Alt Processes - Got Voodoo?

[Ed K.]

With all the pyromaniacs around here, how many of you are using so called "alternative processes" for your printing?

Surely many into pt, right? And what about ziatypes, argyrotypes, carbon, and the rest? Any "gum shoes" around here? How do you think your version stacks up to the "silver standard"? I've read accounts of people looking at images who remark "why would anyone spend all that money just to have something that looks like cra*p!" as well as accounts stating how the inkjet conquers all. Where do you stand on it?

Got a story about an "aha - now it works!" ? or a "hmmm, there is something to this!"?

In my journeys, at times the most elementary alt process gets troublesome when attempting it by instructions only ( the costly way for sure! ). Today, I decided to use up a half bottle of argyrotype sensitizer. I figured all my other attempts with it actually did look like cra*p in a sometimes charming way - so why not us the whole thing up? With contempt for the stuff, I poured on twice the recommended sensitizer and then worked it in with rod. Serious contempt here - hung it up to dry for an hour. Well I'll be - exposure times were shorter than Centinnial POP, and a tad less than palladium with the same neg, however the image came out a lovely matt chocolate with a vibrant quality to it. I was amazed at just how charming it was. ( I'm stil not giving up the silver standard though ). So I tried a couple of "normal" negs that would have required dodging and burning to get the clouds in the sky - hey - that worked great. Maybe there is something to the old ways or at least modern convenient versions of them. The crummy argyrotype, the "Playskool" of alt processes so to speak, actually beat my scanner at capturing highlights.

While I have to make regular modern process images as part of what I do, in the "spare" moments I explore a bit of the alt stuff , and try some of those boxes of stuff I picked up while browsing the photo store. It's a sort of alchemy or perhaps even a voodoo for lost and zombified images. Do you, Voodoo?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, I'm finding albumen printing to be addictive--for the self-masking properties with landscapes and the look I'm getting with portraits.

I think the insight I've had recently is that it's all about combining hard and soft. A soft lens looks best with hard light or a contrast filter. Sharp images look great in albumen.

[Ed K.]

David - then might we say that you're an "egg beater" ? Do you start with eggs? From "chicken scratch"?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I do start with eggs, because I like to cook and can always find uses for the yolks, though it may not be so great for my cholesterol. There's a great book by Helen McCurry and Jacques Pepin called The Other Half of the Egg with lots of recipes for only egg whites or only egg yolks.

Of course it's easier to start with powdered egg whites, if you would rather not deal with separating dozens of eggs. On the other hand, someone I know who uses powdered egg whites told me that his albumen mixture develops a smell after a while, and I've kept mine in the refrigerator for months, and it seems to stay fresh.

I make the albumen mixture with only organic egg whites, sea salt, and distilled white vinegar, so that part of the process is all non-toxic, and I can make it with ordinary kitchen utensils and store it in the refrigerator without worrying about the food. They tell you to beat the egg whites for albumen printing in a glass bowl, but I use a traditional copper bowl, because that's just what one uses for egg whites, and I haven't had any contamination problems.

[j.e.simmons]

I've found separated egg whites at my local Publix supermarket. They come in small cartons similar to old milk cartons and are stocked near the regular eggs. They seem to be very convenient for making albumen.
juan

[bruce terry]

Geez. Eggs? I've got enough problems with humidity and zias. But the mystery of ziatype, it's tonal range and color in a direct contact, I like - not that there's anything wrong with silver....or albumen....or whatever.

Then there's digitography. Great fun when I sit down and help my cousin crop her snaps into gooder pics, eliminate the redeye, change the hues - but her photo-graphy ended when she pressed the camera button, when she entered the future.

You think?

[Scott Davis]

I've become a Palladium addict. It isn't for every image, to be sure. But there is something beyond magical about a contact print from an 8x10 neg in pure palladium - the rich warm chocolate hues, the creamy highlights, the infinite gradation in the skin tones on a portrait, that gives it this three-dimensional quality. Makes you want to just reach into the image and touch things.

I had to thrash around a bit at the beginning to learn the process, but now that I'm getting the hang of it (many thanks to the class I had with Carl Weese!), my exposures and my prints are much more under control, and one of the great things about these alt processes is that once you get your negatives right, there's no more fussing around with burn this, dodge that... your cost per finished print might actually go down, because your test print-to-finished print ratio decreases as well.

[Donald Qualls]

I've been doing some van Dyke brown prints and salted paper experiments, so far mostly trying to find the right paper that won't cause trouble by reacting with the silver solutions. I've done cyanotype for a couple years, and I'm working on finding a smoother paper to be able to do cyano with a high level of detail and "smooth" appearance, since it's (in my experience) so much more tolerant of the support.

Of course, I try not to do *too* much of these, because they make me realize my 4x5 cameras are too small... :eek:

[Brian Ellis]

I used to make van Dyke brown prints and cyanotypes. Those are two of the easiest alt processes I know of and the results can be very nice. Then I spent major time and effort with gum printing. However, I eventually concluded that a process that requires multiple exposures and processing, where each exposure must be in perfect registration with the previous ones while using a material (paper) that shrinks a little each time it's processed, was something only a masochist would enjoy.

[sanking]

I've read accounts of people looking at images who remark "why would anyone spend all that money just to have something that looks like cra*p!" as well as accounts stating how the inkjet conquers all. Where do you stand on it?



I print almost exclusively with alternative processes, primarily carbon, but from time to time with kallitype, palladium, and vandyke. Hand made prints, or past-factory printing as some call it, intrigues me, and is empowering because the printer is in total control of the medium and not at the mercy of the marketing decisions.

Also, and just for the record, no one has ever looked at one of my carbon prints and told me "that looks like cra*p," or even just plain crap for that matter. And if you ever have the chance to see a well-made carbon print you would understand why. I would say the same thing about many well done alternative prints made by others, regardless of process. Silver has some distinctive characteristics but many of us prefer the image characteristics of one or another of the alternative processes.

On the other hand, I would be one of the first to admit that a very large percentage of alternative work does fall into my own personal category of "crap," but not because it is alternative, but because it is poorly executed alternative work, by people who don't take the time to master the process being used.

Sandy

[Ed K.]

Hey Sandy -

I wouldn't argue whether you've got some very nice work, though I haven't seen any of it in person yet. You're very well known and respected for your work, and you take some of your valuable time to help others - that's great, and much appreciated!

I don't question the work of others, especially when it moves me, or has a lot of "heart" in it. The alt process part seems to add various amounts of pain, and perhaps some sort of rareness to the image; that the print wasn't created in 30 seconds. Whatever reason the printmaker has is definitely good enough; it's just sometimes I feel that people can get so hung up in the process that the statement of the photograph gets lost. And come to think of it, I have seen examples of beautiful alt process work of several kinds, and well. The reference to crap was made by somebody commenting on the bother of alt process over at photo net a while back, and although I hate to admit it, the post did have a point. Crap is crap no matter what it's actually made out of in the beginning. Whatever the case, calling other people's work crap is just not a good way to live, and I won't do it.

I happened to see a superb example of a tricolor carbon print just a couple of days ago, without any glass on top either. It was, as you might expect, stunning, without fault, and the print even made a commentary on the impermanence of photographic technologies and materials as its subject matter. A statement, masterfully executed, simple, and beautiful to behold. The time, skill and expense required to produce such a print must have been beyond comprehension - it was PERFECT. I do understand many of the reasons people do alt process. I heard that the man who made it had gone mad, paranoid - there could have been some pathology related to his very masterful skills. Is it worth that?

That said, I have to wonder at times though. For example, the highly touted inkjet negative used as a source for long scale alt process prints - yes, it beats trying to make the negs just right, allows retouching and also beats risks to valuable negs, however then the scale is limited to what an inkjet can do at best. It does seem that good negatives can have more smoothness in the highlights ( where the inkjet is at it's worst is making detail in dark areas of negs ), this I wonder about some of the inkjet combinations. Given the untested ( time-wise ) nature of modern versions of alt processes, I also wonder at times if the results will actually be as permanent as many people hope, even using Pt, or heaven forbid, carbon. Isn't carbon a gelatin based process, subject to the frailties and interactions of paper and it's binders, or atmosphere to gelatin formulae?

A good question might be - if you could have the same control, and identical output, with identical beauty and permanence, or perhaps better, in 10-30 seconds of work on some new fangled molecular synthesizing computer, would you still risk health, environment and well, spend time to create images with your favorite alt process ( carbon? ). ?

I'm curious to thoughts on this stuff other than my own. Please understand that I'm not knocking alt processes - I'm exploring a couple of them myself as I go, and enjoying the results. I just question the sanity of it at times, and it's nice to know who else around here is currently exploring alt processes, plus which ones.

[Christopher Perez]

Interesting. Your comment strikes something in me.

Yesterday and went to the local photo store to buy some silver 11x14 FB VC Ilford. I was stopped cold when I saw they want $110/50sht box! I'd like to support Ilford, and all that. I'd hate to see them disappear. But...

Hunting the shelves turned up a fresh 50sht box of Oriental FB VC II for $68 and a fresh 50sht box of Forte Polygrade FB VC for $67. So I bought them both.

On the way to the counter to pay for all this silver "goodness", it struck me that I need to look at Palladium. At the cost of silver, the alt processes are beginning to appeal to me. The folks at the camera store owe me a phone call today with pricing for one of Photographer's Formulary Palladium Kits. I guess I need to start somewhere. :)


...Hand made prints, or past-factory printing as some call it, intrigues me, and is empowering because the printer is in total control of the medium and not at the mercy of the marketing decisions...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I'm curious to thoughts on this stuff other than my own. Please understand that I'm not knocking alt processes - I'm exploring a couple of them myself as I go, and enjoying the results. I just question the sanity of it at times, and it's nice to know who else around here is currently exploring alt processes, plus which ones.

Here is my take, one, you have to enjoy the process. If you think like Brooks Jensen that darkroom work is "drudgery" then by all means stay away from it....it is a bit more labor intensive.

Two, as it was mentioned above, alt processes do not fit every image. I think a good example is the "grand vista." Given that most alt prints are contact prints, even the most beautiful grand vista looks puny in 8x10 when you compare to a 16x20 or 20x24....if this is what you like, stay away from alt processes, you wont be satisfied.

[sanking]

Hey Sandy -

I don't question the work of others, especially when it moves me, or has a lot of "heart" in it. The alt process part seems to add various amounts of pain, and perhaps some sort of rareness to the image; that the print wasn't created in 30 seconds. Whatever reason the printmaker has is definitely good enough; it's just sometimes I feel that people can get so hung up in the process that the statement of the photograph gets lost.

(clip)

I happened to see a superb example of a tricolor carbon print just a couple of days ago, without any glass on top either. It was, as you might expect, stunning, without fault, and the print even made a commentary on the impermanence of photographic technologies and materials as its subject matter. A statement, masterfully executed, simple, and beautiful to behold. The time, skill and expense required to produce such a print must have been beyond comprehension - it was PERFECT. I do understand many of the reasons people do alt process. I heard that the man who made it had gone mad, paranoid - there could have been some pathology related to his very masterful skills. Is it worth that?

Ed,

I don't question part of your original premise. There are indeed many people printing with alternative processes who use it as an excuse for poor creativity, or for poor technique. However, virtually all of the outstanding alternative printers whose work I have seen are also very skilled silver printers, and they use alternative because of the peculiar surface and tactile qualities of these processes, which are very different from silver papers. There are really significant visual difference between different printings of the same negative with several processes, say carbon, palladium and silver chloride. When I attend conferences or workshops I usually carry with me prints made from the same image made in AZO, palladium and carbon. You would be amazed at the visual difference between these prints.

Most alternative photographers, at least IMHO, tend to think of themselves as print makers as much as photographers, and the surface qualities of a print is of paramount importance. Persons who place most of the value of a photograph on content, especially content of the type that has some type of emotional or sentimental appeal, as a rule are not terribly interested in the surface quality of a print. In fact, a web image satisfied many persons of this type. On the other hand, a beautiful tri-color carbon print with a lot of surface tactility, including dimensional effect, is to die for as far as I am concerned. One may be a bit crazy to aspire to that kind of perfection, but if so I will just confess to being crazy, and thankful for living in the 20th century rather than in the 16th when the crazy were not treated nearly so well as today.


Sandy

[robert]

Sandy, If you were here I'd offer you a glass of my finest MacCallums ( for those who don't know single malts...its a damn good one). I couldn't have said it so eloquently- my sentiments exactly. I've at times gotten to a point that I want to tell people if I have to explain it to you then you you wouldn't understand. I mean from idea to vision, to composition, to light, form , function, and technique....all the way to final print. You could probably safely say that when we shoot we're shooting in pt/pd, or carbon, or vdb, or gum, because that's what vision is all about. Ah hell, like I said if I have to explain then they won't understand. But its been a great week burning film.

[Ed K.]

Ed,
In fact, a web image satisfied many persons of this type.
Sandy

This does seem odd to me. It's as though one person says that a boring piece of music is really rich and rare, marvelous, if it is played on a particular violin. Or that as long as the tune is catchy enough, even playing it on a plastic violin from a dime store makes it fantastic. When I'm enjoying a work, I usually enjoy the sum and the parts. It should not take an expert to appreciate a visual expression, although experts can and do appreciate the work and craft of a great print.

To play devils advocate, I could hand a camera to a monkey, wait until the shutter trips, and then have a masterful printer make the final emotional statement? There could be something to this.

I suggest that you're being a bit snobbish to suggest that there are "types" of people required to appreciate a photograph. Whatever the case, I toast your skill and enjoyment of your art - as long as you appreciate it, then what could be wrong with that?

[Joe Lipka]

Been doing platinum palladium for about fifteen years.
Haven't made a silver print at all in over three years.
Sold my enlarger a year ago.
Now it's nothing but platinum/palladium prints.

I now use digital negatives from a desktop printer for my platinum prints. I have removed the drudgery I don't like and keep the darkroom work I do like.

[Jeremy Moore]

just got started doing gum over platinum/palladium prints and plan on taking an ambrotype workshop in October :)

[Kerik Kouklis]

Pt/Pd for 17 years...
Gum-Platinum for 6 years...
Wet Plate Collodion for 2 years.

No pain here - nothing but good times.

[sanking]

This does seem odd to me. It's as though one person says that a boring piece of music is really rich and rare, marvelous, if it is played on a particular violin. Or that as long as the tune is catchy enough, even playing it on a plastic violin from a dime store makes it fantastic. When I'm enjoying a work, I usually enjoy the sum and the parts. It should not take an expert to appreciate a visual expression, although experts can and do appreciate the work and craft of a great print.

To play devils advocate, I could hand a camera to a monkey, wait until the shutter trips, and then have a masterful printer make the final emotional statement? There could be something to this.

I suggest that you're being a bit snobbish to suggest that there are "types" of people required to appreciate a photograph. Whatever the case, I toast your skill and enjoyment of your art - as long as you appreciate it, then what could be wrong with that?



Well, the point is that what is boring to you may not be boring to others, and vice versa. And playing a piece on a particular violin may indeed give a richer and more marvelous musical experience than playing it on just any violin. And if that is not the case, why then do many musicians prize Stradivarius violins so highly.

I have been called much worse things than being “snobbish” so I won’t be offended by that comment. However, I am more than a bit confused at what you find "snobbish" in my comments. People bring different knowledge and experience to their activities, whether it be reading literature, listening to music, viewing an art work, or for that matter just watching a sports event, and what they derive from these activities is a product of this individual knowledge and experience. Some people will look at a photograph and never get beyond the emotional or sentimental appeal. Others will appreciate the photograph for the way the photographers uses light and forms. Others will be attracted to the surface quality and tactility of the image. And some may appreciate it for the sum of its parts, but with different importance attached to the various parts.

None of these ways of seeing is necessarily right or wrong, or better or worse than the other, but some ways of seeing, listening and understanding are clearly more layered and richer than others. In other words, the sum of all parts is a different and much more complex experience for some than for others, so that while it may be true that all persons with sight can appreciate a visual expression, clearly all persons will not experience it in the same way.

Sandy

[Ed K.]

Sandy,
First thing - I'm not calling you a snob, however when you referred to a sort of person who would be satisfied by some sort of web shot instead of something else grandly made, it seemed to put judgement on the viewer, a sort of tail wagging the dog thing in a way, so I mentioned that. This is just discussion, and as I've noted before, there's no question about your talents or expertise here, or really anything about you personally.

Snob:

"3 a : one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior b : one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste"

It is true that your art is enough if you make it; and anyone who looks at it is not better or worse to enjoy it or not.

As to violins, a boring tune on a Strad is well, a boring tune. And of course, in the way you have pointed out, I suppose a great tune heard by a "tin ear" doesn't get too far either!

Sorry if you got some dander up - not intended whatsoever.

[sanking]

Sandy,
First thing - I'm not calling you a snob, however when you referred to a sort of person who would be satisfied by some sort of web shot instead of something else grandly made, it seemed to put judgement on the viewer, a sort of tail wagging the dog thing in a way, so I mentioned that.
Sorry if you got some dander up - not intended whatsoever.

Ed,

Nope, I am just exchanging views and no dander was/is up. As I said, I have been called much worse things than a snob on this forum, so I was not offended by what you said. I just did not understand why you made the comment from the context of my original message. As far as I am concerned it is an irrefutable fact that some people, probably a great majority of all people, are perfectly satisfied with a photograph that has sentimental or emotional content and little else, and I don't see anything snobbish about stating plain facts. And I attach no particularly importance to the fact other than that I don't include myself in the group.

In any event, I hope you now understand better my views on why some people use alternative processes.


Sandy

[Donald Qualls]

As to violins, a boring tune on a Strad is well, a boring tune. And of course, in the way you have pointed out, I suppose a great tune heard by a "tin ear" doesn't get too far either!

But, of course, a "boring tune" performed by a master violinist is in an entirely different continuum than the same boring tune performed by a slow 8 year old. Further, all the nuance that a master can apply to make that which could be boring exciting instead is further enhanced by playing on the top quality instrument. You might be hard pressed to see much difference between the third grader's performances on the plastic vs. the Strad -- but you certainly would have no trouble telling the master's renditions apart on the two instruments.

Similarly, my own photography and printing might well reveal little reason to spend the money on platinum -- but there surely are others for whom platinum can make the next step beyond the best gelatin silver can offer. Or VDB, or Kallitype, or carbon, or even just Azo in Amidol. The next stage, for me, is to reach the point where it matters if I print on FB vs. RC -- alt processes are just for fun, so far...

[Ed K.]

Hey Donald -

Good points indeed. Then, when one prints with Pt., if that means that one is proclaiming being a master to get more out of it than silver, or whatever, then it puts the burden of excellence back to the photographer, no?

What humiliation to have a rare and beautiful violin, a Guarnerius ( my fav. ) or a Stradivarius yet play with poor intonation, lack of style and somehow manage to avoid getting a good tone? Too often, the focus is put on the expense and trouble instead of what many master violin teachers tell their students - "always make a lovely tone if nothing else, and play the piece true to it's score no matter how modest it is."

As the printer is often the composer who writes the score, there is an overwhelming responsibility to have that score be solid. A tuxedo does not make a ruffian into a true gentleman, nor does money bestow style and elan on a cruel and uncaring man.

All that said, I'm certainly no expert at alt - I'm experimenting, learning and enjoying, with a few small goals to satisfy in the final print of photos that I like. I even confess a commercial purpose to one line of it I am exploring at the moment, which justifies the costs. The people who do various alt processes well have to work very hard and have excellent procedures plus loads of patience to do what they do yet have good results, and I do love seeing the works when they come out right. I did enjoy many of Kenro Izu's prints when I viewed them in St. Pete a couple of years ago - fine work, and they did take me to a place I have no time or budget to experience.

[Donald Qualls]

Well, no humiliation to have an instrument you don't yet possess the skill to fully utilize -- even that 3rd grader will probably sound *better* on the excellent antique than on a toy.

Of course, the "toys" are getting better every year, too -- I keep reading that there are now inkjet printing systems that can produce even B&W prints that look as good as a quality duotone book plate, if unlikely to be mistaken for a gelatin silver print, and the expertise needed to perfect the printing side can be bought in the form of inks and profiles, so that anyone who can make an image look the way it's wanted on the screen and then produce an exquisite print.

I, however, am old fashioned -- when I tried, briefly, to learn the violin, I did it with a wood instrument, horsehair bow, and rosin block, not with a synthesizer. Similarly, I'm learning to "perform" the "scores" I "compose" with silver, gelatin, and projected light. Already, after just a year or so back at it, I'm routinely producing prints better than the best I could make in high school or college (and not just because I have better lenses, or better negatives, or have discovered split filtering for VC, but more because I've made five times as many prints in the past year as in all my life prior).

As with any art, visual, aural, or performance, in the end its practice, as much as instruction and theory, that perfect the final piece. There might come a day when I feel I need platinum to make the next step -- but truthfully, if you play bluegrass or do your best work at a hoe-down, no one will ever be able to tell if you have a Strad or some obscure 19th (or even 20th) century no-name fiddle, or indeed even one made from a cigar box. The Strad only matters with music that makes use of its incredible tone.

It's actually possible to make a functional fiddle, of sorts, from a corn stalk -- it's not loud, and it's hard to tune, but it plays. Some alt processes are like a corn stalk fiddle -- and some are like a Strad or Guarnerius. I'm well ahead of the corn stalk level, I think -- but not yet (quite) to the point where it matters if I'm playing a student violin made last year, or a quality instrument from the 19th century, much less one of a couple hundred made by one of the great masters (which is good, because it'll be a long time before I can afford anything better than the 19th century working instrument).