Wet Plate for Architectural & Portrait

[Wesito]

Hi Everyone!

My wife and I are planning on starting a wet plate studio and are up to our ears in research for the "best place to start" ...

Our concept is to do studio portraits with a Petzval lens and 5x7 format -- we love the extra sharp central focus with bokeh --- (then upgrade to 8x10 when we improve) --- we've located a 13x18cm 1880s J. Audouin camera with a Dallmeyer 1a lens (from our understanding this is a Petzval-esque lens, correct? --- any knowledge or suggestions are welcome here, too!

We also plan on doing gallery exhibitions that showcase aspects of our city - market stalls, store fronts, etc... This is where we are really stuck ---we love extra sharp focus as well as edges with imperfections / blur etc--- which lens / wet plate camera type/size, etc would work best for this? ... We do appreciate the aesthetic and feel of natural "imperfections" within wet plate.

Thank you in advance for any help or suggestions! :o

[Tin Can]

I find the process too difficult

Good luck

[Havoc]

which lens / wet plate camera type/size, etc would work best for this if we are planning on enlarging these t

What enlarger do you have / can you find / do you have the place for? Doesn't make sense to get a format larger than your enlarger unless you want to do contact printing.

[Tim Meisburger]

Are you planning to enlarge digitally or optically? If digitally, the 5x7 plate or negative should be fine, as you can have it easily printed any size by any good firm. If optical enlargement is intended, I would suggest 4x5 negatives, as anything larger entails a much larger and more expensive enlarger. Optical enlargement also requires much more expensive paper, so if the idea is to sell the customer an actual plate and a large print, digital might be a more commercially-viable alternative.

[Tin Can]

I believe this OP is a Bot aka computer


It is probing

[Tin Can]

Soon we will not know 'NOT from BOT'

aka Brave New World

IRL

[paulbarden]

I believe this OP is a Bot aka computer


It is probing

I doubt that. A bot wouldn't bother to add formatting to their message for emphasis.

[Tin Can]

i doubt that. A bot wouldn't bother to add formatting to their message for emphasis.

lol

[paulbarden]

lol

Seriously, Randy - what evidence do you have to suggest that the OP is a bot??

[Tin Can]

The task is impossible.


Seriously, Randy - what evidence do you have to suggest that the OP is a bot??

[paulbarden]

The task is impossible.

And yet somehow you've arrived at the conclusion that this is a bot. Amazing. Prescient.

[Tin Can]

Deduction, Watson


And yet somehow you've arrived at the conclusion that this is a bot. Amazing. Prescient.

[paulbarden]

Deduction, Watson

Dude, I worry about you.

[Wesito]

Don't worry, I'm human... I see I wasn't clear with my questions though!

We're just going to have a firm to enlarge them...

What I wanted to know about was recommendations for Camera and Lens types for Wet Plate "architectural" work... and if my ideas for a Portrait setup were practical... or if there was a camera / lens combination that could work well for both...

At present I'm leaning towards a dedicated portrait wet plate camera, and a dedicated "out on the town" wet plate camera that probably has a shutter and a slider for Fstops... any suggestions? Thanks again!

[Eugen Mezei]

Look it up how they did it back in the day when wetplate was not the exception but the rule in photography. The archive.org has a lot of books from that period, including architectural photography.

[Tin Can]

Now you seem human

your parsing was very mechanical

Your goal is difficult

Bon Voyage

[paulbarden]

Now you seem human

See?!


Don't worry, I'm human... I see I wasn't clear with my questions though!

We're just going to have a firm to enlarge them...

What I wanted to know about was recommendations for Camera and Lens types for Wet Plate "architectural" work... and if my ideas for a Portrait setup were practical... or if there was a camera / lens combination that could work well for both...

At present I'm leaning towards a dedicated portrait wet plate camera, and a dedicated "out on the town" wet plate camera that probably has a shutter and a slider for Fstops... any suggestions? Thanks again!

You're still not being very clear about your intent in regards to enlarging the images. If you are paying someone else to provide enlargements, how will it be done? By scanning the plates and then making digital enlargements from those? Or do you intend to have someone make optical enlargements with a suitable enlarger in a darkroom, on silver gelatin paper? There is a world of difference between the two.

On to lenses. "or if there was a camera / lens combination that could work well for both" and "We also plan on doing gallery exhibitions that showcase aspects of our city - market stalls, store fronts, etc... This is where we are really stuck ---we love extra sharp focus as well as edges with imperfections / blur etc": No. A single lens won't work well for both scenarios, since your goals for the two are somewhat in conflict, style-wise.

Unless you want to create very loosey-goosey, blur-in-all-the-corners "artsy" architecture work, then a lens best suited to portraiture isn't going to work well with architecture. If you are wanting to pursue the "Petzval Portrait" style of portraits, that lens is not going to be very useful for architecture. The camera is not very relevant to the results you're after - a camera is just a light tight box with film on one end and a lens on the other - as long as you get a functional device. For architecture, you're going to need a lens in a shutter, so you can control outdoor exposure times. Collodion is slow, it's true - but not so slow as to avoid needing shutter speeds in fractions of a second. Any modern lens in a working shutter will be fine for architecture: Fuji, Rodenstock, Schneider, etc. etc. Get an appropriate focal length for the format/size.

You've said nothing about your budget for this plan. Sourcing the right equipment is going to depend entirely on your budget. If you have 20K to invest, then you are free to choose from the best of what large format cameras have to offer. Look at what Chamonix Cameras has to offer. Same for lenses; if you're planning on buying a GOOD portrait Petzval, expect to spend up to $1200 (for 5x7 coverage (https://flic.kr/p/23PTvpk) Mine is a Voigtlander Petzval, f3.5), depending on the brand and model. My Lerebours et Secretan 15" Petzval (https://flic.kr/p/22YM7UL) cost me $2000 in 2018. You need a dedicated wet plate holder, which will cost about $200 for a worthwhile one (I do NOT recommend the 3D printed plastic ones). The silver nitrate tank and materials will cost several hundred dollars to set up also. Are you planning on working on glass, or black aluminum "trophy plate"? If it is your primary intent to enlarge these images, then working on glass will make the task vastly easier (and mandatory, if you intend on having optical enlargements made).

You mentioned a J. Audouin camera - what do you know about the image size/film holder size it uses? You need to know that. Odds are it's one of the old sizes - like "half plate" or maybe "whole plate" which do not equal modern formats like 5x7. So, you have to make sure what you're buying is going to be practical/usable. May people buy old "half plate" type cameras and regret it quickly, since it doesn't match modern size standards. Spare yourself some grief and find a camera that conforms to modern size standards (5x7, you wanted).

If price isn't an issue, I'd go with a modern Chamonix 5x7 and get the Chamonix plate holders. It'll save you some grief.

And finally, who have you done a workshop with (or plan to)? I would NOT recommend just picking up a book (or gawd forbid, reading a bunch of web pages) to learn the process. Have a skilled practitioner teach you. It's more difficult than most people imagine.

[Wesito]

Look it up how they did it back in the day when wetplate was not the exception but the rule in photography. The archive.org has a lot of books from that period, including architectural photography.

Thanks Eugen... I've found a few I will look into. Just hoping someone had some experience. I am reposting this in the "wet plate" forums here... thanks again!

[paulbarden]

Thanks Eugen... I've found a few I will look into. Just hoping someone had some experience. I am reposting this in the "wet plate" forums here... thanks again!

Some of us do, yes. I have been working with Wet Plate Collodion since 2017 and have made hundreds of plates. Please see my comments in the post, above. :-)

[Tim Meisburger]

A note on cost. You can do wet plate with any camera and basically any lens, but wet plate folks in general like a fast lens for portraits because the medium is slow, and because they like the swirly bokeh of a wide open lens. Something like f4 or 4.5 works. You do not need a shutter for wet plate, if you have a nice old brass lens. Because its slow, you can use a hat or any number of other techniques.

If I were you, I would start out (and maybe continue) by modifying regular film holders, rather than buying special, expensive, wet plate holders. Any 4x5 or 5x7 holder can be converted for wet plate.

For tanks, etc, you can make them. First I made a silver bath out of clear plexiglas and built a wooden box for it, like they did with the glass ones in the old days, but later we made them out of red plexiglas, with a red glass cover, and those worked fine. Meant I could open the door of the darkroom (closet) while the plate sensitized.

Then, your main costs to get started will collodion and silver. For plates, I am partial to glass, but we also used a lot of black plexi, which yields a similar look as the black trophy plate they use in the US, but was a lot cheaper. You can use single window glass, or just buy old frames at thrift shops and cut that glass (which is thinner) down for plates. Good luck!

[Andreas]

Don't forget that wet collodion is messy; silver nitrate stains everything, even very diluted and is transparent before it does so*... It's also pretty toxic and dangerous: one tiny drop in your eye and you will be a candidate for cornea transplant.
Also think about a tent or a dark box if your do architecture. When doing portraits, find a way to keep your models from moving during 4 seconds poses (while still being alive) or get ready to purchase some really powerful strobes that will get you an f8 at 2 meters at 1 ISO (divide that by two or more if you do negatives).
As other have mentioned before, your camera does not matter much, but you will need a lot of practice (and failures, don't ask me how I know) before being ready to offer something valuable to your customers.
*Show us your hands after a few sessions..
Good luck !

[paulbarden]

A note on cost. You can do wet plate with any camera and basically any lens, but wet plate folks in general like a fast lens for portraits because the medium is slow, and because they like the swirly bokeh of a wide open lens. Something like f4 or 4.5 works. You do not need a shutter for wet plate, if you have a nice old brass lens. Because its slow, you can use a hat or any number of other techniques.

If I were you, I would start out (and maybe continue) by modifying regular film holders, rather than buying special, expensive, wet plate holders. Any 4x5 or 5x7 holder can be converted for wet plate.

For tanks, etc, you can make them. First I made a silver bath out of clear plexiglas and built a wooden box for it, like they did with the glass ones in the old days, but later we made them out of red plexiglas, with a red glass cover, and those worked fine. Meant I could open the door of the darkroom (closet) while the plate sensitized.

Then, your main costs to get started will collodion and silver. For plates, I am partial to glass, but we also used a lot of black plexi, which yields a similar look as the black trophy plate they use in the US, but was a lot cheaper. You can use single window glass, or just buy old frames at thrift shops and cut that glass (which is thinner) down for plates. Good luck!

It's worth remembering that this person is looking to start a professional studio, in which case home-modified film holders aren't going to present well, nor will they allow for full sized plates. I've done the DIY plate holder thing and found it was always a clumsy "second best" approach to plate holders. That's why I now own dedicated Chamonix plate holders. Having a tool specifically made for this task makes a huge difference.

Also worth noting is that where I live, black plexiglas is about twice the price of trophy plate.

[Tim Meisburger]

It's worth remembering that this person is looking to start a professional studio, in which case home-modified film holders aren't going to present well, nor will they allow for full sized plates. I've done the DIY plate holder thing and found it was always a clumsy "second best" approach to plate holders. That's why I now own dedicated Chamonix plate holders. Having a tool specifically made for this task makes a huge difference.

Also worth noting is that where I live, black plexiglas is about twice the price of trophy plate.

Sure, I get that. Just making the point that you don't need lots of fancy stuff to make plates, and it makes sense to learn the process before you invest a ton of money in it, at least for me.

[Wesito]

Thank you Paul! Your advice is very helpful!

Our opening budget is yet to be determined on a few things. Probably 5-10k.

We had originally planned on scanning the plates (digital enlargements) --- we would prefer optical enlargements with silver gelatin paper --- we do need to prepare a budget for that and source studios --- would optical enlargements require shooting negatives then, correct? I greatly appreciate your knowledge and advice, we are very new at this.

We are booking a workshop with Markus Hofstätter in Vienna. That should take place soon :)

Considering budget, we plan on starting as simply as possible, but we also understand the value of buying something that will last and not need to be replaced --- that's the main reason I'm on here is to get some expert advice --- so you taking the time is greatly appreciated!

The french portrait camera says it is 13x18cm format with a Dallmeyer 1a for 450euro. from 1880 with 3 plate holders --- all hardwood without damage.

I am completely open to modern equipment that does the job well ... What we are in love with are the original photographic methods (going furhter analog) --- we both already do darkroom B&W developing and linocut/woodcut printmaking because we like process driven art. We plan on doing everything on glass and do plan on eventually going up in size to 8x10 when we get better at the process. We are both very detail oriented and skilled with our hands (and have patience and determination).

Other than Chamonix (which we find great, and pricey, but worth it) do you have other recommendations? And any lenses that you've felt worked well for you for portraits & architecture would be helpful --- your links were very helpful (to your photos --- the one after Lars with the light coming from behind the tree was breathtaking!)

Thank you again and I'll keep revisiting here and giving more clarification --- your help is very useful and appreciated :)

[Wesito]

Thanks for the advice Tim! We plan on doing ambrotypes and we are looking at something simple to practice with at home before we invest in the studio, so your tips are useful. I really appreciate it!

[AgNO3]

Interesting attempt, Where are you located in Europe, when you are going to Vienna for a workshop?

I would not dare to sell a wet plate for money after a single crash course and some training. Surely the first plates will show an image of some sort and it wouldn't be hard to explain this as "art" these days, but part of the game is to achieve some standard of quality. If you're planning to do negatives (for enlarging***), take into consideration, that what you may sell as unique imperfections on a unique ambrotype won't be that unique anymore, when you'll print it over and over.

Your budget seems sufficient. 1/3rd will be set off for a i.e. 8x10 Intrepid camera*, reductions for 5x7 & 4x5 plus the necessary plate/film holders, 2-3 large format lenses from ca 150mm to 350mm focal length (a 210mm/f5.4 and 310mm soviet Industar w/out shutter starts at 50€, sky is the limit with high end glass**); next 1/3 of your budget will go into the Hoffstätter workshop, where you will learn that you'll need expensive light sources (set & flash) for portrait work and the last 1/3 will be burned for chems, glass and all the other little things related to your first 100 plates until you manage to achieve reproducible results and know, what you are doing. On the technical/camera side, as well as on the chemical side.

A good wet plate is more about the craftsmanship, which has to be learned by time and lots of plates, shot with a religiously followed working routine, clean practice and working environment. Like a full 18 hole round of golf, you have 18 moments in the process, where you can fail at least twice and have to be very experienced, talented and disciplined, to produce a result "on par" with your better results.

*as you're taking architecture into consideration, look for a camera with movements (up/down, swing, shift, tilt) for the lens plate and some swing & tilt for the focal plane, to get straight and parallel walls, most ancient wooden brass cameras are lacking these features. For portraits you'd look for bellows length.

**though old brass barrel lenses are a nice conversation piece and form very unique pictures, pretty similar effects can be achieved with much more affordable projector and reproduction lenses, try to get a fast one. A 210mm lens on 5x7" is similar to the field of view, as a 50mm "normal view" lens for 35mm small film. I'd start with a cheap collection of 2-3 suitable fast lenses and develop the certainly arising lens buying disorder when business starts accelerating.

***I'd be pretty curious about and interested in the possibility of enlarging glass negatives in a normal optical enlarger to expose sensitive paper, instead of the usual direct contact print with palladium or else, too.
Is someone around, who already achieved good enlargement from 4x5 or 5x7 collodion glass negatives to up to 11x14" and wants to tell something about its pro and cons, related to direct printing from 11x14?

Thanks in advance.

[paulbarden]

Thank you Paul! Your advice is very helpful!

Our opening budget is yet to be determined on a few things. Probably 5-10k.

We had originally planned on scanning the plates (digital enlargements) --- we would prefer optical enlargements with silver gelatin paper --- we do need to prepare a budget for that and source studios --- would optical enlargements require shooting negatives then, correct? I greatly appreciate your knowledge and advice, we are very new at this.

We are booking a workshop with Markus Hofstätter in Vienna. That should take place soon :)

Considering budget, we plan on starting as simply as possible, but we also understand the value of buying something that will last and not need to be replaced --- that's the main reason I'm on here is to get some expert advice --- so you taking the time is greatly appreciated!

The french portrait camera says it is 13x18cm format with a Dallmeyer 1a for 450euro. from 1880 with 3 plate holders --- all hardwood without damage.

I am completely open to modern equipment that does the job well ... What we are in love with are the original photographic methods (going furhter analog) --- we both already do darkroom B&W developing and linocut/woodcut printmaking because we like process driven art. We plan on doing everything on glass and do plan on eventually going up in size to 8x10 when we get better at the process. We are both very detail oriented and skilled with our hands (and have patience and determination).

Other than Chamonix (which we find great, and pricey, but worth it) do you have other recommendations? And any lenses that you've felt worked well for you for portraits & architecture would be helpful --- your links were very helpful (to your photos --- the one after Lars with the light coming from behind the tree was breathtaking!)

Thank you again and I'll keep revisiting here and giving more clarification --- your help is very useful and appreciated :)

About enlarging plates to make big prints from:
Scanning and working from a digital file is going to be exponentially more easily done, and less costly than having an optical enlargement made. If you can even find a technician who can make darkroom prints from a 5x7 glass negative (yes, that is what you will have to make to get optical prints done, and you will have to give plates at kleast 2X as much light to get a usable density for printing), it will be incredibly expensive. Don't be surprised if the price is $500 or more per print. You'd have to have a genuinely excellent product to convince a client to buy a print for that much (you have to mark it up, don't forget) and I don't know how many clients you will have that are willing to spend $800-$1200 on a print.

There's another issue with making optical enlargements from a wet plate negative: every tiny defect in the collodion becomes glaringly obvious. I can tell you that after 6+ years of working with this medium, that there is so much tony junk on these plates that are not visible when viewing the plate at its original size. But when you blow it up, it's obvious and often distracting. I can picture making a 16X20 inch optical enlargement from a 5x7 negative and seeing all the artifacts, dust and undesirables become conspicuous.
With a scan and digital processing of an image, you can clean up all the unwanted bits and make a clean, unsullied inkjet print, and the cost will be so much less. Odds are, that will be a much easier print to sell than a darkroom print with a myriad of dust specks and miscellaneous junk.

Marcus Hofstätter will be an excellent teacher. Good choice.

Your choice of camera is likely ok - the plate size measurements are close to 5x7, but you've got to make sure you have the correct size of plate holder to fit the camera. I don't personally know if a modern 5x7 holder will fit that camera. You need to find out. (maybe someone else here can tell you) Myself, I would not buy a camera that did not conform to modern format sizes. Having equipment that matches the 20th century 5x7 format makes things so much easier.

AgNO3 has suggested a camera such as the Intrepid. I have all three sizes of the Intrepid and they are suitable for most use cases. However, if you decide to get a genuine Petzval for your camera, it's almost certainly going to be too heavy to mount on the Intrepid! Projector lenses are OK for certain kinds of portraiture and they are less expensive. But I have owned a few of them myself, and they do not come close to the performance of a Petzval lens made for the job. I've either given away or shelved my "magic lantern" lenses after dealing with their lack of sharpness, limited focus, etc. The mediocre performance of many of the projector lenses becomes apparent once you enlarge the results. They're suitable to learn with as you get acquainted with Wet Plate technique, but if you want to produce an impressive product clients want, you'd best look for a lens that is going to perform for the job. That said, many people get good enough results from the Buhl projector lenses, which are modern, and generally far better than the "period" Magic Lantern lenses. Your camera with the Dallmeyer lens is going to give you good portraits - but find out what size plate holders are required. I understand that the camera comes with three plate holders, but until you've inspected them, you can't know for sure how serviceable they are, and whether or not they'll survive thousands of uses.

[AgNO3]

About enlarging plates to make big prints from:
Scanning and working from a digital file is going to be exponentially more easily done, and less costly than having an optical enlargement made. If you can even find a technician who can make darkroom prints from a 5x7 glass negative (yes, that is what you will have to make to get optical prints done, and you will have to give plates at kleast 2X as much light to get a usable density for printing), it will be incredibly expensive. Don't be surprised if the price is $500 or more per print. You'd have to have a genuinely excellent product to convince a client to buy a print for that much (you have to mark it up, don't forget) and I don't know how many clients you will have that are willing to spend $800-$1200 on a print.

There's another issue with making optical enlargements from a wet plate negative: every tiny defect in the collodion becomes glaringly obvious. I can tell you that after 6+ years of working with this medium, that there is so much tony junk on these plates that are not visible when viewing the plate at its original size. But when you blow it up, it's obvious and often distracting. I can picture making a 16X20 inch optical enlargement from a 5x7 negative and seeing all the artifacts, dust and undesirables become conspicuous.
With a scan and digital processing of an image, you can clean up all the unwanted bits and make a clean, unsullied inkjet print, and the cost will be so much less. Odds are, that will be a much easier print to sell than a darkroom print with a myriad of dust specks and miscellaneous junk.

Marcus Hofstätter will be an excellent teacher. Good choice.

Your choice of camera is likely ok - the plate size measurements are close to 5x7, but you've got to make sure you have the correct size of plate holder to fit the camera. I don't personally know if a modern 5x7 holder will fit that camera. You need to find out. (maybe someone else here can tell you) Myself, I would not buy a camera that did not conform to modern format sizes. Having equipment that matches the 20th century 5x7 format makes things so much easier.

AgNO3 has suggested a camera such as the Intrepid. I have all three sizes of the Intrepid and they are suitable for most use cases. However, if you decide to get a genuine Petzval for your camera, it's almost certainly going to be too heavy to mount on the Intrepid! Projector lenses are OK for certain kinds of portraiture and they are less expensive. But I have owned a few of them myself, and they do not come close to the performance of a Petzval lens made for the job. I've either given away or shelved my "magic lantern" lenses after dealing with their lack of sharpness, limited focus, etc. The mediocre performance of many of the projector lenses becomes apparent once you enlarge the results. They're suitable to learn with as you get acquainted with Wet Plate technique, but if you want to produce an impressive product clients want, you'd best look for a lens that is going to perform for the job. That said, many people get good enough results from the Buhl projector lenses, which are modern, and generally far better than the "period" Magic Lantern lenses. Your camera with the Dallmeyer lens is going to give you good portraits - but find out what size plate holders are required. I understand that the camera comes with three plate holders, but until you've inspected them, you can't know for sure how serviceable they are, and whether or not they'll survive thousands of uses.

Thanks for your excursion into negatives and enlarging. I'm not yet cured from that idea, but will continue my wet plate journey with direct prints first.

Ive recommended the Intrepid camera and the projection lenses due to the mentioned budget. For big brass, he'd need a much more sturdy camera, which would limit the "architecture" approach of the project, die to lesser movement features on this and the sheer size and weight.

[Tim Meisburger]

I've made enlargements from 2x3 and 4x5 plates. For me, it was the same as any negative, but I didn't do enough of it to be able to provide any useful advice. One of the nice things for me about tintypes and painted plates is they are each a unique one-off. There is also a charm in small plates. The lack of grain invites close inspection of a glass plate, and they are to me like tiny jewels glittering in the sun.

[paulbarden]

Thanks for your excursion into negatives and enlarging. I'm not yet cured from that idea, but will continue my wet plate journey with direct prints first.

Ive recommended the Intrepid camera and the projection lenses due to the mentioned budget. For big brass, he'd need a much more sturdy camera, which would limit the "architecture" approach of the project, die to lesser movement features on this and the sheer size and weight.

I said it earlier - I suspect the OP will find that a more “ordinary” lens will be needed for architecture work, so the Intrepid would work fine for that. But the studio portraiture will be better served with a traditional Petzval type lens, which the OP has already identified as desirable for what they want. Either two cameras with two lenses will be needed, or a sturdy camera suitable for both lenses. At least that’s my impression.

[paulbarden]

I've made enlargements from 2x3 and 4x5 plates. For me, it was the same as any negative, but I didn't do enough of it to be able to provide any useful advice. One of the nice things for me about tintypes and painted plates is they are each a unique one-off. There is also a charm in small plates. The lack of grain invites close inspection of a glass plate, and they are to me like tiny jewels glittering in the sun.


I suspect the cost of farming out the optical enlargements will be the biggest obstacle. How many technicians-for-hire do you know who can make big enlargements from 5x7 glass negatives??

[Eric in Vegas]

I've made enlargements from 2x3 and 4x5 plates. For me, it was the same as any negative, but I didn't do enough of it to be able to provide any useful advice. One of the nice things for me about tintypes and painted plates is they are each a unique one-off. There is also a charm in small plates. The lack of grain invites close inspection of a glass plate, and they are to me like tiny jewels glittering in the sun.

I'm still quite new to wet plate but can relate. I started with 5x7 plates in wet plate and spent quite a lot of effort fitting my garage with enlarging equipment for film only to find I really enjoy smaller images the best. A unique tintype or ambrotype of any size is a keeper and my favorite paper photos are the ones I can slap a postcard back on and share with others via snail mail.

[Tim Meisburger]

I'm still quite new to wet plate but can relate. I started with 5x7 plates in wet plate and spent quite a lot of effort fitting my garage with enlarging equipment for film only to find I really enjoy smaller images the best. A unique tintype or ambrotype of any size is a keeper and my favorite paper photos are the ones I can slap a postcard back on and share with others via snail mail.

Interesting. Both my son and daughter are overseas now (one in the Peace Corps in Africa, and one in graduate school in Dublin), and a lot of my printing now is in 4x6, so my wife and I can send each a unique postcard every Friday. I know I could text, but there is nothing like receiving real mail when you are far from home, and a real picture of your cat, or your family, or a tree, says so much more than a text. We should start a thread on postcard prints...

[Wesito]

I've made enlargements from 2x3 and 4x5 plates. For me, it was the same as any negative, but I didn't do enough of it to be able to provide any useful advice. One of the nice things for me about tintypes and painted plates is they are each a unique one-off. There is also a charm in small plates. The lack of grain invites close inspection of a glass plate, and they are to me like tiny jewels glittering in the sun.

Your poetic response was just what I was needing to hear! That's what my heart had been telling me, but my head was aware of a certain "gallery expectation" ... however I agree with you that these are unique art obejcts in themselves --- and a main reason we are using this technique to begin with --- the concept of enlargements is now settled --- no need for them ;) Thanks Tim (your postcards that you send to your kids also touched my heart - that's great to hear you're making things meaningful for your family and connecting them to a more interconnected and human way of being in this too fast and overly digitized world around us! :)

[Eric in Vegas]

Interesting. Both my son and daughter are overseas now (one in the Peace Corps in Africa, and one in graduate school in Dublin), and a lot of my printing now is in 4x6, so my wife and I can send each a unique postcard every Friday. I know I could text, but there is nothing like receiving real mail when you are far from home, and a real picture of your cat, or your family, or a tree, says so much more than a text. We should start a thread on postcard prints...

Hi Tim. I certainly agree. My spouse and I still write each other actual letters on paper. I sent my siblings postcards recently made from prints of my photos. When I travel, I sometimes send postcards from the locale rather than souvenirs. There is still some magic in a personalized message on a piece of cardstock with a stamp on it. A thread with postcard prints would be cool. A group that shared prints on physical postcards would also be cool. I've got some printing to do before I could participate though;) Cheers.

[paulbarden]

Your poetic response was just what I was needing to hear! That's what my heart had been telling me, but my head was aware of a certain "gallery expectation" ... however I agree with you that these are unique art obejcts in themselves --- and a main reason we are using this technique to begin with --- the concept of enlargements is now settled --- no need for them ;) Thanks Tim (your postcards that you send to your kids also touched my heart - that's great to hear you're making things meaningful for your family and connecting them to a more interconnected and human way of being in this too fast and overly digitized world around us! :)

The vast majority of wet plate portraitists give their clients the original plate - no enlargements - they get the plate in the size it is produced. However, many of them DO scan some of their favorite pieces and produce large inkjet prints to hang in the studio, as promotional pieces. You may want to consider doing that. Scan-to-inkjet isn't terribly expensive.

[Wesito]

Thank you, Paul for all of your advice so far! I've been looking at your Flickr account and have been very impressed at your collodion work -- the aesthetic is striking -- the light creates this three dimensional effect that is so visceral and intriguing.

Enlargements:

Yes, exactly that's been our plan. The enlargements were for our gallery pieces -- we want to do gallery exhibitions of our "architectural / street photography" so we had considered enlargements (I really like Christine Fitzgerald's format for her "Threatened" series (https://www.christinefitzgeraldphotography.com/threatened). But I love the concept of keeping them original and selling them that way (and scanning everything for our records / prints). Your detailed comments on the enlarging process was key in this decision as well--- I had not realised that the defects etc could be so pronounced / as well as the logisitics of cost etc. Scanning and correcting will take place when needed, but I feel just using as large a format camera as possible (8x10 or 11x14 -- not Bill Hao style - however impressive that is, ha!) to create one of a kind artefacts will be better --- Thank you for that!

Studio Camera:
Your remarks about the petzval are on point. I've been considering for our portait studio and have been comparing Mentor cameras / monorail systems / as well as wooden models that conform to standard measurements (no British sizes, etc).

I have to admit I appreciate the idea & aesthetic of the later wood-body cameras, but I also understand the practicality of metal models that are more standardized... I know it's a blend of function and personal taste and will take hands on experience with different models....

One that has caught my eye (which I've seen used in a studio with an Ilex No. 4 Acme Synchro lens) is a Gundlach Korona View 8x10 (http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/gundlach/view.htm) with a manual Rodenstock Eurynar 300mm f4,5 anastigmat... or a Mentor monorail 18x24cm format with a Carl Zeiss 250mm f4.5 Jena Tessar DDR... I know those Mentors are little tanks and can take a larger lens... both to be swapped out for a Petzval...

Street Photography/Architectural camera:

I'm not quite sure what to use for our "street photography / architectural" camera / lens combo --- I'd like to keep it 8x10 ...an intrepid? With which kind of lens?

We plan on making a mobile darkroom in the back of our van.

It's really exciting, and again, I appreciate all of the detailed feedback and patience, Paul, and from everyone!

[Tim Meisburger]

A old wooden studio camera on a wooden studio stand would work quite well for you purposes, I think, as you don't really need movements on a portrait camera. It sets a tone, and fits the wet plate estetic, at least until you blast your clients eyeballs out with your megawatt strobes.

For your street camera, I would actually avoid the Intrepid, and go with something robust that can easily carry heavy lenses, since presumably you will not be far from your car, and can use a cart to tote your stuff around, if needed. For that camera you will need movements, unless you want to replicate a period image style.

[paulbarden]

Thank you, Paul for all of your advice so far!

I'm not quite sure what to use for our "street photography / architectural" camera / lens combo --- I'd like to keep it 8x10 ...an intrepid? With which kind of lens?

We plan on making a mobile darkroom in the back of our van.

It's really exciting, and again, I appreciate all of the detailed feedback and patience, Paul, and from everyone!

I'm glad my experience with the technique is useful to you. You're welcome.

One thing that has not yet been mentioned, and it's one of the reasons I bought an Intrepid 8x10 in the first place: The wood components of the camera you choose will eventually be destroyed by exposure to the Silver nitrate over time. Sure, you can practice very clean technique to minimize the amount of AgNO3 that ends up in contact with the wood, but Silver nitrate will eat the wood and turn it to dust. I have an 8x10 Lund travel tank for the silver bath and it came with a wooden kickstand. It took five years for it to eventually fail, but it did: the wood has been eaten away and turned to ash, so I've had to replace it with stainless steel. The same will happen to any wooden camera that you get Silver nitrate on. Yeah, you can avoid it to a degree, but it's virtually impossible to avoid completely, since your plate holder - by it's very nature - has some liquid AgNO3 in it when you place a plate in the camera for exposure, and I can assure you, it gets on the camera one way or another.

As I say, if you're very VERY tidy and careful, you might be able to avoid damaging the camera for years, but if you have an antique camera of any value, think carefully about using it as a wet plate device. I chose not to damage my Deardorff, so my solution was to buy an Intrepid and treat it as disposable.

[Wesito]

A old wooden studio camera on a wooden studio stand would work quite well for you purposes, I think, as you don't really need movements on a portrait camera. It sets a tone, and fits the wet plate estetic, at least until you blast your clients eyeballs out with your megawatt strobes.

For your street camera, I would actually avoid the Intrepid, and go with something robust that can easily carry heavy lenses, since presumably you will not be far from your car, and can use a cart to tote your stuff around, if needed. For that camera you will need movements, unless you want to replicate a period image style.


A old wooden studio camera on a wooden studio stand would work quite well for you purposes, I think, as you don't really need movements on a portrait camera. It sets a tone, and fits the wet plate estetic, at least until you blast your clients eyeballs out with your megawatt strobes.

For your street camera, I would actually avoid the Intrepid, and go with something robust that can easily carry heavy lenses, since presumably you will not be far from your car, and can use a cart to tote your stuff around, if needed. For that camera you will need movements, unless you want to replicate a period image style.

Thanks Tim! Yes, I think this is the direction we are going to go (as it does set a tone and an aesthetic --- I seem to be able to find decent camera bodies here in Europe for around 4-500euro, so even if it disintegrates from the silver in 5 years, I can replace it and make a judgement at that time...

We might even use a wood field camera for our street camera --- am also looking at some Plaubels and Mentors as well to have both options... Now to decide on a lens for the field camera! (and if I need a shutter or not) :)

[jnantz]

I suspect the cost of farming out the optical enlargements will be the biggest obstacle. How many technicians-for-hire do you know who can make big enlargements from 5x7 glass negatives??

I used to, and sometimes bigger plates, but I stopped because the enlarger head put so much stress on the plates I thought they would chip and break. so I contacted printed the glass plates after that. and now, thankfully we live in the modern age where I can plop a plate on a scanner, or it's physical print on a scanner and make an enlargement if I want. if enlarging, get negative carriers specific for plates ( solar used to have glass negative carriers in a big drawer that pulled out and they work great ) because the mass of the enlarger head will put stress on a rigid carrier that does not overlap the edge of the plate. another added benefit is the nuance of tonality of a plate is sometimes lost in the enlargement but captured when scanning .. These weren't collodion plates but dry plates .. window pane glass. I haven't rephotographed plates with a camera instead of scanning, but im sure that would work too.

OP. you should also look into Studio Q ( Quinn Jacobson ), he is also a collodion master and I know he's given classes all over.

have fun with your new adventure!
John

[Alan Townsend]

Don't worry, I'm human... I see I wasn't clear with my questions though!

We're just going to have a firm to enlarge them...

What I wanted to know about was recommendations for Camera and Lens types for Wet Plate "architectural" work... and if my ideas for a Portrait setup were practical... or if there was a camera / lens combination that could work well for both...

At present I'm leaning towards a dedicated portrait wet plate camera, and a dedicated "out on the town" wet plate camera that probably has a shutter and a slider for Fstops... any suggestions? Thanks again!

I suggest putting a decent digital camera inside a box that appears to be an antique portrait camera, and tell everyone it's a wet plate. You could even use plates of glass any size you like and pancake syrup to pretend your coating the plates. You could embellish the performance as much as you like for your audience, while economizing to the max.
OSHA requirements and your insurance underwriters will also appreciate the reduced liability and regulations from lack of collodion and other regulated and or flammable products in your operation.

In your post production, you can make them look as old as you like by using filters or other means. It's always easier to make sharp photos look fuzzy or scratched up than to make scratched up or fuzzy look sharp and perfect. Well, now with AI I guess not so hard to do. This also helps you make distorted and scratched up people look better, too.

This is the easiest and most profitable way to do your wet plate studio. At least you will have a decent digital camera left after your wet plate business fails. Next, you could pretend your aliens from another dimension and make 3d holographic portraits using the same equipment. Cavemen chipping granite slabs with chisels could be done using 3d printed rocks.

Pardon my having fun with this idea. Not sure how profitable this will be, but don't understand the market. I believe a fake wet plate studio could be more profitable than a real one, a lot easier, and much more fun. Just imagine the possibilities.

I am not a robot

[Wesito]

I suggest putting a decent digital camera inside a box that appears to be an antique portrait camera, and tell everyone it's a wet plate. You could even use plates of glass any size you like and pancake syrup to pretend your coating the plates. You could embellish the performance as much as you like for your audience, while economizing to the max.
OSHA requirements and your insurance underwriters will also appreciate the reduced liability and regulations from lack of collodion and other regulated and or flammable products in your operation.

In your post production, you can make them look as old as you like by using filters or other means. It's always easier to make sharp photos look fuzzy or scratched up than to make scratched up or fuzzy look sharp and perfect. Well, now with AI I guess not so hard to do. This also helps you make distorted and scratched up people look better, too.

This is the easiest and most profitable way to do your wet plate studio. At least you will have a decent digital camera left after your wet plate business fails. Next, you could pretend your aliens from another dimension and make 3d holographic portraits using the same equipment. Cavemen chipping granite slabs with chisels could be done using 3d printed rocks.

Pardon my having fun with this idea. Not sure how profitable this will be, but don't understand the market. I believe a fake wet plate studio could be more profitable than a real one, a lot easier, and much more fun. Just imagine the possibilities.

I am not a robot

What you are is an asshole...

[paulbarden]

Not sure how profitable this will be, but don't understand the market. I believe a fake wet plate studio could be more profitable than a real one, a lot easier, and much more fun. Just imagine the possibilities.

Alan, I know scores of people who operate a very profitable wet plate portraiture studio. I don't think it's very helpful to suggest making fake tintypes, especially since you've stated that you don't have any idea what is happening in the wet plate portraiture market (believe me, it's a booming market).
The business model the OP is proposing is very viable, assuming they learn the technique properly and develop skill with it, and that they have a genuine desire to make the business work. As I say, I know plenty of people who operate tintype portrait studios and they are BUSY people, making a living doing it.

I find the whole "fake tintype" concept to be disingenuous and likely to be viewed by potential clients as a very poor alternative to the real deal. Imagine someone on this forum suggesting using AI/Photoshop fakery to emulate a traditional portraiture technique?! Honestly.


What you are is an asshole...

Yeah, well - I was trying to phrase it more politely, but yes.

[Alan Townsend]

What you are is an asshole...


I think you should try to develop a sense of humor and not take things so seriously.

[paulbarden]

I think you should try to develop a sense of humor and not take things so seriously.

It seems to me that if someone is planning on building a business around the concept of wet plate portraiture and they are looking for advice on how best to do that, then they are very serious about their plans indeed, and frivolous "recommendations" are not useful. Suggesting that they just do the laziest thing possible and make fake tintypes is spectacularly unhelpful.
You're surprised that this suggestion rubbed the OP the wrong way??

[Alan Townsend]

I really thought this thread was a joke. The first posts related to it being a bot. I thought that was funny, and got a good laugh of of it. Back around 1973, I experimented with wet collodion long before it became popular at all. I even made my own nitrocellulose using nitric acid, salt peter, and cotton. Hence my mild interest in wet collodion. I completely gave up on this a few years later when I discovered ortho-litho film, which gives a very similar look without the fuss and bother and with greatly superior orthochromatic response. Historical side note: wet collodion continued to be used in the printing industry for half tones through the 1940's when ortho-litho film fully replaced it.

The only reason I can imagine today for using wet collodion is as historical reenactment. It wet collodion days, there were no enlargements digital or otherwise. Contact printed collodion on paper or albumen paper were about it. So now we have portrait studios using wet plates Frankenstined with later digital and optical processes? This makes no logical sense whatsoever. So, I guess it's okay to fake the historic retouching and printing processes with a genuine wet plate negative? Sorry that I don`t see any market. Most of the art was retouching the numerous pimples and blemishes that show up so badly with color blind emulsions. To me, a 1/2 non-historic process is fake, so fully fake isn't very far removed. Thus my literary license for my comment I get called names for. It was funny.

More people read this forum than just the OP's. Information is for everybody and the purpose of a forum. I remain amazed that people are using inferior materials (wet collodion) because they are hand made but then modernizing (faking) the results with commercial products that are mass-produced. Personally, my photography is all done using manufactured film but printed using hand-made materials without computer aids. This works better for me and is more historically correct for about 1880 on.

[Tin Can]

I have 100 NOS Plates circa 1890

When they are gone

I have a pile of NOS from this decade

Let our people go!

[Tim Meisburger]

The enlarger was invented in 1843. Google it.

[Alan Townsend]

The enlarger was invented in 1843. Google it.

That would have been a so-called enlarging camera for Daguerreotypes. Enlarging papers did not exist commercially until much later. I don't have the date, but it was after the wet collodian era (about 1850-1880 ish). By roughly 1890 electric electric enlargers were in common use. There were "solar cameras" in use the the collodion era, but were not very common. Condenser lenses focused the sun through negatives that would often melt. Some used a heliostat to track the sun as a light source automatically. Others were fixed cameras that were manually pointed at the sun as it moved across the sky. The printing papers were far too slow otherwise. Today, there are those who experiment with high powered COB UV led light for "alternate process" use, which were the technology at that time rather than alternates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlarger

[Tim Meisburger]

Sorry. Just a joke.

[jnantz]

I really thought this thread was a joke. The first posts related to it being a bot. I thought that was funny, and got a good laugh of of it. Back around 1973, I experimented with wet collodion long before it became popular at all. I even made my own nitrocellulose using nitric acid, salt peter, and cotton. Hence my mild interest in wet collodion. I completely gave up on this a few years later when I discovered ortho-litho film, which gives a very similar look without the fuss and bother and with greatly superior orthochromatic response. Historical side note: wet collodion continued to be used in the printing industry for half tones through the 1940's when ortho-litho film fully replaced it.

The only reason I can imagine today for using wet collodion is as historical reenactment. It wet collodion days, there were no enlargements digital or otherwise. Contact printed collodion on paper or albumen paper were about it. So now we have portrait studios using wet plates Frankenstined with later digital and optical processes? This makes no logical sense whatsoever. So, I guess it's okay to fake the historic retouching and printing processes with a genuine wet plate negative? Sorry that I don`t see any market. Most of the art was retouching the numerous pimples and blemishes that show up so badly with color blind emulsions. To me, a 1/2 non-historic process is fake, so fully fake isn't very far removed. Thus my literary license for my comment I get called names for. It was funny.

More people read this forum than just the OP's. Information is for everybody and the purpose of a forum. I remain amazed that people are using inferior materials (wet collodion) because they are hand made but then modernizing (faking) the results with commercial products that are mass-produced. Personally, my photography is all done using manufactured film but printed using hand-made materials without computer aids. This works better for me and is more historically correct for about 1880 on.

Hi Alan

there is very little use for anyone to be making chemical based photographs at all these days, except to enjoy oneself. the market for any kind of photography for sale is the same, it's the vanity-market, and with wet plate it is also to cheat death. people who have money to spend will buy a handmade photograph, it's an "art object".

[paulbarden]

I really thought this thread was a joke.

The only reason I can imagine today for using wet collodion is as historical reenactment.

Thus my literary license for my comment I get called names for. It was funny.

I remain amazed that people are using inferior materials (wet collodion) because they are hand made but then modernizing (faking) the results with commercial products that are mass-produced. Personally, my photography is all done using manufactured film but printed using hand-made materials without computer aids. This works better for me and is more historically correct for about 1880 on.

1) Obviously this query is not a joke. That should have been evident after the first few posts.

2) Just because your concept of "appropriate usage" (IE; historical reenactments) is so limited doesn't mean others have not used wet plate to excellent effect and find it a very creative medium.

3) You think this is funny, and yet nobody is laughing. All you've done is piss people off. Think about that.

4) Your opinion that wet plate collodion is "an inferior material" doesn't actually make it inferior. People make excellent images using plastic "toy" cameras, pinhole cameras, using materials outside the narrow scope of "historically accurate" (a term that only has meaning to the practitioner. You think anyone else cares??) so how YOU make your images and the fact that you're using "historically correct" processes is irrelevant.
The snobbery that so often leaks into this forum is discouraging, when people snub others for not "doing things the right way" (whatever the f that means). It's no wonder you got called names for expressing such a nonconstructive, unfriendly opinion that did nothing to help the OP.

[Eugen Mezei]

Historical side note: wet collodion continued to be used in the printing industry for half tones through the 1940's when ortho-litho film fully replaced it.

The only reason I can imagine today for using wet collodion is as historical reenactment.

I remain amazed that people are using inferior materials (wet collodion)

One area where collodion was used for a long time (up to the 2000s years) and even today (although on a much reduced scale) is for printing onto china. In my town a shop exist that makes funeral pictures on china. For who does not know, these are mostly photographs of the deceased onto a round or oval glased ceramic (aka china) and are attached to the tombstone. Very durable. I did know the shop from the times I was a child, but never entered it. I always saw these ceramic pictures in their showcase. After I got intereste in LF photography I also noted the two LF cameras they had. Than one day I saw one dissapeared. I entered the shop and asked what happened with it and if they maybe are selling their gear. (I then indeed bought the one that "dissapeared", a 13x18 Globica.) The woman doing the work explained me (but not willing to give all the details) how these plaquettes are made. She complained about two things: 1. Industrially produced collodion being hard to come by (and if only of bad, thin quality), 2. Decreasing sales. (That is why they sold one of the cameras and are now in half of the shop selling womens underwear.) On the one side people are not interested any more in these plaquettes for tumbstones, on the other side the technique is replaced by printing; that is cheaper and can produce also color photographs. (To be honest I doubt they are very long lasting, but I only suppose.)

[Eugen Mezei]

expressing such a nonconstructive, unfriendly opinion that did nothing to help the OP.

It may seem polite and for sure easy to do when you don't have to open your own pocket to help the OP, but confirming him into a dream that very well could end with an unpleasant awaking is not something I would call constructive.

[Eugen Mezei]

I know scores of people who operate a very profitable wet plate portraiture studio. I don't think it's very helpful to suggest making fake tintypes, especially since you've stated that you don't have any idea what is happening in the wet plate portraiture market (believe me, it's a booming market).
The business model the OP is proposing is very viable, assuming they learn the technique properly and develop skill with it, and that they have a genuine desire to make the business work. As I say, I know plenty of people who operate tintype portrait studios and they are BUSY people, making a living doing it.

If a second shop opens that is booming (100% increase) but that must not mean the market will support a third one. Maybe even the second one will have to close soon, even if the first one was very successfull.
These old processes gained a bit of notorierity and even following customers, but you still have to gather enough people willing to pay enough so it sustain your living. How many people are willing to pay at least the cost of material? How many are willing to do it regularily and not just once for the sake of novelty?

[jnantz]

Hi Eugen
I can't speak as a regular practitioner of wet plate, I've done it a handful of times, but from all reports from people who were cranking out tintypes regularly ( at least in the US ) it costs less than a negative and silver print to make a tintype, enlargements from a lab don't cost that much. I at present, sheet film and paper is spendy, and is no longer a bargain like the days of yore ( not that anything was ever inexpensive ). It's an important skill to have, being able to be self sufficient in making photographic supplies materials, especially with the days numbered for store bought materials .. not to be a photographic doomsday profiteer but who knows how expensive film and paper will get before hobby people and fine artists alike can't afford to spend the big bucks on film &c and once that happens .... I mean it used to be that someone could even buy outdated / expired film and paper on the cheeps, but the cat's out of the bag for that too ... it is what it is ... I've seen some very large image from metal / glass made by a printer's shop and they looked absolutely beautiful. Bigger is better and all that, and if small and jewel like is wanted even better .. regarding novelty, photography in general is a novelty, I mean anyone can point a camera and push a button or snatch a still from their go-pro stream, barely tweak it in gimp and make something worthy of a wall, seeing something from someone else's point of view is always less of a novelty.

[maaccretouch54]

Exciting wet plate studio plans! For city exhibitions, consider a lens balancing sharpness and vintage charm. How do you plan to handle post-processing? Embrace plate imperfections or use photo editing (https://maaccretouch.com/) to enhance? Curious about your creative process!

[Tin Can]

I have bought way more X_Ray than I may live to use

I like the 1895 LOOK

I never spot as I am careful, I scan by iPad now for LFPF SHARING

NAY SAYYAYERS POST THOSE MASTERPIECES

FOR SHOW AND HELL

45 plastic injection cam hand heid 4 am one flash bulb

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51246617432_8b68c24c02_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2m5uiXw)Turbo (https://flic.kr/p/2m5uiXw) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr