and wondering why they can't get good results. I use Waldack's No.1 developer and 15s or so development time is normal.

If you use a spot meter to record EV values in your metered scene with the test plate, you can then adjust your exposure as the light changes (within reason, the "golden hour" is usually a crapshoot for collodion and I often switch to a film camera if I have one on me). Since collodion ages it's generally considered best practice to do a test plate at the start of each day, you can probably get away with not doing it but it's cheap insurance IMO.

With the oyster shells, while it's under water/fix, use a cotton ball and basically no pressure rather than a finger for wiping it away. The better you clean your plate holder, the fewer problems with these you should have.

If you're getting splashy looking marks around the edges that won't wipe off, it's probably from contaminents (silver nitrate and developer) on your gloves - either change them or wipe them off with alcohol between plates.


I bought some pre-cut standard 5x7 trophy plates for my Zebra v2 5x7 holder. The fit is so tight that I have to sort of force the plate into the holder and its difficult to get them out. I suspect this will cause problems when I attempt my first wet plates. I'm guessing that I need to have my plates trimmed a tad smaller...maybe 1/16" so that there is a tiny bit of play? Is it typical to have to make tiny adjustments to the plates, perhaps using a file?

Yes, better slightly too small than slightly too big. It shouldn't normally happen, but plate holders do vary in size (the Charmonix ones I use for 4x5 and 8x10 are just a tiny bit smaller than standard) so if you're buying from a supplier it's worth confirming measurements in advance.

I ordered some tin plates that were slightly too big and used tin snips to trim the excess off. Leaves a ragged edge so I only use them for test plates. I also have a bunch of glass I bought from another photographer that is also slightly too big for the Charmonix holders, will use inserts to shoot them in my 8x10 camera.

[QUOTE=pau3;1689219]This is a follow-up of my previous post on the use of glycerin to postpone fixing/washing of plates
when working in the field.

Great work! I have been using the glycerine method for shooting in the field since I started, works a treat. I always fix in the field with hypo or ammonium thiosulfate because I find the feedback is important and lets me adjust if needed. After fixing I rinse with a very small amount of water (~200mls, mostly on the image side but also a bit on the back to get any fix off there) then coat with glycerine. They will last weeks and even months like that before doing the final rinse and varnish.

[Eric in Vegas]

So, I'd need to know more about your materials and methods before I could give you advice: what chemistry are you using, how old is it, which collodion, which developer, etc? How long are you developing the plates?
Yes, it's possible that the light intensity was dropping as you made each plate, but it's hard to say without knowing specifics: by how much did you increase exposure each time?
RE foggy artifacts: this is likely what is called "oyster marks" which is exposed silver from a previous exposure being redeposited on the next plate, leaving marks around the plate edges. Yes, it can be wiped off gently with a cotton ball when the plate is in the wash water. Most of us have to do some degree of cleanup in this manner. The way to limit how much of this you get is to clean the plate holder after every single plate - use a Q-tip to wipe any leftover silver nitrate out of the plate holder before inserting the next plate for exposure. This will eliminate 90% of the contaminated silver marks.

Thank you for the tips. Yesterday was my first time ever shooting wet plate and I was using a brand new starter kit from UVphotographics (UVP-4 & Iron Potassium Nitrate). Today I adjusted my exposure and saw a huge difference...I think running a bit overexposed now but at least moving in the right direction. I adjusted how I was applying my developer and the little "wispy" cloudy areas disappeared. I'm not sure if that was it, but I was applying in a circular motion and I felt like the cloudy areas were kind of mirroring the motion of my developer application? Now I try to quickly apply from one edge and cascade it across.

My collodion pouring technique is sorely lacking and my development needs work but I'm finally getting some brighter images.

[Eric in Vegas]

After extending my exposure, I'm looking like this now (varnish applied). My collodion pouring needs some work. I think I'm on the right track but any tips/advice would be greatly appreciated.244676

[ethics_gradient]

I adjusted how I was applying my developer and the little "wispy" cloudy areas disappeared. I'm not sure if that was it, but I was applying in a circular motion and I felt like the cloudy areas were kind of mirroring the motion of my developer application? Now I try to quickly apply from one edge and cascade it across.


It sounds like you're doing it right, Borut Peterlin has a video or two on YT where he demonstrates the technique. Developing is much more tricky than the collodion pour (see below), uneven development can result from insufficient agitation or the collodion not being runny enough (can dilute with more alcohol to help it flow better).


After extending my exposure, I'm looking like this now (varnish applied). My collodion pouring needs some work. I think I'm on the right track but any tips/advice would be greatly appreciated.244676

Pour until the puddle is about 3/4 of the way out to the edges before you stop and start tilting it to each corner.

I started wet plate back in Australia where collodion is comparatively expensive (100mls for AUD$65) and it took me way too long to stop being too stingy with my pours. In the end I had to realise that saving a few mLs of collodion to make a bad plate is a false economy, and with technique you can recapture most of the overage in your pour-off bottle anyways.

[Eric in Vegas]

It sounds like you're doing it right, Borut Peterlin has a video or two on YT where he demonstrates the technique. Developing is much more tricky than the collodion pour (see below), uneven development can result from insufficient agitation or the collodion not being runny enough (can dilute with more alcohol to help it flow better).



Pour until the puddle is about 3/4 of the way out to the edges before you stop and start tilting it to each corner.

I started wet plate back in Australia where collodion is comparatively expensive (100mls for AUD$65) and it took me way too long to stop being too stingy with my pours. In the end I had to realise that saving a few mLs of collodion to make a bad plate is a false economy, and with technique you can recapture most of the overage in your pour-off bottle anyways.

Thank you for the feedback. It was actually one of Borut's videos that caused me to realize my developing technique may have been causing me issues. I also hear what you're saying about the false economy of being stingy on chemicals...I'm constantly guilty of that as well. Thanks again.

[Eric in Vegas]

After reasonable success with an old wooden view camera and brass lens, I'd like to try wet plate with my Graflex Crown Graphic 23 with Optar 101mm lens. I have a film pack adapter to modify for plates. My main question is in regards to the lens. Any reason it wouldn't work for wet plate...UV transmission or anything like that? Any other possible concerns? Thanks, Eric

[michael_los_angeles_photo]

It will be fine.

[paulbarden]

After reasonable success with an old wooden view camera and brass lens, I'd like to try wet plate with my Graflex Crown Graphic 23 with Optar 101mm lens. I have a film pack adapter to modify for plates. My main question is in regards to the lens. Any reason it wouldn't work for wet plate...UV transmission or anything like that? Any other possible concerns? Thanks, Eric

No, there's no reason to think the lens would be inappropriate for your needs. in fact, it would be very difficult to find a lens that wouldn't work for Wet Plate.

[Ichi]

Please help: a line with bubbles on a plate (ambrotype)
The line and bubbles in the middle of this plate, what do you think could be the cause? I don't believe it's a hesitation mark since the plate is dipped horizontally when immersed in silver nitrate (This image on the right is a section of a vertical portrait). It might be influenced by ether or alcohol leaching into the silver nitrate, but I'm only speculating. I perform heavy maintenance and aerate the silver nitrate relatively frequently (although it might not be enough). If anyone has encountered similar issues and identified the cause, could you please share your insights? (I understand there are likely multiple factors at play.) It happens once in a blue moon.

The collodion: KI and CdBr mixed a month ago.
Size: 5x7in.
Room temp: 23C
Humidity: 40%
The length of sensitization: 4mins

Thank you!245432

[AgNO3]

Please help: a line with bubbles on a plate (ambrotype)
The line and bubbles in the middle of this plate, what do you think could be the cause? I don't believe it's a hesitation mark since the plate is dipped horizontally when immersed in silver nitrate (This image on the right is a section of a vertical portrait). It might be influenced by ether or alcohol leaching into the silver nitrate, but I'm only speculating. I perform heavy maintenance and aerate the silver nitrate relatively frequently (although it might not be enough). If anyone has encountered similar issues and identified the cause, could you please share your insights? (I understand there are likely multiple factors at play.) It happens once in a blue moon.

The collodion: KI and CdBr mixed a month ago.
Size: 5x7in.
Room temp: 23C
Humidity: 40%
The length of sensitization: 4mins

Thank you!245432

I´d say, its hesitation marks. Horizontally sensitized plates tend to flow a bit and may not submerge evenly...

[AlexGard]

Over half the issues in this thread could be rectified/avoided if people just started doing test exposure plates first.
Every manual should be prefaced with this.

[paulbarden]

Over half the issues in this thread could be rectified/avoided if people just started doing test exposure plates first.
Every manual should be prefaced with this.

Exactly.

[AlexGard]

What on earth has happened here?

This is a fresh batch of collodion, mixed last night. Old Reliable sans ether.
I assume this Is something to do with the collodion itself, perhaps it has not set properly before going into the bath? I've not seen this before. I shake my plates rather aggressively during development, is it possible this is wobbling the Image in this strange way?

I've extended my development time by 50% to shorten exposure times. I've not done this before. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240505/9e96b3868c807767797890e9c0d3cf82.jpg

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[paulbarden]

What on earth has happened here?

This is a fresh batch of collodion, mixed last night. Old Reliable sans ether.
I assume this Is something to do with the collodion itself, perhaps it has not set properly before going into the bath? I've not seen this before. I shake my plates rather aggressively during development, is it possible this is wobbling the Image in this strange way?

I've extended my development time by 50% to shorten exposure times. I've not done this before. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240505/9e96b3868c807767797890e9c0d3cf82.jpg

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

If you’re making Old Reliable but omitting the additional Ether, then the Collodion is too thick and will not flow correctly. Why omit the Ether from the recipe??

[Mark Sawyer]

Rock the plate as you drain the collodion off, so it doesn't all flow in the same direction. The phenomenon is called "corduroy lines".

[AlexGard]

If you’re making Old Reliable but omitting the additional Ether, then the Collodion is too thick and will not flow correctly. Why omit the Ether from the recipe??Quite the opposite. The collodion is super watery. I noticed when mixing it the merck collodion is a lot more of a watery consistency than the scharlau collodion I usually get.

I can only get denatured ethanol. I have tried mixing old reliable with ether and denatured in the past and there seemed to be some clash between denatured and ether.

Etherless old reliable has never been an issue for me in the past.

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[Andros-zz]

Hello, friends and colleagues!
Please tell me why a white coating may appear on the surface of the plate after drying, which can be wiped off with cotton wool. I read that this happens from fresh collodion, from excessive alkalinity or acidity of the silver solution, from elevated temperature, or from a contaminated silver bath. I gradually changed all the parameters, but the white coating still appears. Please advise what else can be done to improve the situation.

[Coastie]

Alex,

I have found an Australian supplier of 95% proof alcohol.

It's not a cheap drop, but it might be worth it to try it and see if it helps?


https://www.harrisorganicwine.com.au/shop/pure-alcohol.html

[paulbarden]

Hello, friends and colleagues!
Please tell me why a white coating may appear on the surface of the plate after drying, which can be wiped off with cotton wool. I read that this happens from fresh collodion, from excessive alkalinity or acidity of the silver solution, from elevated temperature, or from a contaminated silver bath. I gradually changed all the parameters, but the white coating still appears. Please advise what else can be done to improve the situation.

Wet Plate Collodion images always have a powdery pale surface texture in areas of most exposure (whites), and this is normal. If you burnish the plate, you can easily remove this whitish surface layer, but it is a normal component of the wet plate image and (under normal circumstances) should not be wiped off before varnishing. This powdery surface material appears over the whole plate in areas of greatest exposure (none in the shadows, more in the brighter areas), as opposed to silver contamination, described in the following paragraph.

There is a secondary type of "white coating" that is described as Oyster marks, and this is the result of previously exposed silver being deposited on the plate from a contaminated plate holder. To avoid this effect, clean your plate holder every time, between plates, to remove any liquid silver nitrate from the holder. Oyster marks don't typically cover the whole plate, but instead are irregular marks around the edges of the plate.

This Reddit page (https://www.reddit.com/r/Collodion/comments/v7g4a6/first_tintype_where_did_i_mess_up_with_the_fog/) shows an excellent example of Oyster marks on a plate.

Question: if you wipe this powdery surface coating off, do the brighter areas on the plate become very mirror-like? (Silver reflective) If so, then you are wiping off the normal surface coating that is inherently part of the image. It's normal. Don't worry about it.

[Andros-zz]

It was a very white coating on the entire surface of the plate, regardless of the exposure area. The problem was solved when I salted a new batch of collodion. I made inquiries in different places and came across the opinion that this happens when the collodion is overly aged, overripe. But my collodion was 2 to 4 weeks old from the time of pickling. For some reason he aged very quickly. Why could this be? The original collodion as a component was not very fresh (2020), but its age before salting hardly matters.

[ueli]

Hello everyone who sees this.
I've just shot my first three 4x5 wet plates, with odd results.

I used a custom built camera for this, which is just a cardboard box I glued together with dimensions of 4"x5"x6" and a plastic lens I bought on eBay glued to the front (see attached pictures). I also wrapped the back in black fabric once I had inserted the prepared plate, so I am confident that the light only enters through the lens. I glued the box to my tripod mount (hot glue so I can take it off when I'm done playing with it), so the camera was as close to a real large format camera as I could manage on a budget of $7 and a spirit of perseverance.

The first exposure was a success in my opinion, I could at least tell that it was working (which was unexpected). The first plate was exposed for about three seconds with two tripod mounted (with fencing wire) flashlights and an old DSLR flash serving as lighting. The second and third exposures were both confusing failures. The second was exposed for 30 seconds the same lighting conditions. The third was exposed for one second with the same two flashlights but no flash. Both of these latter two exposures came out completely black with very slight markings on them, but no clear indication that anything was actually captured like was present in the first one.

I am unsure how the second and third exposures could be so similarly wrong, as the only difference between them and the first exposure was time and lighting, which are of course important but I would expect to have gotten some more informative data from these exposures rather than nothing at all.

Here are some images of each of the three exposures.

251954 251953
above: The first exposure with the shape of the lens just barely visible, highlighted in red. (3 SEC., FLASHLIGHT + FLASH)

251955
above: The second exposure, completely black with no signs (in my untrained eyes) that anything happened. (30 SEC., FLASHLIGHT + FLASH)

251956
above: The third exposure, similar to the second as far as I can tell. (1 SEC., FLASHLIGHT)

Here are some images of the camera itself.

251960
above: The inside of the camera as seen by the plate (hopefully). I don't fully understand how a real large format camera would work, I know this is a very simplified version of one but hope that I could get some somewhat legible exposures with it. You can see this profile was captured slightly in the first exposure.

251958
above: The plate is loaded into the back of the camera and held with a pushpin and blind overconfidence.

251959
above: The loading hatch is then closed and held there with a rubber band. The opening was originally intended to be the loading mechanism, but I ditched that idea.

251957
above: The camera when fully prepped. The black fabric is placed around the back and held with sewing pins to keep it tightly wrapped so light can't get in.

I am a little confused! I didn't change the chemical process at all between the first exposures and the next ones, but the image doesn't come out at all the second two times... why? When creating the wet plate, I think I was successful in my collodion pour, I let it spread across the whole plate, poured off the excess, and then let it dry for about 30 seconds. Then I put it in my silver bath (8g silver nitrate/100mL water) for four minutes. After this, I made the exposure, then came back to process it. I put it in developer (1:3 developer:water) for 15 seconds, then put it in fixer (1:4 fixer:water) until the image appeared, which didn't happen for the second and third exposures. Is there a problem with my process? I used Bostick and Sullivan developer, collodion, and silver nitrate. I used Ilford Rapid Fixer and all the water was distilled. I am confused but hopeful, any help, advice, comments, or opinions would be much appreciated! I am determined to take a picture on a cardboard box, nothing will stop me (except my complete lack of money and soon time).

P.S., I don't know why the images are so small, hopefully they're visible enough.

[paulbarden]

Hello everyone who sees this.
I've just shot my first three 4x5 wet plates, with odd results.

I used a custom built camera for this, which is just a cardboard box I glued together with dimensions of 4"x5"x6" and a plastic lens I bought on eBay glued to the front (see attached pictures). I also wrapped the back in black fabric once I had inserted the prepared plate, so I am confident that the light only enters through the lens. I glued the box to my tripod mount (hot glue so I can take it off when I'm done playing with it), so the camera was as close to a real large format camera as I could manage on a budget of $7 and a spirit of perseverance.

The first exposure was a success in my opinion, I could at least tell that it was working (which was unexpected). The first plate was exposed for about three seconds with two tripod mounted (with fencing wire) flashlights and an old DSLR flash serving as lighting. The second and third exposures were both confusing failures. The second was exposed for 30 seconds the same lighting conditions. The third was exposed for one second with the same two flashlights but no flash. Both of these latter two exposures came out completely black with very slight markings on them, but no clear indication that anything was actually captured like was present in the first one.



Let's address your lighting first: "The first plate was exposed for about three seconds with two tripod mounted (with fencing wire) flashlights and an old DSLR flash serving as lighting."

Collodion has an ISO of about 0.5 to 1.0 ASA, so there's no way a modest DSLR flash and a couple of flashlights are going to render an image on collodion. People who do portraits using electronic flash use Speedotron packs with 4800 WS of power in order to get an image, and that is at least a couple orders of magnitude more power than what you're using. If there was something on your first plate, it was a development (or light leak) artifact, I can pretty much guarantee you that much.

You need to be performing your tests using daylight. I like the premise of your process and I think you're being very creative on a budget, but you need MUCH more light to get usable images on collodion.

[ueli]

Let's address your lighting first: "The first plate was exposed for about three seconds with two tripod mounted (with fencing wire) flashlights and an old DSLR flash serving as lighting."

Collodion has an ISO of about 0.5 to 1.0 ASA, so there's no way a modest DSLR flash and a couple of flashlights are going to render an image on collodion. People who do portraits using electronic flash use Speedotron packs with 4800 WS of power in order to get an image, and that is at least a couple orders of magnitude more power than what you're using. If there was something on your first plate, it was a development (or light leak) artifact, I can pretty much guarantee you that much.

You need to be performing your tests using daylight. I like the premise of your process and I think you're being very creative on a budget, but you need MUCH more light to get usable images on collodion.

Thank you very much for your response. I know very little about photography to be entirely honest. I really like taking pictures with simple cameras, but any more than that is beyond me. I had seen some videos of portrait photography with flashes and studio lights, and knew certainly that those were much brighter than anything I had access to, but didn't realize the degree of difference. I will try some exposures with sunlight. Good to know that it was just a weird artifact for the first exposure as well, and it gives me a little hope again to realize how completely underexposed the second and third attempts were and that I may just need to change that in order to get some interesting results. In the meantime I've made a ground glass panel with some valve grinding compound (not my idea) so hopefully this along with a sunlight exposure can get me some more substantial photographs. Thanks again for your recommendation.

[ueli]

Thank you very much for your response. I know very little about photography to be entirely honest. I really like taking pictures with simple cameras, but any more than that is beyond me. I had seen some videos of portrait photography with flashes and studio lights, and knew certainly that those were much brighter than anything I had access to, but didn't realize the degree of difference. I will try some exposures with sunlight. Good to know that it was just a weird artifact for the first exposure as well, and it gives me a little hope again to realize how completely underexposed the second and third attempts were and that I may just need to change that in order to get some interesting results. In the meantime I've made a ground glass panel with some valve grinding compound (not my idea) so hopefully this along with a sunlight exposure can get me some more substantial photographs. Thanks again for your recommendation.

Hello again. I tried implementing some changes with my process. First, I just tried sunlight exposure. Both my first and second attempts this time were in somewhat indirect sunlight (not optimal of course but it is easiest to just use what light I get on the balcony) and were for 30 seconds. I repeated the same test twice because the first time I may have had a small amount of light come in before I was ready. Neither of these gave any good results. This made me suspect that my chemicals may be an issue, so I remixed my fixer and developer according to the same ratios as before and was more careful this time not to contaminate either with the other during post-processing. I also tried an exposure in full sunlight outside for 15 seconds. This third exposure was also unsuccessful. At this point I am really not sure what the issue could be. Is 15 seconds really not enough? I've seen results online where even five seconds of direct sunlight results in overexposure, but of course these are with different lenses from mine. Beyond this point, my next attempt would probably just be a change in exposure time, maybe to 30 seconds, but I am not hopeful that this is really the only issue. I have tried 30 seconds with the old chemicals, and that also resulted in nothing at all.

Here are some pictures of the plates I wrote about:

252027
above: Here are the first two plates, neither seemed to capture anything.

252025
above: Here is what I was trying to capture with the lighting it had while the exposures were made.

252028
above: Here's my third exposure, again nothing seems to have been captured, thought it is a lot brighter looking than the previous two. It was a picture of a flower outside, again I can't tell if anything was captured which doesn't make for a great photo.

I've practiced with a few more exposures, none of which worked or had anything worth mentioning (I forgot to take pictures before they faded away).

A few questions I have:
1. What is the optimal time for the silver nitrate bath? I've done four minutes each time, but maybe there's a problem here? I have very little silver nitrate to work with, I only ordered 10g because its so expensive, so my bath barely submerses the plate without constant movement of the container.
2. Am I supposed to be washing the plate off after the silver bath? I haven't done so at all, and even though I tap the plate a bit over the bath to get most of the liquid off, its still wet with a little silver nitrate mixture when I put it into the camera and during the exposure.
3. How long is the fixer stage supposed to last? I have been putting the plate into the developer for about 35 seconds (it says 30-40 seconds at 70°F on the bottle), washing it off, then putting it into the fixer for anywhere from 15 seconds to a minute. I have read that it is supposed to be until the image appears, but of course none do.

Those are about all the questions I can think of at this stage, I know there are calculators for exposure time, but they aren't very useful for me since I have no way to measure light level or any specifications for the lens I am using (ridiculous I know, but that's what a mysterious $7 eBay lens gets you).

Once again, any comments, advice, or anything to know I'm not typing into a void would be much appreciated :). Also, would this be better posted as a separate thread about my cardboard adventure? I'm afraid to violate any unspecified etiquette, I have only ever lurked on forums before.

[shelby_wright]

A few questions I have:
1. What is the optimal time for the silver nitrate bath? I've done four minutes each time, but maybe there's a problem here? I have very little silver nitrate to work with, I only ordered 10g because its so expensive, so my bath barely submerses the plate without constant movement of the container.
2. Am I supposed to be washing the plate off after the silver bath? I haven't done so at all, and even though I tap the plate a bit over the bath to get most of the liquid off, its still wet with a little silver nitrate mixture when I put it into the camera and during the exposure.
3. How long is the fixer stage supposed to last? I have been putting the plate into the developer for about 35 seconds (it says 30-40 seconds at 70°F on the bottle), washing it off, then putting it into the fixer for anywhere from 15 seconds to a minute. I have read that it is supposed to be until the image appears, but of course none do.

Those are about all the questions I can think of at this stage, I know there are calculators for exposure time, but they aren't very useful for me since I have no way to measure light level or any specifications for the lens I am using (ridiculous I know, but that's what a mysterious $7 eBay lens gets you).

Once again, any comments, advice, or anything to know I'm not typing into a void would be much appreciated :). Also, would this be better posted as a separate thread about my cardboard adventure? I'm afraid to violate any unspecified etiquette, I have only ever lurked on forums before.

1) The rule of thumb is around 3 minutes at 20C - longer if it's colder, can go shorter if it's hotter. In general it doesn't really matter if you leave it in longer. Agitating it the way you are will speed up the sensitising.

Something I didn't see you mention is whether you iodised your bath before using it - you need to put a glass plate coated in collodion in it overnight. I may be misremembering this, but I think the reason is because otherwise an unseasoned bath will suck all the iodides out of the collodion on the plate you're taking an image on, and you won't get much.

Because you are using such a small bath I would not use a whole plate though, I'd coat a small piece of glass (maybe 25cm2 or less). Don't use trophy aluminium because having it in your bath overnight will do bad things to it.

I know silver nitrate is expensive but you are making it extra difficult for yourself using such a small bath relative to the size of plate. Any problems with your bath such as excess solvents, contamination, or particulate matter are going to be magnified and immediately apparent, there will be much less margin for error. You'll also find it harder to get consistent results with each plate taking up a comparatively greater amount of the available silver, meaning you'll need to maintain and replenish it more often.

You can build a vertical tank for 4x5 out of a memo water bottle (hacksaw off the top), and some cardboard and duct tape for lightproofing - it's what I've used for years.

2. On the contrary, you want to dry it off as best you can. Put each edge down on a paper towel and let that wick away a bit of the remaining silver nitrate solution, then dry the back. The less silver nitrate floating around in your holder/camera, the less likely you'll see artefacts from contamination. However, washing/not washing it would not lead to the global failures you're seeing in your plates.

3. Fixer depends on how many plates you've run through it already (some people like to use it one-shot, personally I don't want to deal with disposing of that much fixer). I use sodium thiosulfate at around 20% concentration by volume and a plate typically clears in 10-60s or so depending on how much I've run through it that day and how recently I've topped it off with fresh stuff. At any rate it's not really possible to overfix with sodium or ammonium thiosulfate, so that won't be your problem.

Collodion is notoriously hard to meter for due to how the chemistry ages and how it perceives light differently from our eye/a standard meter, but that doesn't mean a meter isn't useful.

If you had a normal film holder (or found a way to integrate a darkslide into your camera), you could do a test plate where you push the dark slide in at 20% increments for exposures of 2 (all the way out), 2, 4, 8, and 16s (final 20%). The resulting plate will show you what exposures look like at 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32s. If you take note of the EV values when you shoot your plate, you can then adjust as the light changes. Unless I was shooting the previous day and have readings to go off of, I start every shoot by doing this. Today I got an exposure of 5s @ f/16 with a meter reading of 12EV in the shade, and as the sun came out (and later was hidden by clouds) I could adjust as I went. Trying to develop by inspection is something everyone sees the experts doing in YouTube videos and tries to emulate, but it just adds another unecessary variable to the process and creates more problems for most people starting out. You're doing the right thing by holding development time constant, stick with the instructions.

I have a feeling that lens probably lets in a fair bit of light (and doesn't have a way to close down the aperture and let in less), so in full sunlight you may need to use shorter increments than I described above, like maybe 1/2s, 1/2s, 1s, 2s, 4s.

If you'd like some free reading, Will Dunnaway's widow has posted his collodion handbook online for free: https://www.alternativephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/The-Wet-Collodion-Plate7-web.pdf

Christopher James (who wrote the Book of Alternative Processes) has a chapter on wet plate, which also happens to be one of the ones he offers for free as a sample: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/640122189011053b57abe489/t/6404e4867d49164322d3921f/1678042248603/Chapter-17-Wet-Plate-Collodion-Process.pdf

But definitely keep posting your results and questions here too!

[paulbarden]

Hello again. I tried implementing some changes with my process.

A few questions I have:
1. What is the optimal time for the silver nitrate bath? I've done four minutes each time, but maybe there's a problem here? I have very little silver nitrate to work with, I only ordered 10g because its so expensive, so my bath barely submerses the plate without constant movement of the container.
2. Am I supposed to be washing the plate off after the silver bath? I haven't done so at all, and even though I tap the plate a bit over the bath to get most of the liquid off, its still wet with a little silver nitrate mixture when I put it into the camera and during the exposure.
3. How long is the fixer stage supposed to last? I have been putting the plate into the developer for about 35 seconds (it says 30-40 seconds at 70°F on the bottle), washing it off, then putting it into the fixer for anywhere from 15 seconds to a minute. I have read that it is supposed to be until the image appears, but of course none do.

Those are about all the questions I can think of at this stage, I know there are calculators for exposure time, but they aren't very useful for me since I have no way to measure light level or any specifications for the lens I am using (ridiculous I know, but that's what a mysterious $7 eBay lens gets you).

Once again, any comments, advice, or anything to know I'm not typing into a void would be much appreciated

My first thought is: I wonder if euli knows that the silver bath has to be replenished regularly, by adding more silver nitrate crystals? If you have bought only 10 grams and it made barely enough solution to cover a plate, then you are very quickly going to exhaust that tiny amount of silver unless you are replenishing the bath. I know AgNO3 is expensive, but this is one aspect of wet plate photography you can't "cheap out" on - if you don't have a well maintained silver bath, then none of the other details matter. You're going to have to invest in more silver nitrate if you're going to succeed at this and there's no getting around that.

Your other questions....
As Shelby said, three minutes in the silver bath is average. Less time if the environment is warm (80F or more) and longer if it's cold (50F or less). The time in the bath isn't critical as long as you aim for 3 minutes or so.

No, you are NOT supposed to wash the plate after you take it out of the silver bath. Just let it drain, and wipe off the back of the plate. Whatever you do, DON'T touch the front (collodion side) of the plate!

If you are using a rapid fixer, then fixing time is 2X as long as the minimum time it takes for the cloudy/blue has cleared from the plate. Fixing time isn't critical as long as you properly clear the plate.

About your lens: there is absolutely nothing marked on the lens to indicate its focal length or aperture value?? Without that critical detail, you are just guessing, and that's not helpful. I gotta say, though I admire your creativity in terms of making your own camera, etc., you are also making this process very difficult for yourself by leaving crucial details blank. But if you persist, you will likely start getting images on your plates. But controlling the variables and getting any kind of consistency is going to be difficult.

If you can find your way to spending some more money on this project, I recommend two things - one is mandatory and one is semi-optional. First, you're going to have to buy more silver nitrate. There's no escaping this fact. You'll need to replenish the silver bath (I'm betting you're close to using up the 10 grams you've got), and you should be using a hydrometer to measure the silver concentration. (Ideally you want to maintain a specific gravity of about 1.074).
As stated in the Dunniway manual:

"Before using any new silver bath you will need to purchase a hydrometer . (Beer and wine making stores sell them as well as labware supply houses .) This hydrometer will test
for the specific levels of gravity in your new solution. In other words, how much silver
is in your bath . To start, you will need to add your new silver bath solution to the glass cylinder beaker supplied with the hydometer . If it is not supplied, you will need to buy
a glass beaker deep enough for your hydrometer to float in. Now pour the new bath up to the mark at the top of the glass beaker . Then slowly lower your hydrometer into this measured bath solution. Make a note at what mark the hydrometer levels off at. This mark on your hydrometer will always be your reference point when you need to add new silver solution to any used silver bath . This is in order to bring it back to the 9% silver solution that is desired in the wet plate collodion process."

Typically, a 9% AgNo3 solution has a specific gravity close to 1.074, and you need to maintain that concentration or you will have great difficulty getting consistent images.

The second recommendation is: buy a lens that has a known focal length and (much more important) a known aperture value. That way, you can at least start to use a light meter (figure out how to measure light for 1 ASA) and then you won't be guessing anymore - you will have actual data to work with.

One other thing that bears mentioning is about development times. I look at the plates you've shown here and if the plate has not received any exposure, the plate should be clear (black) after the fixing bath. That bottom photo of the bluish plate tells me that either the plate is getting fogged in-camera, or you are overdeveloping the plate, which will cause unexposed silver to develop out. (Yes, that happens. It's not like film at all) Or maybe it's both. Only a lot of testing will reveal which problems you're seeing and separate them from each other.

Study that Dunniway document. If the only literature you have to work with is the Bostick and Sullivan instructions, you are working from a very spare document that offers only the bare bones of instruction. If you decide to get serious about wet plate collodion work, a complete tutorial manual is essential. John Coffer's "Doer's Guide (https://www.johncoffer.com)" is considered the best and most complete manual, but Quinn Jacobson's "Chemical Pictures" is also very thorough. But start with the Dunniway document - it has a lot to offer.

[paulbarden]

@euli: any progress on your wet plate technique?

[ueli]

But definitely keep posting your results and questions here too!


@euli: any progress on your wet plate technique?

Thank you again for the suggestions and interest. Thank you in particular for the suggestion to iodize my silver bath, I had never heard of that part of the process in all my research. I did that with the suggested size of glass plate and now all my further exposures have been done using an iodized/sensitized silver bath. I also got some more silver nitrate, the 10g really wasn't enough. I have also taken into consideration trying to use a 'real' camera, like a Kodak 3A if I could find one for fairly cheap. I have also read through some of the documents that were suggested, and will continue to look through them.

I have made a few more exposures, and I think I may be getting closer to a successful one. What I got was more helpful than previous experiments have been. I used a second lens that I had gotten with the first, it seems to be part of a set, once again with no helpful parameters printed on it except for 'TELEPHOTO LENS' on the side. I had made a second box camera for it exactly as I made the first one, just with a smaller distance between the lens and plate of four inches instead of six. The aperture is a little smaller (still completely open) so I have a little more margin for error with the exposure time than with the other lens. Two exposures were taken with this lens in as similar conditions as I could manage, just a few minutes apart. One was exposed for half of a second, the other for five seconds. Everything else was kept the same as best as I could manage. It is clear from the exposures (at least it seems to be) that the correct exposure time would lie somewhere between these, as one is completely underexposed and the other completely overexposed. This seems like a much more reasonable margin than with the previous camera, where even my fastest times were far too bright.

Here are the two exposures I made with the telephoto lens.

252270

above: The top plate is the half second exposure, the bottom is the five second one. Both were taken in a slightly cloudy environment.

252271

above: The view through the camera of what it was trying to capture.


I also tried with the first lens and camera two more times, and again got results that were probably not that helpful. There may be a sort of outline of the statue in one of the exposures, but it could just be a random remnant of the process. This exposure was made in direct sunlight for half of a second.

Here is that exposure and what it was trying to capture.

252272

above: Six inch camera plate exposed for half of a second in direct sunlight.

252273

above: View from the position of the camera, there is a somewhat similar outline to what is seen in the final exposure: near-success or Marian apparition?

I've thought up a couple more questions during my experimenting:
1. I had an idea for a cardboard disk (Cheerio shaped) that I could place inside the camera against the lens in place of an aperture, does this seem like it might work? It would function somewhat like a pinhole camera by limiting what amount of light can go through the lens. I don't actually know how an aperture works, just how it looks, and this seems to mimic that well enough. Any idea what aperture size would be most helpful in the process of getting a successful exposure?
2. I have access to a few old DSLR lenses, would using one of these in the same manner as my mystery lenses be at all reasonable or possible? I would at the very least know a little more of their specifications than I do the mystery eBay ones.
3. Any suggestions for good ways to clean off failed exposures? I am using trophy plate aluminum and have now gotten through all 14 of the plates I ordered. I sealed one for practice but left the others.
4. I have noticed that many of the plates begin to peal after I leave them to dry overnight. Is there a good sealing technique to prevent this? I have some spray gloss sealant that I used on my first exposure after it dried. It made it a little murkier, but it never pealed. Is this a reasonable process?

Thanks so much for all the help, I really hope I can post a successful exposure soon!

[paulbarden]

Thank you again for the suggestions and interest. Thank you in particular for the suggestion to iodize my silver bath, I had never heard of that part of the process in all my research. I did that with the suggested size of glass plate and now all my further exposures have been done using an iodized/sensitized silver bath. I also got some more silver nitrate, the 10g really wasn't enough. I have also taken into consideration trying to use a 'real' camera, like a Kodak 3A if I could find one for fairly cheap. I have also read through some of the documents that were suggested, and will continue to look through them.

I have made a few more exposures, and I think I may be getting closer to a successful one. What I got was more helpful than previous experiments have been. I used a second lens that I had gotten with the first, it seems to be part of a set, once again with no helpful parameters printed on it except for 'TELEPHOTO LENS' on the side. I had made a second box camera for it exactly as I made the first one, just with a smaller distance between the lens and plate of four inches instead of six. The aperture is a little smaller (still completely open) so I have a little more margin for error with the exposure time than with the other lens. Two exposures were taken with this lens in as similar conditions as I could manage, just a few minutes apart. One was exposed for half of a second, the other for five seconds. Everything else was kept the same as best as I could manage. It is clear from the exposures (at least it seems to be) that the correct exposure time would lie somewhere between these, as one is completely underexposed and the other completely overexposed. This seems like a much more reasonable margin than with the previous camera, where even my fastest times were far too bright.

Here are the two exposures I made with the telephoto lens.

252270

above: The top plate is the half second exposure, the bottom is the five second one. Both were taken in a slightly cloudy environment.

252271

above: The view through the camera of what it was trying to capture.


I also tried with the first lens and camera two more times, and again got results that were probably not that helpful. There may be a sort of outline of the statue in one of the exposures, but it could just be a random remnant of the process. This exposure was made in direct sunlight for half of a second.

Here is that exposure and what it was trying to capture.

252272

above: Six inch camera plate exposed for half of a second in direct sunlight.

252273

above: View from the position of the camera, there is a somewhat similar outline to what is seen in the final exposure: near-success or Marian apparition?

I've thought up a couple more questions during my experimenting:
1. I had an idea for a cardboard disk (Cheerio shaped) that I could place inside the camera against the lens in place of an aperture, does this seem like it might work? It would function somewhat like a pinhole camera by limiting what amount of light can go through the lens. I don't actually know how an aperture works, just how it looks, and this seems to mimic that well enough. Any idea what aperture size would be most helpful in the process of getting a successful exposure?
2. I have access to a few old DSLR lenses, would using one of these in the same manner as my mystery lenses be at all reasonable or possible? I would at the very least know a little more of their specifications than I do the mystery eBay ones.
3. Any suggestions for good ways to clean off failed exposures? I am using trophy plate aluminum and have now gotten through all 14 of the plates I ordered. I sealed one for practice but left the others.
4. I have noticed that many of the plates begin to peal after I leave them to dry overnight. Is there a good sealing technique to prevent this? I have some spray gloss sealant that I used on my first exposure after it dried. It made it a little murkier, but it never pealed. Is this a reasonable process?

Thanks so much for all the help, I really hope I can post a successful exposure soon!

I'll start with this: 1/2 second in sunlight isn't enough exposure to get an image. That's just development artifact you're getting on your plates, not an image.

Don't guess - make a test strip plate (https://www.lundphotographics.com/index.php/blog/best-practice/in_camera_test_plates.html), or you will just waste more materials.

You can scrub off collodion from failed plates with water, as long as you have not allowed the collodion to dry. If it has dried, you will need to use Ether to remove it.

[AgNO3]

Hello everyone who sees this.
I've just shot my first three 4x5 wet plates, with odd results.

I used a custom built camera for this, which is just a cardboard box I glued together with dimensions of 4"x5"x6" and a plastic lens I bought on eBay glued to the front (see attached pictures). I also wrapped the back in black fabric once I had inserted the prepared plate, so I am confident that the light only enters through the lens. I glued the box to my tripod mount (hot glue so I can take it off when I'm done playing with it), so the camera was as close to a real large format camera as I could manage on a budget of $7 and a spirit of perseverance.

The first exposure was a success in my opinion, I could at least tell that it was working (which was unexpected). The first plate was exposed for about three seconds with two tripod mounted (with fencing wire) flashlights and an old DSLR flash serving as lighting. The second and third exposures were both confusing failures. The second was exposed for 30 seconds the same lighting conditions. The third was exposed for one second with the same two flashlights but no flash. Both of these latter two exposures came out completely black with very slight markings on them, but no clear indication that anything was actually captured like was present in the first one.

I am unsure how the second and third exposures could be so similarly wrong, as the only difference between them and the first exposure was time and lighting, which are of course important but I would expect to have gotten some more informative data from these exposures rather than nothing at all.

Here are some images of each of the three exposures.

251954 251953
above: The first exposure with the shape of the lens just barely visible, highlighted in red. (3 SEC., FLASHLIGHT + FLASH)

251955
above: The second exposure, completely black with no signs (in my untrained eyes) that anything happened. (30 SEC., FLASHLIGHT + FLASH)

251956
above: The third exposure, similar to the second as far as I can tell. (1 SEC., FLASHLIGHT)

Here are some images of the camera itself.

251960
above: The inside of the camera as seen by the plate (hopefully). I don't fully understand how a real large format camera would work, I know this is a very simplified version of one but hope that I could get some somewhat legible exposures with it. You can see this profile was captured slightly in the first exposure.

251958
above: The plate is loaded into the back of the camera and held with a pushpin and blind overconfidence.

251959
above: The loading hatch is then closed and held there with a rubber band. The opening was originally intended to be the loading mechanism, but I ditched that idea.

251957
above: The camera when fully prepped. The black fabric is placed around the back and held with sewing pins to keep it tightly wrapped so light can't get in.

I am a little confused! I didn't change the chemical process at all between the first exposures and the next ones, but the image doesn't come out at all the second two times... why? When creating the wet plate, I think I was successful in my collodion pour, I let it spread across the whole plate, poured off the excess, and then let it dry for about 30 seconds. Then I put it in my silver bath (8g silver nitrate/100mL water) for four minutes. After this, I made the exposure, then came back to process it. I put it in developer (1:3 developer:water) for 15 seconds, then put it in fixer (1:4 fixer:water) until the image appeared, which didn't happen for the second and third exposures. Is there a problem with my process? I used Bostick and Sullivan developer, collodion, and silver nitrate. I used Ilford Rapid Fixer and all the water was distilled. I am confused but hopeful, any help, advice, comments, or opinions would be much appreciated! I am determined to take a picture on a cardboard box, nothing will stop me (except my complete lack of money and soon time).

P.S., I don't know why the images are so small, hopefully they're visible enough.

You seem to start from scratch with very little basic theory of photography ingested. You should at least research, how a camera of such design works.

How do you assure, you are in focus? You would need a moveable focus screen (ground glass), which I do not see on that box. I´d guess, your plate is too close to the (200-300mm?) lens, focussing to nowhere beyond infinity, resulting in a totally blurred "image". Cameras focus to infinity, when the sensor (here focus screen and wet plate) is placed at the noted focal length of the lens; to focus on closer things, the sensor needs to be pulled away from the lens. This is a matter of fractions of a mm, you cannot just place a sensor at a random distance to the lens and expect an image.

Not sure about the varieties of collodion, one can order at B&S, but maybe you just have wrongly ordered plain USP collodion (which would need to be mixed with certain chems to become light sensitive in combination with the silver nitrate) instead of ready to use collodion with the chems (iodides, bromides, alcohol and ether) already added at certain amounts. (Just a guess, why there is no reaction to light visible or even an image occuring).

Keep on!

[paulbarden]

You seem to start from scratch with very little basic theory of photography ingested. You should at least research, how a camera of such design works.

How do you assure, you are in focus? You would need a moveable focus screen (ground glass), which I do not see on that box. I´d guess, your plate is too close to the (200-300mm?) lens, focussing to nowhere beyond infinity, resulting in a totally blurred "image". Cameras focus to infinity, when the sensor (here focus screen and wet plate) is placed at the noted focal length of the lens; to focus on closer things, the sensor needs to be pulled away from the lens. This is a matter of fractions of a mm, you cannot just place a sensor at a random distance to the lens and expect an image.

Not sure about the varieties of collodion, one can order at B&S, but maybe you just have wrongly ordered plain USP collodion (which would need to be mixed with certain chems to become light sensitive in combination with the silver nitrate) instead of ready to use collodion with the chems (iodides, bromides, alcohol and ether) already added at certain amounts. (Just a guess, why there is no reaction to light visible or even an image occuring).

Keep on!

It appears to me that he is getting some reduced silver on the plates, probably unexposed silver developing out, so I don't think he is working with unsalted collodion. If he were, there would be no silver forming on those plates at all - they'd be black.

That said, I think your comment about focusing an image on the film plane is valid: I have no idea if that is being achieved or not.

Euli, is there any way you can find a local wet plate practitioner to spend an afternoon with you to properly demonstrate the process? You don't seem to be making any meaningful progress, and I think you will continue to struggle without some hands-on guidance.

I think your exposure times are still way too short to be registering an image. For example, this scene (https://flic.kr/p/2q9NrZU), using western daylight coming in a window, was a 2 and a half minute exposure using an f4.5 lens, wide open.

[ueli]

You seem to start from scratch with very little basic theory of photography ingested. You should at least research, how a camera of such design works.

How do you assure, you are in focus? You would need a moveable focus screen (ground glass), which I do not see on that box. I´d guess, your plate is too close to the (200-300mm?) lens, focussing to nowhere beyond infinity, resulting in a totally blurred "image". Cameras focus to infinity, when the sensor (here focus screen and wet plate) is placed at the noted focal length of the lens; to focus on closer things, the sensor needs to be pulled away from the lens. This is a matter of fractions of a mm, you cannot just place a sensor at a random distance to the lens and expect an image.

Not sure about the varieties of collodion, one can order at B&S, but maybe you just have wrongly ordered plain USP collodion (which would need to be mixed with certain chems to become light sensitive in combination with the silver nitrate) instead of ready to use collodion with the chems (iodides, bromides, alcohol and ether) already added at certain amounts. (Just a guess, why there is no reaction to light visible or even an image occuring).

Keep on!

It appears to me that he is getting some reduced silver on the plates, probably unexposed silver developing out, so I don't think he is working with unsalted collodion. If he were, there would be no silver forming on those plates at all - they'd be black.

That said, I think your comment about focusing an image on the film plane is valid: I have no idea if that is being achieved or not.

Euli, is there any way you can find a local wet plate practitioner to spend an afternoon with you to properly demonstrate the process? You don't seem to be making any meaningful progress, and I think you will continue to struggle without some hands-on guidance.

I think your exposure times are still way too short to be registering an image. For example, this scene (https://flic.kr/p/2q9NrZU), using western daylight coming in a window, was a 2 and a half minute exposure using an f4.5 lens, wide open.

I have been using B&S Workhorse Collodion, I think its all pre-mixed which is what I wanted. I did make a ground glass screen, I just couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be doing so I only used it once. I of course made a less than ideal version myself because it was cheaper. Is the ground glass supposed to go between the lens and the plate? Or is it supposed to go behind to show an image preview before the plate is inserted? Like you said, I'm just guessing at focal length so I can't be very sure of much that I'm doing. I am more aware than anyone how undesirable this is. I didn't know that the focal length could be used to determine how far to place the plate from the image though, that is helpful even if I can't actually use that information with much confidence.

I've looked up some local wet plate photographers, I may try reaching out to some if I can find a good time for it. School is starting soon (also the reason I have no money!) so I don't know if I will be able to spend much time on this project for awhile. I will continue to make adjustments and try different ideas based on what I learn about wet plate in the future, and I'll post anything interesting I get. Thanks for the help.

[paulbarden]

I have been using B&S Workhorse Collodion, I think its all pre-mixed which is what I wanted. I did make a ground glass screen, I just couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be doing so I only used it once. I of course made a less than ideal version myself because it was cheaper. Is the ground glass supposed to go between the lens and the plate? Or is it supposed to go behind to show an image preview before the plate is inserted? Like you said, I'm just guessing at focal length so I can't be very sure of much that I'm doing. I am more aware than anyone how undesirable this is. I didn't know that the focal length could be used to determine how far to place the plate from the image though, that is helpful even if I can't actually use that information with much confidence.

I've looked up some local wet plate photographers, I may try reaching out to some if I can find a good time for it. School is starting soon (also the reason I have no money!) so I don't know if I will be able to spend much time on this project for awhile. I will continue to make adjustments and try different ideas based on what I learn about wet plate in the future, and I'll post anything interesting I get. Thanks for the help.

You'll do yourself a favor by just buying an inexpensive box camera like a No. 3 Kodak Brownie Model B (see example wet plate photo here (https://flic.kr/p/276L9qn), made with that camera), which can be had for as little as $20 for a working example. This will take a lot of the guesswork out of what you're doing.

PS: the ground glass is supposed to be AT the image plane where the collodion plate is going to sit. Its purpose is to allow you to preview the image and get it correctly focused before putting the plate in the camera. But given how you've described your "camera" I'm not sure you can actually set focus correctly. Just get a "real" camera. Right now you're just wasting money and materials as you guess at how to make this work.

[abamkin]

Hi guys! Is there a practice of "contact" image shooting on a wet plate, direct illumination through a film with a photo print?

[abamkin]

And a question about chemistry! Is it possible to replace 99% acetic acid with 70% and ethyl with isopropyl alcohol?

[shelby_wright]

Hi guys! Is there a practice of "contact" image shooting on a wet plate, direct illumination through a film with a photo print?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, do you want to convert a film image to a wet plate one? In that case I'd probably just scan the image and take a photo of the screen using a camera.


And a question about chemistry! Is it possible to replace 99% acetic acid with 70% and ethyl with isopropyl alcohol?

Yes to the acetic acid (you add less water, you can even use vinegar from the grocery store if you want to).

I suppose it might depend on the denaturant but back in Australia I had no issues using denatured alcohol in developer, but I've never heard of anyone using isopropyl. I don't know that it wouldn't work, but denatured is cheap enough I never tried.

[AgNO3]

To "copy" existing images on wet plates, you´d either shoot a printed picture with a wet plate set up or use a dia positive in an enlarger with a custom "cold" UV containing light source.

"Table stove fuel" bio ethanol seems to be suitably denaturated for wet plate chems to replace the expensive Everclear. I use it for my developer, sandarc varnish and plate cleaning, but not in the collodion (its with drinkable 96.5% alc). Regarding the acid, just do the math to adjust your desired concentration. Food grade acids may degrade quicker and flock out with the ferro oxide, make sure to filter extensively.

[Eric in Vegas]

I’m looking for nitric acid to maintain my silver bath. I assume the 67% industrial stuff will work fine? Any recommendations on where I might find it in small quantities locally?

[paulbarden]

I’m looking for nitric acid to maintain my silver bath. I assume the 67% industrial stuff will work fine? Any recommendations on where I might find it in small quantities locally?

I don't know about locally, but B&S ships it: https://www.bostick-sullivan.com/product/7-nitric-acid-25-ml/

[Ichi]

The following question is regarding your post from around June 1, 2020, where you answered about redeveloping negatives. Apologies if I am using the method incorrectly.

I also want to redevelop using FeSO₄ instead of Pyrogallic acid to create dense negatives, but I am not achieving good results. The density increases slightly, but it is still too weak for printing processes like salt printing. I would greatly appreciate it if you could share your experience and knowledge.

For negatives, I shoot at an exposure about 1.5 stops brighter than the proper exposure for ambrotypes. For the first development, I dilute the positive developer to half strength and develop for about two minutes. After fixing and washing, I pour diluted tincture of iodine over the plate, expose it to UV light for about 30 seconds, and then proceed with redevelopment.
The formula for my second developer is as follows:
* Distilled water: 100 mL
* Ferrous sulfate (FeSO₄): 6 g
* Citric acid: 0.8 g
* Additionally, I add 10 drops of silver nitrate solution.
I agitate the redevelopment solution over the plate for about two minutes.

My question is: Which chemicals or steps should I add to increase the density further? I have had success with intensification in the past, but I would like to develop a redeveloping method that uses less silver nitrate.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.

[paulbarden]

I gave up on the Iodine Redevelopment process years ago: it simply wouldn't build enough density to make the negatives usable. I stick to Copper sulfate + AgNO3 intensification for that job now. The silver nitrate bath is the same one I have been using for years and it still works well.

[Ichi]

Thanks for your comments! Ah, I see...
By the way, you prepare a separate silver bath for intensification, distinct from the one used during shooting, right?
If I remember correctly, the silver bath for intensification is 6%. This can be used continuously while being replenished, correct?

[paulbarden]

Thanks for your comments! Ah, I see...
By the way, you prepare a separate silver bath for intensification, distinct from the one used during shooting, right?
If I remember correctly, the silver bath for intensification is 6%. This can be used continuously while being replenished, correct?

Yes, this is a unique silver solution to be used specifically for negative intensification and nothing else. I've been using the same solution for 6 years and not replenished it - it still works. I don't recall exactly what percent solution is required for the intensification bath, I will have to look it up.

[AgNO3]

Very comprehensive step by step guide (incl tips for chemical mix adjustments compared to ambrotypes) on how to intensify negatives with the copper method by Giorgio Bordin:


https://youtu.be/-qwxUb0zTIA?feature=shared


Edit:for the intensification, his silver solution concentration is 60%, but one commenter on that video report good results with 30% concentration, some literature even mentions as little as 10%. I´ve only once followed the Bordin tutorial and mix, so can not contribute much. Happy to learn more.

[Ichi]

Yes, this is a unique silver solution to be used specifically for negative intensification and nothing else. I've been using the same solution for 6 years and not replenished it - it still works. I don't recall exactly what percent solution is required for the intensification bath, I will have to look it up.

Thank you!
For reference, how many milliliters of silver bath do you use for the intensification? Do you primarily process 8x10 inch sizes?

[Ichi]

Very comprehensive step by step guide (incl tips for chemical mix adjustments compared to ambrotypes) on how to intensify negatives with the copper method by Giorgio Bordin:


https://youtu.be/-qwxUb0zTIA?feature=shared


Edit:for the intensification, his silver solution concentration is 60%, but one commenter on that video report good results with 30% concentration, some literature even mentions as little as 10%. I´ve only once followed the Bordin tutorial and mix, so can not contribute much. Happy to learn more.

Very informative video! Thank you for sharing.

[paulbarden]

Thank you!
For reference, how many milliliters of silver bath do you use for the intensification? Do you primarily process 8x10 inch sizes?

I think I keep about 250 ml of silver for this process. You don't need a lot. But there's no getting around the fact that silver is expensive.

[Ichi]

I think I keep about 250 ml of silver for this process. You don't need a lot. But there's no getting around the fact that silver is expensive.

Indeed! Thanks for the comment.

[AgNO3]

https://youtu.be/jTYAOoYQkhg?feature=shared

Another one by Bordin, where he uses 6% silver solution with the copper method.

[Ichi]

Question regarding Cooper Intensification:

The bleach solution consists of Part A (20% copper sulfate solution) and Part B (10% potassium bromide solution), which should be mixed in a 1:1 ratio just before use.

Can the mixed bleach solution be used to process multiple plates on the same day, or should Part A and Part B be mixed separately for each plate?

Currently, I plan to process 5x7 ambrotypes using 200ml of bleach solution. I would appreciate any advice you can provide.

[paulbarden]

Question regarding Cooper Intensification:

The bleach solution consists of Part A (20% copper sulfate solution) and Part B (10% potassium bromide solution), which should be mixed in a 1:1 ratio just before use.

Can the mixed bleach solution be used to process multiple plates on the same day, or should Part A and Part B be mixed separately for each plate?

Currently, I plan to process 5x7 ambrotypes using 200ml of bleach solution. I would appreciate any advice you can provide.

The CuSO4 bleach bath A can be reused for several plates on the same day, yes. I'm not sure how many you could process with the same bath, but I doubt you could make enough plates in a single day to exhaust the bath!

[Ichi]

Thanks for the comments. Let's see how it goes.

[Journeyman]

Hi Everyone- I'm brand new here and have run into a brick wall trying to diagnose the cause of fog/veiling on my positive plates. All chemicals are freshly mixed. Using Z Formula collodion from UV Photographics and chemistry mixed according to instructions in Quinn's Chemical Pictures book.

At first I thought it was an exposure development issue, but I finally tried just exposing a plate in the darkroom and the milkiness is still there, so it's not the holder or camera.

I don't see any light leaks in the darkroom and have worked with a very dim Yankee safelight only during development and beyond. The silver bath is, for now, in an open tray which I cover in darkness.

The temperature in the darkroom and chemicals is in the mid 60s F.

Without buying new collodion and/or silver bath, developer, fixer I'm just not sure what to try next. I'm hoping someone might recognize an issue looking at my image, or just have general recommendations.

Here's an attempt at an image that shows the fogging. The true blacks are where I failed to coat the plate with collodion.

Many thanks ~ Blake258517

[paulbarden]

Hi Everyone- I'm brand new here and have run into a brick wall trying to diagnose the cause of fog/veiling on my positive plates. All chemicals are freshly mixed. Using Z Formula collodion from UV Photographics and chemistry mixed according to instructions in Quinn's Chemical Pictures book.

At first I thought it was an exposure development issue, but I finally tried just exposing a plate in the darkroom and the milkiness is still there, so it's not the holder or camera.

I don't see any light leaks in the darkroom and have worked with a very dim Yankee safelight only during development and beyond. The silver bath is, for now, in an open tray which I cover in darkness.

The temperature in the darkroom and chemicals is in the mid 60s F.

Without buying new collodion and/or silver bath, developer, fixer I'm just not sure what to try next. I'm hoping someone might recognize an issue looking at my image, or just have general recommendations.

Here's an attempt at an image that shows the fogging. The true blacks are where I failed to coat the plate with collodion.

Many thanks ~ Blake258517

I've replied to Blake over on the Wet Plate forum and discussed a few potential solutions to the problems he's having, and hopefully he'll post results of his tests soon.

Paul

[Journeyman]

Thanks to your help, Paul, I seem to have solved the fogging issue. You advised that it was most likely due to over development, which was spot on. When I cut the time of development down to 15 seconds and added some acid (vinegar) to the developer the fogging went away. Here's the last test image I shot- although it's underexposed, it's clear of fogging....

258538

[AlexGard]

Thanks to your help, Paul, I seem to have solved the fogging issue. You advised that it was most likely due to over development, which was spot on. When I cut the time of development down to 15 seconds and added some acid (vinegar) to the developer the fogging went away. Here's the last test image I shot- although it's underexposed, it's clear of fogging....

258538For what it's worth, underexposed </> underdeveloped. I tell everyone that's starting to ALWAYS do a step plate. Pretty much every shoot.

You're going to be able to identify all your problems at once just about. And you'll also get the correct exposure time relative to the developer recipe/time you're using.

Also, the true black spots are where the developer didn't hit the plate, not where there was no collodion. The sooner I learned to use an excessive amount of developer and flow it over the plate and shake like a madman my plates ended up a lot better. Luther Gerlach has a great video from a lecture he did where he shows his development technique. I'll use about 75mL for an 8x10 plate. About 90mL for an 11x14. Sounds excessive but I'll never get those black spots again.

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[Journeyman]

More good advice- thanks. I think you're saying it is both underexposed and underdeveloped- is that right? If so, the underdevelopment is due to my over diluting the developer with vinegar. I plan to back off on that ratio significantly.

I'd be very interested to know how you are able to arrive at those conclusions. I haven't found much online that explains, much less shows, the differences. What exactly do you observe that indicates

underexposed
overexposed
underdeveloped
overdeveloped

"inquiring minds really want to know... "

Thanks- Blake

[shelby_wright]

More good advice- thanks. I think you're saying it is both underexposed and underdeveloped- is that right? If so, the underdevelopment is due to my over diluting the developer with vinegar. I plan to back off on that ratio significantly.

I'd be very interested to know how you are able to arrive at those conclusions. I haven't found much online that explains, much less shows, the differences. What exactly do you observe that indicates

underexposed
overexposed
underdeveloped
overdeveloped

"inquiring minds really want to know... "

Thanks- Blake

Overexposed + underdeveloped will come out muddy and brown
Underexposed + overdeveloped plates have very fine, silvery grain in the shadows, higher contrast

Alex's advice about doing a test plate is 100% spot on (disclaimer: he taught me pretty much everything I know about wet plate when I was starting out). Far too many people start out watching videos of experts like Quinn or Borut developing by inspection on YouTube and think that's the way they should start out - they have many years and hundreds if not thousands of plates worth of experience.

It's far more difficult to figure out a good exposure if you're changing two variables at once (exposure + development). Start your shoot by doing a step test plate (https://www.instagram.com/p/C5WiPr2RLs4/?img_index=2) at a constant development time (I use Waldack's #1 recipe for positives which is probably the most popular, it calls for 15s development), see which exposure looks best, and go from there while never altering your development time.

If you have a spot meter to take a reading do that and write it down; if the light changes or you pick a different scene you can adjust your exposure from the baseline you've established. This does become guesswork towards the beginning or end of the day as the available UV (about half your exposure value) doesn't scale linearly with available visible light; I like to bring a film camera along with me or some film holders loaded with sheet film for golden hour since it's kind of a crapshoot for wet plate.

With the Old Workhorse I was buying in Australia I'd be happy to reuse the same exposure value from my spot meter for a week or two, but longer than that and I'd want do another step test to be safe. UV Photographics collodion tends to have a much longer shelf life/better stability, so I'm finding I don't do them nearly as often here, especially for samey stuff like portraits.

[paulbarden]

Overexposed + underdeveloped will come out muddy and brown
Underexposed + overdeveloped plates have very fine, silvery grain in the shadows, higher contrast

Alex's advice about doing a test plate is 100% spot on.
It's far more difficult to figure out a good exposure if you're changing two variables at once (exposure + development). Start your shoot by doing a step test plate (https://www.instagram.com/p/C5WiPr2RLs4/?img_index=2) at a constant development time (I use Waldack's #1 recipe for positives which is probably the most popular, it calls for 15s development), see which exposure looks best, and go from there while never altering your development time.


This is the single best piece of advice anyone can give/receive when it comes to learning wet plate! When learning how to expose to get a good plate, do not change the development time - change the exposure. Also, the test strip plate is a very valuable learning tool and I recommend it highly. You can give it a brief wash and dry it with a hair dryer to very quickly get an idea of the correct exposure.

[Journeyman]

Gentlemen, I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
Overdevelopment (from, as you said, from watching the experts time it visually) was my first big mistake. I am now doing step test plates and <15 second development. Still working out some (OK, many) kinks, but getting there slowly. As a beginner, I just need to find a solid chunk of time to work.
Many thanks ~ Blake

[Journeyman]

After many more mysterious issues I've finally started getting results. Here is the last plate I shot... Any advice or observations are welcome.

Thanks ~ Blake
258864

[AlexGard]

Clean your developer vessel with ethanol between each plate. That gunk top/right corner is likely contamination from previous developer. I just pour like 10mL of ethanol in my developer vessel (a large 80mL shot glass) and swish it around, tip it out, repeat, and then leave the vessel upside down to dry/drain while i prepare my next plate. You'll notice when you do the first rinse with ethanol it turns cloudy white. That's contaminants you do not want going over your next plate.

Or it could be from contamination in the plate holder. Another trick i learned is to keep the plate and plate holder in the same orientation from the minute you take it out of the bath. Load the plate in the holder the same way its going into the camera. Rotating the holder as you move between darkroom&gt;camera&gt;darkroom can cause silver to pool in the holder and flow back over the plate leaving unsightly stains




Bottom left development also a little sloppy. Gets better with practice. https://youtu.be/IsTH7XbwHbs?si=Vj1h9MK6eYMtebJ3

Watch this video at 4min 20s and check out his developing technique. Be very generous with the amount of developer you use and then agitate the crap out of the plate. Development will be a lot more even and clean edge to edge.

Take the advice from this post and you should have some very clean and nice looking plates.

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[Journeyman]

All excellent advice and very much appreciated. Thank you!

During a session, I probably haven't even rinsed the beaker that I use to measure out developer out with water, much less alcohol. Who knew? I'll definitely use crystal clear next time. Even when finished, I've only used filtered water to rinse out that container- now I know.

I've tried both free pour and using a small "helper dish." With both containers I have not been cleaning thoroughly between plates, as you've described.

From the video you linked to I also learned about the importance of having enough light to really see the plate during development. I definitely need to augment my existing lighting. I can't see well enough and I think the developer is beading up in certain areas of the plate despite my attempts to move it across the entire plate. I'm also guilty of going light on the amount of developer. In the video he addresses that mistake and I plan on increasing the amount.

The advice about plate holder orientation is great too. I'm sure I've tilted it multiple directions before getting it from the darkroom to the camera. That makes sense.

I'm in contact with Zebra to get a custom plate holder for my FDK 18 x 24 camera. I've adapted the wooden holder and careful as I can to clean between plates, but I'm sure there are cracks and crevices that I'm just not able to clean and dry properly. I think the Zebra plate holder with help in this area.

Many thanks- Blake

[AlexGard]

I shoot mostly 5.5 x 14" (a panoramic plate format) and 8x10. For my panorama plates I pretty much will fill the shot glass with developer (i think its a 90mL glass) . It's most definitely overkill and I don't need that much, but developer is relatively cheap compared to other chemicals and in the small event my hand slips and I lose a bit of developer I like the safety of knowing I have too much rather than too little.

I've tried a helper tray once for 8x10s but didn't like it personally. For 8x10 plates I use probably 60mL. Again, overkill but I'd rather have too much than too little and i agitate so aggressively it usually covers the whole plate very nicely.

What I do sometimes is jam the bottom edge of a plate into the large 16x20 tray I use to catch all my development runoff/mess as I run the shot glass along the top edge of the plate. Mind you. I could seldom brag of perfect plates and everyone has a method that suits them

Another thing to consider is age of developer. I like to mix fresh for each shoot and try not to use any developer older than a week. If I use older stuff from the week prior ill give it a cursory filter just in case of any precipitated iron.

Also re: cleaning the plate holder, I'll just give it a quick wipe with a cotton ball or paper towel soaked in ethanol and let it dry between plates.

Anyway, honestly you're not far off. That plate looks otherwise nice. Just practice your development technique and clean up your working instruments a little more and you'll be golden. My main advice beyond this is to research posing and lighting and for the love of God move away as fast as possible from taking head & shoulder passport photos.

Dr. Mike Robinson has a fantastic lecture on the lighting and methods of Southworth & Hawes. Well worth a watch:

https://youtu.be/AcPhDJelbTw?si=z9YjxCAUIMmzOHJZ








Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[Journeyman]

Thanks again and I will definitely study those videos. As far as the "passport photo" I actually wish I had the option of focusing at closer distances with this camera/lens, in addition to what you are suggesting- showing more environment and interesting compositions. As to lighting, well, I've been a photojournalist and then commercial photographer over the expanse of 40+ years. Open shade, for now, seems like a good choice to keep things relatively consistent but, yes, not especially interesting. Many thanks~ Blake

[AgNO3]

Dear collodion competence team,

I´m clueless, two days before, the chems worked as intended, today - under the same conditions 25°C, clear sky, early afternoon, 3-4 seconds at f16 - the results were quite strange.

A more or less well exposed image, developed for 15sec, is showing very dark skin tone colors while everything else is as usual.
There is also a silver metallic effect in the blacks.

Here are examples of today:

https://up.picr.de/49550034kq.jpeg

https://up.picr.de/49550036gl.jpeg

While last Sunday the same chems and procedures lead to these results:

https://up.picr.de/49543774ds.jpeg

https://up.picr.de/49543768qm.jpeg

Anything I should do to my silver bath?

[AlexGard]

Is there perhaps a filter on the lens? Or maybe the gentleman has a remarkably high amount of red pigmentation or is a UV sponge.


Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[AgNO3]

Probably a UV sponge. Gained UV resilience over decades as a ski & windsurf instructor. Current skin color is normal typical light spring teint of a formerly blond gringo.

Someone in another corner of the internet already assumed UV-protective skin care, but never used any. At least not that week.

The lens is a slightly yellow-reddish coated Industar-37 300mm f4.5. Sure, the coating isn´t ideal for wet plate, rather than for contrasty b/w film, but I had no issues so far with it. It´s quite a nicely fast and sharp, while affordable lens for the 8x10"/18x24cm format.

There was also the assumption, that my probably contaminated dirty silver bath has evaporated a bit, while sitting in my car since the last to images were made, gaining density, losing sensitivity in the skin tones, resulting in precipitating silver in the blacks, too dry plate didn´t let it settle in the film during dev, probably too strong and long development, slight underexposure ...

Obviously at least partly a maintenance and weather issue I quickly need to sort out, since these shots were tests for a summer road trip with the wet gear.
How do I make this possible?

My current developer mix: 400ml water, 25ml glacial acid 99%, 40ml alcohol 99%, 12gr ferro-sulfate, 12gr sugar, 4gr potassium nitrate..

I was once told, the high alcohol ratio keeps the developer thin and avoids oily spots, the sugar acts as restrainer in hot weather and the potassium nitrate pushes the whites in warm tempered fix and wash baths. Am I mislead here?

How did the original 19th century dudes did it in a horse carriage during the hot summer? Not sure, if extra cooling is installable in the car at it´s current built-to-purpose design.

Any suggestions are highly appreciated.

Cheese

[paulbarden]

I expect your results are due to the man's skin tone, and the lighting. I don't think this is in any way a technical failure. That said, at 25C, you'd be wise to add more restrainer to your developer and maybe pare a few seconds off the development time. These appear to be slightly overdeveloped to me. (especially the first one, which appears to have some developed silver in the blacks)

[AgNO3]

Thank you, sir. Always appreciate your competent feedback.

Exposure by feel and memory is a witch, there might have been a half stop less sunlight that day and my manual shutter speeds may not be that consistent. Under the cooler lab conditions at my shed, extending developing time a bit to pull the exposure doesn´t break the boundaries of what is allowed, that quick. Maybe it were 20-25secs dev, waiting for something more to happen with the skin and quickly ran into over dev at these temperatures.

"add more restrainer" means more sugar?

[paulbarden]

"add more restrainer" means more sugar?

I'm not sure why you're using both acetic acid AND sugar in the developer - it's usually one or the other AFAIK. Acetic acid is typically used as the chemical restrainer and you want to add more of that if you need to hold back on development. (Sugar is a physical restrainer) But I expect that adding more of either will help.

[AlexGard]

Hot weather is a bit of a beat up IMO. The only thing I worry about when it's hot is a plate drying out between silver bath and development.

My developer recipe is recently this

100mL h20
2g iron
6mL alcohol
3.6mL acid
1g potassium nitrate

Develop for 30 seconds

No need for sugar

Seeing as the other subjects in the photos of the man are seemingly reasonably well exposed I can only assume the guy has abnormally high UV absorbent skin, or maybe a rare chance his skin tone, the collodion and your russian lens all disagree on a colour wavelength.


Edit: just saw the other replies

If you wanted to continue attempting to shoot your ultraviolet absorbent friend, you could try the employ of some reflectors to see if you can throw additional light on his curious complexion

I've never seen anyone soak up so much UV light. Mosquito's must hate him

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[AgNO3]

Gentlemen, thanks for taking the time to share your in depth wisdom.

I´m obviously lacking some basics, like knowing the distinction between "physical" and "chemical" restrainer. Started with a ready made kit, switched to DIY chems a few months ago and only fill up the chem beaker following Christmas cookie recipes. Thanks Paul, I'll dive into that soon. You've explained it so well, even I should catch up on it.

Thanks Alex for sharing your dev mix. Compared to mine, it´s much less of pretty everything. Am I developing full throttle with a pulled hand brake moving nowhere, but burning the clutch, so to speak? I'll definitely give your mix a try this weekend.

That´s the guy in his wrinkled and pale winter skin suit, shot with an uncoated 20"f6.3 on 13x18 glass with 2400ws Chinese flash in the "studio". Not very dark skinned in this case. Only selfie I´ve managed to stay in focus. The picture starting my questions here was shot by an experienced friend, while I took responsibility for the pouring and dev of my chems in my car. Don´t know, if mosquitos hate me, barely notice any. Always thought. it´s because of the smell.

https://up.picr.de/46948363ac.jpeg

[AlexGard]

The difference between your first example and the one in this post seems to be the lens. The industar lens has coating on it as far as I know. I'm not well knowledged enough to say for sure it's what caused the problem of the dark skin. From reading I think there are two different types of coating for the industar, one with a yellow coating and one with a blue coating. I know only because I recently purchased one for myself to use with my 5x7 camera.

Chris Morgan uses and enjoys one for wet plate.
There is always a physical or chemical explanation for things beyond just chalking it up to bad luck.

I was, until recently, using John Coffer's developer recipe for years which was

100mL water
4g iron
6mL alcohol
6mL acid
1g pot nitrate

Developing for 16 seconds

as I was shooting 8x10 and the larger pano plates I found the quick development time a little anxiety inducing to do swiftly with care. The slower developer time and more dilute recipe offered me time to draw my developer vessel more carefully across the edge of the plate and watch without haste to make sure I rock the developer evenly over the entire surface

paul knows a lot more than me so i'll bow out now.

[AgNO3]

Thanks Alex,

don´t low ball yourself. Few people have so much experience like you and share it so generously. I´ve learned a lot by just quietly reading your very informative tips over the years and like your pointed comments. I´m just too old or stupid to remember everything, when it´s needed. Please have patience.

The reddish Industar was an offer, I couldn´t refuse. In the traditional sense. It was sort of gifted in friendship for a favor and you don´t watch a gifted horse in it´s mouth. I know about the blueish ones and may fetch one, if I run into a nice deal. Nice sharp chunky lump of glass.

BTW it´s certainly not Russian. Definitely Soviet, but may have been produced by a factory in Kiev, Ukraine. Which was the technical powerhouse for optics and aero in the former Soviet Union. The different logos on an Industar - a "brand" name for all commercially produced optics in the Soviet Union - tells, whether it was precisely put together and quality controlled by a graduated engineer in Kiev for the export market to be sold for hard currency (made on German tools, because it´s ZEISS Tessar design and the German factory was part of war reparations) or if it was produced by a vodka reeking Russian in the Siberian woods for the domestic socialist market. One better avoids the latter, even though there seem to have been time slots, where functional alcoholics performed pretty well, too. The quality volatility of their glass batches seems to have been the bigger issue.

Learned this from the historically and technically very interesting write up by Arne Croell on Eastern Block large format lenses. Extensive chart of pretty everything produced for LF between 1945 and 1991. The publications on his website reg LF optics are all very interesting:

https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf
(https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf)

I´ll test your Coffer dev, too. Thanks for sharing it.
A bit busy, but will report asap about my further tests and struggles. Don't want to mess up my road trip by being unprepared.
I too like a slow and controllable development with lots of time to guess "is this what I should aim for?" lacking the experience of frequently doing it.

Thanks guys.

[paulbarden]

Thanks Alex,

don´t low ball yourself. Few people have so much experience like you and share it so generously. I´ve learned a lot by just quietly reading your very informative tips over the years and like your pointed comments. I´m just too old or stupid to remember everything, when it´s needed. Please have patience.

The reddish Industar was an offer, I couldn´t refuse. In the traditional sense. It was sort of gifted in friendship for a favor and you don´t watch a gifted horse in it´s mouth. I know about the blueish ones and may fetch one, if I run into a nice deal. Nice sharp chunky lump of glass.

BTW it´s certainly not Russian. Definitely Soviet, but may have been produced by a factory in Kiev, Ukraine. Which was the technical powerhouse for optics and aero in the former Soviet Union. The different logos on an Industar - a "brand" name for all commercially produced optics in the Soviet Union - tells, whether it was precisely put together and quality controlled by a graduated engineer in Kiev for the export market to be sold for hard currency (made on German tools, because it´s ZEISS Tessar design and the German factory was part of war reparations) or if it was produced by a vodka reeking Russian in the Siberian woods for the domestic socialist market. One better avoids the latter, even though there seem to have been time slots, where functional alcoholics performed pretty well, too. The quality volatility of their glass batches seems to have been the bigger issue.

Learned this from the historically and technically very interesting write up by Arne Croell on Eastern Block large format lenses. Extensive chart of pretty everything produced for LF between 1945 and 1991. The publications on his website reg LF optics are all very interesting:

https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf
(https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf)

I´ll test your Coffer dev, too. Thanks for sharing it.
A bit busy, but will report asap about my further tests and struggles. Don't want to mess up my road trip by being unprepared.
I too like a slow and controllable development with lots of time to guess "is this what I should aim for?" lacking the experience of frequently doing it.

Thanks guys.

I rather doubt that I have more experience than Alex - I'm just one of many who have had a couple years of practice is all.

That said, I also own an Industar-37 with the blue coating, and I found it has no effect (well, no measurable effect) on the performance of my wet plate materials. I doubt that lens coatings play a meaningful role in the performance of the materials. I have a multi-coated 12" Kodak Ektar lens I regularly use for wet plate images and it works as well as any of the uncoated Anastigmat and Petzval (and Verito) lenses I use. I think you can assume the Industar is not the issue here.

As for developers - there are scores of recipes out there, and they all work similarly. But I also stick with John Coffer's tried-and-true recipe - it has never let me down. Skip the sugar and just add more acid if the weather is warm and you start having trouble with silver developing in the shadow areas that should be black. If it's really warm (in the 80s F) then consider modifying the developer recipe as recommended for hot conditions. This either requires significantly more acid to restrain development, or diluting the recipe with more water (up to half strength), or both.

I think that the exceedingly dark skin tones in your examples are due entirely to three factors: the man's skin tones, the lighting (too harsh) and the exposure (you've exposed for the bright spots and his light colored short), so it's not surprising to see his skin go very dark. I believe that if you had made this plate in open shade, you'd have a much more satisfactory result. Next time, find a location that is lit only by open north sky in a shady spot, and I bet you'll get a much nicer image. North sky light is ideal for portraiture. Example (https://flic.kr/p/23PTvpk) That portrait was made in the shade, with the subject seated facing north, with open sky illuminating him. It's always very flattering light for portraits and allows for manageable exposure times (a few seconds).

[AgNO3]

Thanks, Paul, for being still here and heldful on this topic.

Dealing effectfully with natural light and placing ones subject into it, is truely an important part, but were skipped for different reasons on both occasion.

The two grafiti gentlemen, from the proper examples, were apporoached on the thin crest between boldy intruding into their preferrably incognito exercised hobby and facing trouble or becoming a life long member of their arts tribe. As I write, my tyres are still fully inflated and they were thankful for the plates as a gift.

The dark skinned mishap shot of me was made by my ULF wet plate buddy after lunch, because the gear was still cooking in my car for days now. We earlier messed up one of his vulgary expensive 50x60 plates and I decided to cheer him up with at least one successful wet plate that day in the parkng lot of that restaurant. Situation was me sitting directly facing the sun under a partly shading tree. Didn´t took this plate as a dessert into consideration, when I was looking for a parking spot. We were hungra, upset and desperate for a beer.

Hopefully Alex from Tasmania chimes in again and teaches us about the australian aboriginie´s ability to always know the position of the sun and their own position in the universe. I´ve once heard, that there are no words for left and right in some of their languages7 dialects, that they´d always refer to their body parts as the "souther foot" or the "norther arm".

Thanks for the vote for Coffers developer mix. Sure. What worked for him in a horse carriage shpuld work in my leaf sprung tin box, too.

Ciao

[AlexGard]

Make no mistake, I'm not nearly as knowledgeable or capable as I probably try to make myself sound. Any discussion i have is merely based in the encouragement of trying to keep the craft pure of heart rather than in the interest of another person succeeding.

I don't have a lot of experience shooting portraits, I have done a few indoor shoots and outdoors but I prefer subjects that don't talk or move.

Coffers recipe is quite concentrated, again, I've been enjoying the more dilute receipe I posted a while ago. I used to try experiment with lots of recipes for collodion and developer but quickly realised it's a fool's errand and just stuck to what worked.

I think success will come when your anxieties subside. Shooting WP portraits can be quite stressful between entertaining your subject. Keeping them engaged. Posing, juggling chemistry and camera. I never was fond of it and it shows in my amateurish portraiture but it is something I hope to improve on with my new smaller camera. I think being a successful portrait artist requires considerable people skills, a quality I greatly lack in case it wasn't already glaringly obvious.



Natural light is the best light. I can count on one hand the amount of wet plate shooters who've used artificial light I've genuinely admired. It's easy to create a striking portrait with heavy contrast light but to truly be a master of artificial light takes great skill and care, something i cannot afford the chemistry or rent to experiment with. I've been reading a lot recently of 19th century photographers and their skylight studio work and there is much to be learned from them.

The sun is an amazing light source and i believe most favourably represented in collodion. Used well you will create masterpieces with it.

Sorry. I digress. Been a big day.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250502/df3ef08de48bd20152e58d401c64ec94.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250502/15695b7dc534c8e458e9942fe06cbd74.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250502/96854549bdbfcfa2b340c43c32f74d08.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250502/3bb3b46ce979d54b8ec9fa4bc5357463.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250502/3fa8e22a336bf87553e4ddd94dbac1bf.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250502/53d4bffeec94e12c369c3be070f59fcb.jpg

[AgNO3]

Awesome Alex, thanks for that lesson in modesty!
I now feel like a six year old with mommy´s noodle sief on my head, telling Neil Armstron "Well, sir, I´m kind of an astronaut myself!"

Thanks for letting a mere mortal peep into your corner of the olymp. That´s great stuff.
Top left, the tiny blonde elf in the river bed is pure eye candy, amazing...the Petzval swirl, the location, the etheric figurine cavred out of he mist into crisp sharpness.... Bottom left, an image, Helmut Newton would be jealous of. We neither have such bushes here anymore, nor the old trees or the pitoresque book shops...

When I was younger, your corner of the world, the north west of Tasmania, was - and still sometime is - my day dream destination for a challenging wind- & kitesurf trip. One of the few pages of my World Windsurfing Guide, which isn´t check marked, yet. I´m starting to feel my age and fear, that I´ll never perform again, as I was used to in these challenging conditions in the water and wouldn´t get away with stealing a wave from a local, like I used to. Long way to go for me to dare to snatch a sun beam.

What I´m lacking in chemical knowledge and proper, thoughtful use of natural light, I believe, I - one day - may make up by my ability to tie down someone´s attention and my deep rooted desire, to make people smile. At least, when doing portraits in my windowless shed (hence not much experience with natural light), I´m trying to time the joke or story, to fit the punch line into the opening shutter. Still, I only end up with passport portraits...

I´m out now, invited to try the new old 10000Ws of flash at a befriended brown hand´s hobby room, who still believes, its´s worth asking me for assistance, while I´m only a few dozen plates ahead and obviously so far behind.

So long guys. Enjoy world wet plate day today!

[AlexGard]

I'm actually quite out of the loop these days and don't keep tabs on the who's who of photography but Paul Alsop and Brandon Fernandez are two guys who've done stuff I've admired with artificial light on wet plate. Brandon I believe did lots of work with simply one huge soft box almost like artificial diffused daylight. Paul Alsop just has very masterfully crafted very soft and romantic studio lighting.



Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[AgNO3]

I´ll look up and analyse these guy´s work definitely. Thanks for the tip.
The introduction to my friends 10.000Ws Generator with a huge 5.000Ws soft box from the side and a 5.000Ws fresnel spotlight semi-frontal was pretty impressive. Soft boxes are huge and by now due to lack of space out of the question for me, but I´ll definitely strap some diffusing butter bread paper in front of my flash heads next time, to see, if can fake that effect.

[Journeyman]

Beautiful work there. Inspirational- thank you for sharing!

~ Blake

[AgNO3]

....Paul Alsop and Brandon Fernandez are two guys who've done stuff I've admired with artificial light on wet plate. ....

Looked them up and - sure - absolutely impressive work from good professional photographers, who know what they are doing. I´d give my first born for their talent. But I have no kids. They seem to book their models to add content to their portfolio as a professional artist and hope, s/th evolves from that.

That´s not my approach as a hobbyist, nor as the spectator, sitting on my misantropic rim and watching out for the few not totally corrupted by our times. I´ve never paid women to drop their clothes nor dress up especially for me. Won´t expect you to wear a suit, when entering my oval office, if its a costume for you. Come as you are.

I want to produce a document of my time slot in this universe by naturally catching the people around me. And maybe how they change over time. Let´s see, how long my usually short attention span follows this spleen. People are talked into it from the street or my cricle of friends in their daily fashion and/or geared up in their specialized work outfit.

To boldly drop a big name I´d wish I could follow up one day here, August Sander (https://augustsander.org/) impressed me already as a child with his talent to produce the illusion, catching all sorts of people right in the action doing their thing, while his dryplate camera surely needed extensive handling. He learned on wetplates. But he used it like a point and shoot camera. Showing their confidence, dignity and dedication to their profession.

His famous body of work is called "Antlitz der Zeit" & "Menschen des 20. Jahrhunderts" (Face of time & People of the 20th century), documenting the change in society, starting from his rural roots working in the pits with the country side people from imperial 19th century Germany into the modern times of the industrialized megalopolis of the early 20th century.

I have the sneaking suspicion, our times are quite similiar and we are tumbling into an even more apocalyptic while also boring technocratic dystopia, like menkind did back then. I find no use nor sense, to record poses for clicks you´d already find on the so called social media digitally, in precious silver. I´d like to catch the salt of the earth with salted collodion to make them immortal. According to the literal translation of "ambrotype". And, risen by the narcisstic mantras of our generation, subcontiously surely want to leave something of value behind. Like a Golden Retriever leaves his poop on your lawn and expects to be padded for it. I´m still in the Jeremy Clarkson mode, with a hammer in my hand and a "How hard can it be...." thrown at it, even though I´ve already learned, it´s tough like gaining fun from catching a wave, that could kill you, doesn´t want to but actually doesn´t care. Wiped out and got washed quite a lot here, but didn´t drown, yet.