post alternative techniques

[Emil Schildt]

So many fine images in this forum.
But I miss a thread where we can post our images, made in one or more of the fascinating "alternative" techniques that are out there...

show us your Cyanotypes - Oil prints - Bromoils - Albumen's - Van Dyke's - Carbon prints - photo gravures or what you are currently working with.

Please let us know what technique used (Camera's - lenses are always fine too)...

C'mon: I dare you! :D

[Colin Graham]

Nice idea, I'd really like to see the alt work everyone is doing. I'll start with a carbon transfer- black/green tissue on Lana HP.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2566/3730417832_a925081728_b.jpg

[Emil Schildt]

Hi colin.
what a start...
Carbon printing is THE technique, I havn't learned yet...
But life isn't ower.

This is GREAT! I am so jealoux!

[BarryS]

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8652/wpbrasseyes.jpg
5 X 7" Wet plate collodion Alumitype
Kodak 8x10 2D with Darlot Petzval lens

One of my first wet plate images, I'm still working the bugs out of my process. I took a bit of a break and was playing with Cyanotypes last weekend--what a simple and cool process. Compared to wet plate, which is just crazy.

[Emil Schildt]

well - I have to post too...
(I have played around with several old, strange techniques - many of them containing nudity - so now you're warned!)

This is a result of a dare from my ex-girlfriend.
She wanted to have me to make an image of her, inspired by Leonardo DaVinci...:(

how difficult can that be????:cool:

so This is what I ended up with.

Photopolymer gravure with the text from Song of Songs written reversed..

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3353854-lg.jpg

[Andrew ren]

Colin, long time no talk. whats the size of this print though?

gandolfi, this is very kool!

Andrew

[Colin Graham]

Gandolfi- my turn to be jealous. Gravures for me are THE process. Wish I could find a reasonable press and get started. What a fantastic image.

Hey Andrew, it's a 5x12. I haven't started enlarging negatives for carbon yet. But a 10x24 carbon could be pretty cool.

[Andrew ren]

Hey Andrew, it's a 5x12. I haven't started enlarging negatives for carbon yet. But a 10x24 carbon could be pretty cool.

I can imagine, it will be fantastic!

I am about to start my pt/pd process. will let you know. and post some while I have some prints ready to show.

Cheers

Andrew

[Doug Howk]

Here's a lightly gold-toned kallitype. Used a 7X17 Korona with 265mm Ilex. Plan on learning pt/pd next with Tillman Crane workshop, see Florida workshop Nov 8th (http://www.tillmancrane.com/workshops/platinumdaytona2009.html)

[Emil Schildt]

beautiful results so far - keem them coming!

[Jan Pedersen]

Great work and great thread, will be interesting to see a variety of processes.

This is an 8x10 Pt/Pd print on Arches.

[jnantz]

a hybrid print i made in the late 80s
using decomposed/dissolved 4x5 sheets
and other "stuff"
from a long running series that
combines hand made elements together
with photographic film, technique, printing ...
maybe 2 (at the most) prints of each image in
the series is made, so each image is "unique"
i'd show more, but only a few were ever scanned ...

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Nice idea, I'd really like to see the alt work everyone is doing. I'll start with a carbon transfer- black/green tissue on Lana HP.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2566/3730417832_a925081728_b.jpg

Colin, awesome image. Since I am a carbon printer I can understand the asthetics of your image, it looks great. Are you using the B&S tissue or pouring your own? I have gotten my first successful 8x20 carbon but I messed it up when I was spotting some areas and I have to reprint it.
Here is an image I did recently from Yosemite. I use a tissue that I pour myself. I use Black Cat India ink, a warm Ivory black, and pour a high relief tissue. The image has a great range of tonalities and I only print carbon. I have found my match!

Jim

[Emil Schildt]

Jim. a said I am not a carbon printer, but I still see the asthetics of both your and Colin's image...

Every time I see a well done carbon print, I know, I have to learn how to do it...

By the way; I don't know whether you all know this guy...
Look at his carbon prints... (I don't know how to make a direct link)

http://www.michal-macku.eu/

(his gellages are fantastic too..)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Jim. a said I am not a carbon printer, but I still see the asthetics of both your and Colin's image...

Every time I see a well done carbon print, I know, I have to learn how to do it...

By the way; I don't know whether you all know this guy...
Look at his carbon prints... (I don't know how to make a direct link)

http://www.michal-macku.eu/

(his gellages are fantastic too..)

Emil, no I did not know about him. His work is very interesting and his carbon work is great. Thanks for the link. As a side note to you I gave Per Volquartz a 13 hour carbon primer last Sunday and he is hooked on the process. Saw tones and texture in some of my nude work that he had never seen before. If you need any info on carbon drop me a PM.

Jim

[Emil Schildt]

Thanks Jim.
I have a whole book on the subject, but it seems to be a technique so filled with tecnhiques that are hard to describe in writing.. (?).

If somebody was next to me, and showed what to do, then it might work....

SO; when are you coming to Denmark?? :)

[Matt Magruder]

http://www.matthewmagruder.com/files/gimgs/30_12x20ptpdcaswellhs1.jpg
Caswell House, Austin, TX
12x20 Platinum/Palladium contact print on Rives BFK


http://www.matthewmagruder.com/files/gimgs/27_7x17bgaseguinstarckepk1.jpg
Max Starcke Park, Seguin, TX
7x17 Wet plate - Black Glass Ambrotype

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Thanks Jim.
I have a whole book on the subject, but it seems to be a technique so filled with tecnhiques that are hard to describe in writing.. (?).

If somebody was next to me, and showed what to do, then it might work....

SO; when are you coming to Denmark?? :)

Emil, you are so right. Once Per "saw" what I was doing he got it down real quick. I would love to come to Denmark. I need to get rich and famous first. Well, maybe rich. The famous part I'll leave to my three son's. One day I hope to make that happen. I love teaching what I have learned about carbon.

Jim

[Emil Schildt]

WOW Matt. That pl/Pd is amazing!

[Colin Graham]

Colin, awesome image. Since I am a carbon printer I can understand the asthetics of your image, it looks great. Are you using the B&S tissue or pouring your own? I have gotten my first successful 8x20 carbon but I messed it up when I was spotting some areas and I have to reprint it.
Here is an image I did recently from Yosemite. I use a tissue that I pour myself. I use Black Cat India ink, a warm Ivory black, and pour a high relief tissue. The image has a great range of tonalities and I only print carbon. I have found my match!

Jim

I pour my own, that's the fun part- coming up with these gadawful colors.
Here's one that's blue, on purpose! :D Phthalocynanine blue and lamp black tissue on lana hp watercolor paper.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2638/3732427145_f2c8786936_b.jpg

[John Jarosz]

Here's a Carbro, done back in the day when I didn't have a UV lightsource.

Orig on 4x5 Tri-X. Actual print is about 10 inches wide

[sanking]

I posted this earlier today without mentioning that it is a carbon transfer print, 12X17" in size. It is a print that looks much better in person than on screen because there is a huge amount of detail and relief in the image on paper.

Sandy King

[Emil Schildt]

I posted this earlier today without mentioning that it is a carbon transfer print, 12X17" in size. It is a print that looks much better in person than on screen because there is a huge amount of detail and relief in the image on paper.

Sandy King

I have your book - now I need your skills!!

[Emil Schildt]

I am afraid, I will post a lot in this forum;-)
but I am amazed by the skills of others, and allready I've seen images I will never be able to do.
This could be a nice thread to show others (also in my teaching) so all the different techniques used; let's see them..

I have done a lot of bromoils in recent years, but it's "mother", the Oilprint, not so much. I find it very difficult, but also exciting.

here is one of my first trys. It is SO full of beginners mistakes, that I like it...
not at all what I expected, but sometimes that is ok.

http://www.usefilm.com/images/4/7/4/474/121349-Large.jpg

Cecilie posing (as an ancient Italian virgin? )

[Jan Pedersen]

Emil, Please don't hold back but keep posting. I love your work.

jan

[sanking]

Here's a Carbro, done back in the day when I didn't have a UV lightsource.

Orig on 4x5 Tri-X. Actual print is about 10 inches wide

John,

I like the mystery in your print, and the color is quite interesting.

I used to print with carbro also. These days I am printing only in carbon transfer, and primarily with digital negatives from film scans.

Sandy

[Miguel Curbelo]

[QUOTE]Here's one that's blue, on purpose! /QUOTE]
Colin, I think that is wonderful.

[kev curry]

Emil, Please don't hold back but keep posting. I love your work.

jan

I'll second that.

Emil, I've had a look around your site and I'm simply stunned by your work...its truly exquisite!

[Emil Schildt]

I'll second that.

Emil, I've had a look around your site and I'm simply stunned by your work...its truly exquisite!

Thanks! both of you.
And I am in awe with almost the rest of the analouge photography world....

[Colin Graham]

Thanks Miguel! I was very much inspired by your cyanotypes in fact- but I can't get that wonderful subtle blue. If you're still printing them I hope you'll post some more.

[sanking]

I pour my own, that's the fun part- coming up with these gadawful colors.
Here's one that's blue, on purpose! :D Phthalocynanine blue and lamp black tissue on lana hp watercolor paper.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2638/3732427145_f2c8786936_b.jpg

Colin,

That is a beautiful image. Are you getting much relief with your method of tissue making?

Sandy

[Colin Graham]

Thanks very much Sandy. No, not much luck with relief on art paper after drydown. But I do keep quite a bit of relief with the same tissues on fiber photo paper once dry. I wish the art paper would hold the look that is has when wet, very 3-D and a nice smooth even sheen over the entire tonal range. Still looking for the perfect support. I should experiment with warmer FB papers, the neutral ones I've tried haven't matched very well with the tissue colors I like.

[Andrew ren]

I really enjoyed this thread.

keep posting everyone!

Colin, this one is different!

Andrew

[Brian Bullen]

Colin,

I think the blue version of this photo makes all the difference. Perfect! I love it.

[Colin Graham]

Thanks guys. Brian, you getting any good stuff with the new format? Looking forward to seeing some.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Sandy, that tree you posted is simply amazing! I have an idea what it looks like in the flesh so to speak.

Colin, I love the tonality you have gotten in the images you have been posting. Try the fiber paper for the final support and you should retain some more relief. that is if the right phase of the moon is upon us!

Time to go develop one.

Jim

[Brian Bullen]

Thanks guys. Brian, you getting any good stuff with the new format? Looking forward to seeing some.

Unfortunately not enough time to go out and give the 8x20 a run through. I've had it for a month and only made 2 exposures which I haven't even developed yet.:rolleyes:

[Joe Smigiel]

Great image Sandy.

[Joe Smigiel]

"Mirror with a Memory"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/Mirror.jpg

Bequerel Daguerreotype of a CD containing Humphrey's mid-19th century Daguerrian Manual.

[Joe Smigiel]

"Anima"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/Anima.jpg

Van Dyke Brownprint

[Joe Smigiel]

"Portrait of Lorri"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/Lorri.jpg

Cyanotype

[Andrew ren]

"Mirror with a Memory"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/Mirror.jpg

Bequerel Daguerreotype of a CD containing Humphrey's mid-19th century Daguerrian Manual.

:-0

[Joe Smigiel]

"Ashley w/dolls"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/dolls/Ashley_01_72.jpg

1/4-plate black glass ambrotype

[Andrew ren]

"Portrait of Lorri"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/Lorri.jpg

Cyanotype

this is nice.

Joe, didn't get chance to talk to you @ Jun 22nd, at The Legs Inn, you are just a few feet aside. As I was busy playing with my new born Alvin.

Andrew

[Joe Smigiel]

"Dream"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/pinhole/Dream_HC.jpg

Hand-colored silverprint from a pinhole camera

[Jiri Vasina]

Well guys, this is really stunning. Especially those carbon transfer prints, they make me gape in awe (but the others are also excellent, the cyanotypes,...) When I look at them I clearly understand why we are shooting Large format. Also I understand that one day I will have to start learning those wonderful techniques, when the family allows me enough spare time...

This is the thread for masters. With prints from the masters.

Jiri

[Joe Smigiel]

"Nude Torso"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/technical/collodion/nude_061709_ruby.jpg

1/6th-plate ruby ambrotype on deep amethyst glass

[Joe Smigiel]

"Blues from an Airplane"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/blues.jpg

cyanotype

[Emil Schildt]

WOW - this threas isn't 24 hours old, and already we have so many interesting techniques represented - and with stunning results!

I have "counted" the techniques represented...

12 different techniques so far (13 actually, but I can't find a name for the one Jnanian posted other than "hybrid"..)

Carbon print
Carbon transfer
VanDyke
Cyanotypi
Oilprint
Bequerel Daguerreotype
ambrotype
Hand-colored silverprint
Platinum/Palladium
Alumitype
Photopolymer gravure
kallitype

Not that this has to be all different techniques, but it is amazing how beautiful all the older techniques are...

Thanks all.

[kev curry]

I've never had much of an interest in any of the alternative techniques... well, this thread has caused a 'see' change. I'm totally inspired with the stuff here, particularly Emils site. As a consequence and after a bit of digging around to find some reading material, I've ordered a used copy of ''The Keepers of Light'' and a nice new copy of ''Silver Gelatin''.

Inspired:)

[Emil Schildt]

to add a couple more techniques:

Albumen print of Stine.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5670680-lg.jpg

and a bromoil print of Cecilie

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3895659-lg.jpg

[kev curry]

Both really great but that Bromoil is wicked....

[Emil Schildt]

I've never had much of an interest in any of the alternative techniques... well, this thread has caused a 'see' change. I'm totally inspired with the stuff here, particularly Emils site. As a consequence and after a bit of digging around to find some reading material, I've ordered a used copy of ''The Keepers of Light'' and a nice new copy of ''Silver Gelatin''.

Inspired:)

hi Kev. This is good news! and maybe what all this is about (?).

I always gets so inspired, when I see some amazing work, and then find out, that it has been done in an obscure technique, I have never heard about! :p

Life is not long enough to explore all the possibillities.

But in the end, I try to find the technique, that fits a certain image..
A technique is just a technique - I have to find the one that fits.. Thats the challenge....

[kev curry]

''But in the end, I try to find the technique, that fits a certain image..
A technique is just a technique - I have to find the one that fits.. Thats the challenge....''

I'll remember this little kernel of knowledge:)

[Steve M Hostetter]

just north of Redkey, 4x5 fuji instant 222mm Wollensak Verito

[D. Bryant]

just north of Redkey, 4x5 fuji instant 222mm Wollensak Verito

Instant film is an alternative process?

Don Bryant

[Steve M Hostetter]

yes, I would think so

[sanking]

"Ashley w/dolls"

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/dolls/Ashley_01_72.jpg

1/4-plate black glass ambrotype


Joe,

That is a great looking ambrotype. But I am getting worried that you may have seen a little too much Shelby Lee Adams?

How is the digital work going?

Sandy

[D. Bryant]

yes, I would think so

Why would you think that? There is nothing alternative about exposing a sheet of instant film.

Don Bryant

[Jan Pedersen]

What an amazing amount of inspiration here. Now that Albumen also came on as one of the processes i found this one, 5x7 Albumen print.

[Nathan Potter]

Sheesh! I've been isolated here in Harrington ME for a while and thought it was OK to not visit the forum but now this thread blows me away! Lots of refreshing imagination here and I particularly like the way the alternative techniques are enhancing the original images. I can only imagine the impact of the real prints.

Nate Potter, Harrington ME.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

What an amazing amount of inspiration here. Now that Albumen also came on as one of the processes i found this one, 5x7 Albumen print.

Jan, I love the soft glow in this print. It gives me ideas.

Jim

[Steve M Hostetter]

Why would you think that? There is nothing alternative about exposing a sheet of instant film.

Don Bryant

it is alternative to darkroom:D

[Jan Pedersen]

Jim, Thank you, much appreciated. One day i need to learn to do the Carbon printing, both yours, Sandy's and Colins work is very impressive.

[BarryS]

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5168/portrait2i.jpg

One of my first cyanotypes from last weekend. What a great thread--filled with some really beautiful work.

[Emil Schildt]

good cyanotype!
and speaking of that, I have recently startet to tone my cyanotypes with a tea, that actually isn't a tea...
Rooibos is the name - or commongly called red tea.. (it is drunk and sold as a yea, but the bush it comes from isn't a tea bush...).

this tea gives such beautiful tones to a cyanotype.
I'll upload three identical images.
The original cyanotype - toned shortly in the Rooibos (about 15 min in strong "tea") - and a version toned for several hours in the same tea...

I believe this tea can be bought world wide, so if you like it - go get some...;)

PS: found a link to the tea..: http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=164082&catid=32592&aid=333181&aparam=sespider

[jim kitchen]

Excellent images everyone...

Superlative inspiration... :)

One day I am going to find out where all this magic comes from.

jim k

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Emil, I personally love the one soaked for several hours. Outstanding!

Jim

[Joe Smigiel]

Joe,

That is a great looking ambrotype. But I am getting worried that you may have seen a little too much Shelby Lee Adams?

How is the digital work going?

Sandy

Thanks Sandy.

AFA the digital stuff - too damn many menus. And the Photo oils just smear all over that little view screen. But I'm working on it.

[Joe Smigiel]

Keep posting those wonderful images Emil. They are very inspirational.

[Scott Schroeder]

Some really wonderful work!
Here's two whole plate alumitypes
http://www.schroederworks.com/Wetplate/Chair002.jpg

http://www.schroederworks.com/Wetplate/WindowLamp.jpg

[Joe Smigiel]

A multi-layer gum bichromate print from a Polaroid instant negative and exposed with a zone plate:

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/zoneplate/JSgum5.jpg

[Joe Smigiel]

A couple of portraits of Rachel. The first is an albumen print and the second is a salted paper print.

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/rachel_albumen_print.jpg http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/rachel_salted.jpg

[Joe Smigiel]

and a gold-toned POP print

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/POP_01.jpg

[Peter Spangenberg]

Excellent thread. This one's a Pt/Pd print made with the Na2 method.

[Ron McElroy]

Another 9X12" carbon transfer captured with the IR converted G9.

Sandy King

Beautiful image Sandy. I bet the original is lush.

[sanking]

Beautiful image Sandy. I bet the original is lush.

Hi Ron,

Thanks. The detail in the print is pretty amazing, especially considering the fact that this was captured with a 7mm wide sensor and exposed at ASA 1600 hand held. I can even see veins in some of the leaves if you can believe that. I am working on a larger (12X17") print of the same image right now and it looks like the detail holds up real well at this size.

Sandy

[D. Bryant]

Excellent thread. This one's a Pt/Pd print made with the Na2 method.

Very very nice Peter.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

A multi-layer gum bichromate print from a Polaroid instant negative and exposed with a zone plate:

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/zoneplate/JSgum5.jpg

I really like this one Joe - very moody!

Don Bryant

[matthew blais]

Very impressive images in this thread. Joe, that hand colored pinhole shot is very cool.

[Peter Spangenberg]

Thanks Don. The print is a little softer than the scan...almost like a pencil drawing.

[kev curry]

Lovely print Peter, it has the feel of an Escher drawing.

[sanking]

Kirk Gititngs elected to delete one of the prints I posted to this thread because it was not made with a large format camera, even though I said nothiong about capture type when I originally posted the image.

Let me point out this is a category called, "On Photography", in a thread called "Post Alternative Techniques". The capture type and size may be of importance to some people but I find the issue totally irrelevant in a thread such as this one, which is about aesthetics, philisoophy, history, photograhers and photographs, not about equipment. And in any event, many alternative printers would hold that the actual size of the final negative used to make the print, which is always by contact printing, is more importanat than the size or type of the capture camera in determining format.


Sandy King

[Jan Pedersen]

Sandy, This issue has been discussed numerous times in the past and i believe the consensus is that if the capture format is not Large Format then it belongs in the Lounge.

[sanking]

Sandy, This issue has been discussed numerous times in the past and i believe the consensus is that if the capture format is not Large Format then it belongs in the Lounge.


Actually I don't recall that the issue has ever been discussed with regard to alternative print making. My view is that specifically with regard to alternative print making we are always contact printing with a same size negative, usually large format, regardless of the type or size of the original image capture.

If the restrictive view is that alternative printing only be discussed from the perspective of LF cameras then I would suggest that any discussions of alternative print making be confined to the lounge since a very high percentage of the best work being done today is with digital negatives made from original capture that is not LF or ULF. To talk about and show examples of alternative print making but to tie your hands by limiting yourself to images captured with specific types of equipment makes absolutely no sense to me, from any perspective. Kind of like APUG mentality, in fact, which allows one to discuss alternative photography made with any type of film camera but won't allow anything about digital work flow. Or even more absurd, allows straight scans of digital files to be posted to the gallery section, but prohibits scans of wet processed prints of any kind if any digital work flow was involved.

That is my opinion and you are free to come down where you will. But ultimately I feel that these kind of exclusions and blind application of rules of category, especially when they are made by people with rather limited knowledge of the background and history of alternative printing, divide us and limit the potential of the forum.

Sandy King

[Don7x17]

Actually I don't recall that the issue has ever been discussed with regard to alternative print making. My view is that specifically with regard to alternative print making we are always contact printing with a same size negative, usually large format, regardless of the type or size of the original image capture.

If the restrictive view is that alternative printing only be discussed from the perspective of LF cameras then I would suggest that any discussions of alternative print making be confined to the lounge since a very high percentage of the best work being done today is with digital negatives made from original capture that is not LF or ULF. To talk about and show examples of alternative print making but to tie your hands by limiting yourself to images captured with specific types of equipment makes absolutely no sense to me, from any perspective. Kind of like APUG mentality, in fact, which allows one to discuss alternative photography made with any type of film camera but won't allow anything about digital work flow. Or even more absurd, allows straight scans of digital files to be posted to the gallery section, but prohibits scans of wet processed prints of any kind if any digital work flow was involved.

That is my opinion and you are free to come down where you will. But ultimately I feel that these kind of exclusions and blind application of rules of category, especially when they are made by people with rather limited knowledge of the background and history of alternative printing, divide us and limit the potential of the forum.

Sandy King

There are three different combinations--

1)Large format in-camera negative and use of same negative for an Alt-process print.
2)Large format in-camera negative, and conversion to digital negative for Alt-process print
3)Digitial camera capture and use of digital negative for Alt-process print
3a) Scan of exisitng image of any type and use of digital negative for Alt-process print.


Clearly #1 is OK in this forum
According to what was just mentioned, this forum clearly does not want 3/3a.

But what about #2? There are two cases where this might have validity for posting in this forum -- first, the large format camera owner has only a small negative - say 4x5 or 2x3, and wants to make a larger image. Second, someone may have some older negatives that were developed for silver enlargement with densities that make them suboptimal for alt-processes..... Clearly for both of these, #2 is a recovery means. Are these also forbidden like in APUG?

Although I'm a ULF and 8x10 negative user, I would like to see work that is generated by 1,2 and even 3/3a.

And 3a clearly covers the case where a person made an aluminotype using LF, and decided to create a digital negative for additional alt-processes...

[sanking]

There are three different combinations--

1)Large format in-camera negative and use of same negative for an Alt-process print.
2)Large format in-camera negative, and conversion to digital negative for Alt-process print
3)Digitial camera capture and use of digital negative for Alt-process print
3a) Scan of exisitng image of any type and use of digital negative for Alt-process print.




You did not come close to listing all of the different combinations. What about MF film shot on roll film backs attached to digital cameras? Or what about digital capture with cameras or backs attached to LF cameras.

All of these combinations have validity to me if the discussion is about equipment. But if the discussion is about alternative printmaking my view is that any and all combinations are interesting should be open, and the discussion should be about creative printmaking, not what category our negatives fit inito.

What a shame. This was an interesting thread with many fine examples of alternative print making, including some by me and others that did not start life with a LF camera. Now that is devolved to what is essentially a useless discussion about rules.

Thanks, but no thanks. I will leave this one to the bean counters.


Sandy King

[Don7x17]

You did not come close to listing all of the different combinations. What about MF film shot on roll film backs attached to digital cameras? Or what about digital capture with cameras or backs attached to LF cameras.

All of these combinations have validity to me if the discussion is about equipment. But if the discussion is about alternative printmaking my view is that any and all combinations are interesting should be open, and the discussion should be about creative printmaking, not what category our negatives fit inito.

What a shame. This was an interesting thread with many fine examples of alternative print making, including some by me and others that did not start life with a LF camera. Now that is devolved to what is essentially a useless discussion about rules.

Thanks, but no more. I will leave this one to the bean counters.


Sandy King

Good addiitons.

Maybe its time for an alt photography image only site? Where equipment is secondary to the image?

[sanking]

Good addiitons.

Maybe its time for an alt photography image only site? Where equipment is secondary to the image?

Good point. There is really no good discussion site that is open to all aspects of alternative printmaking. At APUG you have restrictions on digital, but any camera system goes. Here the discussion is limited to camera system, and digital is ok in certain circumstances, say when if it is combined with a LF camera.

The hubrid forum comes to mind but I bet that if someone went over there and posted an image of a beautiful pt/pd print made with an in-camera ULF negative somebody would bitch that there was no digital involved in the work flow.

Sandy King

[Matt Magruder]

I spent a better part of the weekend doing some platinum/palladium printing and then some layers of cyanotype over them...

http://matthewmagruder.com/files/gimgs/30_12x20ptpdcyanobenwhite2.jpg
Hwy 290/71 - Austin, TX
12x20 cyanotype over pt/pd


http://matthewmagruder.com/files/gimgs/30_12x20ptpdcyanobenwhite3.jpg
Hwy 290/71 - Austin, TX
12x20 cyanotype over pt/pd

[Jiri Vasina]

I've not made any alternative print yet, but I feel I have to step up and voice an opinion of outsider from this field:

1) Steve M Hostetter has posted several instant film images - and they are considered fit for inclusion here.

2) Sandy King has posted several alternative prints (in the strict sense of the term) - and they are not considered fit.

To me, both of these are wrong. Now why:

ad 1) there is totally nothing alternative in an instant print. It's just a straight capture, like using a digital camera attached to the LF gear and then printing the image. Steve has said it's alternative to darkroom work in his view. Well, then all of us having a hybrid workflow are producing alternative work - it's alternative to the darkroom. And that is untrue in the strict sense of what alternative print means to the majority of us. If I were the moderator of the forum, I'd delete those posts (if any at all). But I'm not and that is only my opinion.

ad 2) To me it does not matter how many [mega]pixels the input for the digital negative has - it might be created with the G9 as Sandy has, it might be scanned from a 10x12" ULF film. Once the digital negative is prepared, it's only a source for the personal work, that is highly individual, relatively variable (at least from what I understand) and impossible to duplicate exactly. There is a lot of patience, knowledge, skill and work of the artist/photographer included then. And this is what producing alternative print means to me. That is also what Sandy has done. Again, if I were the moderator, I'd certainly not delete the scans of his prints. But I'm not.

This forum has served me immensely in learning what I can do with my LF camera now, what kind of images I can produce. Not only the verbal information in the different sections of the forum, but also with "sample"/"example" images of the work that can be achieved. Now as I view the images/prints in this thread it has again planted a bug in my mind. It would be a shame if it really was a rule here to exclude digital negatives of any origin.

(As a side note: using same logic, digital SLR cameras attached via adaptors to a LF camera should also be excluded - the capture format is small, no matter how you attach it)

My humble opinion.

Jiri

[Paul Metcalf]

Good point. There is really no good discussion site that is open to all aspects of alternative printmaking. At APUG you have restrictions on digital, but any camera system goes. Here the discussion is limited to camera system, and digital is ok in certain circumstances, say when if it is combined with a LF camera.

The hubrid forum comes to mind but I bet that if someone went over there and posted an image of a beautiful pt/pd print made with an in-camera ULF negative somebody would bitch that there was no digital involved in the work flow.

Sandy KingI'm in your camp on this one Sandy after reading all of the comments, FWIW. The irony in all of this is that in order to post the images to this forum (or any forum for that matter), a digital image has to be made.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk Gititngs elected to delete one of the prints I posted to this thread because it was not made with a large format camera, even though I said nothiong about capture type when I originally posted the image. Sandy King


from Sandy's original post:

This is a small carbon transfer print, 9X12" in size. Capture was was an IR converted Canon G9.
Sandy King

Sorry those were great images, and I would love to see the originals, but this has been discussed many times and the people who complained were right.

[Blueberrydesk]

Early attempt at Bromoil. Loving the process, just wish I had more time.

[sanking]

from Sandy's original post:


Sorry those were great images, and I would love to see the originals, but this has been discussed many times and the people who complained were right.

You are moderator and entitled to make that decision. However, if you don't mind please erase all of my comments to this thread, and any other images that I posted in this thread.

Sandy King

[Emil Schildt]

You are moderator and entitled to make that decision. However, if you don't mind please erase all of my comments to this thread, and any other images that I posted in this thread.

Sandy King

Sandy - please don't. It makes no sense, and we (or at least me...) really value your posts, and comments.

I am confused though..
tell me if I am right or wrong:
IF I decide to post an "illegal" image here, but don't tell the truth about the choise of original camera - then it is ok?

But if I am honest, it is getting deleted?

How can anybody see a difference in the final image?

Inlighten me please...:confused:

(PS: just to avoid any confusion: I am (almost;) ) all analouge in my works, but I am with you here, Sandy. This thread is not about choise of camera - it is about choise of technique.)

[sanking]

Sandy - please don't. It makes no sense, and we (or at least me...) really value your posts, and comments.

I am confused though..
tell me if I am right or wrong:
IF I decide to post an "illegal" image here, but don't tell the truth about the choise of original camera - then it is ok?

But if I am honest, it is getting deleted?

How can anybody see a difference in the final image?

Inlighten me please...:confused:

(PS: just to avoid any confusion: I am (almost;) ) all analouge in my works, but I am with you here, Sandy. This thread is not about choise of camera - it is about choise of technique.)


I am sorry but long ago I decided to be honest with myself and to not participate in frauds. If Kirk and the LF community want to be a part of that, fine, but don't count me in. Don't ask don't tell is not part of my make up.

It would be obvious to virtually anyone with good knowledge of alternative printing that many of the images submitted in this thread were not made with LF cameras, but it was OK so long as that fact was not stated. And that was in fact perfectly fine with me because there should be different rules for alternative printmaking.

I guess the most absurd part of this is that a fellow posts a straight polaroid print and that is all right with Kirk as alternative. But my work, which is generations removed from the digital capture is not? I think that is kind of like getting stuck on stupid.

Sandy

[jb7]

Sandy, re-think that request,
the thread would be the poorer if more of your contributions were to be removed-

I'm sorry I didn't get to see the picture-

joseph

[PenGun]

Why not just move the thread to the lounge?

Problem solved, you are all welcome. ;)

[sanking]

Sandy, re-think that request,
the thread would be the poorer if more of your contributions were to be removed-

I'm sorry I didn't get to see the picture-

joseph

Joseph,

I appreciate your kind comments.

But, to put things in perspective, I am not asking that all of my comments to the LF forum be deleted, only those to this particular thread. And since there are only one or two in question, and perhaps one image file, I don't think the forum would be all that much poorer.

But I would feel much better at getting out of what to me is an obvious farce.

Sandy King

[mandoman7]

In most cases, when I've been deleted, after a while I realize it may have been for the best on some level. Management will never be perfect, be it Obama, or web forums.

[sanking]

In most cases, when I've been deleted, after a while I realize it may have been for the best on some level. Management will never be perfect, be it Obama, or web forums.

In a broader sense I hope that the warriors sacrificed by the Aztecs and Mayas to the rain gods died feeling they were contributing to the greater good of their people. And death was usually fairly swift, by ripping out the heart.

No telling how those warriors who were skinned alive felt about the ordeal. The experience must have taken hours and subjected them to unmitigated pain. I suspect that near the end of their ordeal they could have given a rat's ass about things being better on some other level.

Sandy

[Jan Pedersen]

Of Don’s suggested 4 combinations I can accept 1 and, 2 not accepting 3 and 3a is perhaps naïve but the Forum is for Large Format Photography and it is as far as I know the only such forum.

If we are to disregard the equipment we use and thereby allow everything from 35mm or even smaller to digital the Forum no longer is a valid Large Format Photography Forum.

I have no problem looking at a print made from a digital camera, I use a digital camera on occasion but I don’t consider this forum to be a place to share the final print no matter what the output medium is.

It is possible that I am alone with my opinion and that is fine.
I prefer to live by the rules this sites founder has set and find it disturbing that these rules constantly are challenged.

Maybe we need an additional “No limits” On photography sub-forum where all capture formats are accepted.

I enjoy this alternative printing thread and hope it will continue under QT’s and the moderators guidelines.

Jan

[mandoman7]

In a broader sense I hope that the warriors sacrificed by the Aztecs and Mayas to the rain gods died feeling they were contributing to the greater good of their people. And death was usually fairly swift, by ripping out the heart.

No telling how those warriors who were skinned alive felt about the ordeal. The experience must have taken hours and subjected them to unmitigated pain. I suspect that near the end of their ordeal they could have given a rat's ass about things being better on some other level.

Sandy

Not getting to show your photo is comparable to getting your heart ripped out?
This forum's got some things going for it, but its just a bunch of guys with a shared interest. Most careers will go largely unaffected by what happens here, in my humble opinion.
Its more important that we don't let the inevitable snubs take away energy from image making. I've wasted a lifetime with that stuff, believe me.

Also, I've found that (some) images that have suffered some ignominy later take on a kind of resiliency. Work that has strength will eventually get its day in the sun.

[sanking]

John,

The point was about wasting time trying to communicate with people more interested in categories and rules than in creative print making outside of the normal boundaries.

I won't waste my time any more on the LF forum talking about alternative printmaking, or showing images.

That is all I meant to convey in my earlier message.


Sandy

[PenGun]

John,

The point was about wasting time trying to communicate with people more interested in categories and rules than in creative print making outside of the normal boundaries.

I won't waste my time any more on the LF forum talking about alternative printmaking, or showing images.

That is all I meant to convey in my earlier message.


Sandy

Now that is a real shame. We have not gotten along but I have great admiration for your work. All of us will be the poorer for this.

I really think in a case like this it is appropriate to simply move the thread to the lounge where it is not against the LF rules and continue. What seems to have happened is unfortunate and no insult of any kind was intended so just moving the thread is an elegant solution.

[mandoman7]

John,

The point was about wasting time trying to communicate with people more interested in categories and rules than in creative print making outside of the normal boundaries.

Sandy

Where is this mythical place you're thinking about? Every group of artists is a circus. Come on.:rolleyes:

Plus, isn't the real test going to be how the lay crowd responds to that work anyway? Rather than showing to known fans of the genre.

[Jiri Vasina]

John,

The point was about wasting time trying to communicate with people more interested in categories and rules than in creative print making outside of the normal boundaries.

I won't waste my time any more on the LF forum talking about alternative printmaking, or showing images.

That is all I meant to convey in my earlier message.


Sandy

Sandy,

that is a great loss to me. I also enjoy your prints and images for quite some time, and they are quite significant stones which form the amalgam of my inspiration.

So I'd like to ask if you could tell me (us) where to find presentation of your work so I can learn further.

Thanks a lot

Jiri

[Emil Schildt]

found this in a drawer...

18x24 negative - liquid emulsion on heavy paper - hand coloured, using silk colours.

http://www.phosee.dk/pictures/00000111/119-classic-pose.jpg

[eddie]

wet plate collodion. 5x7 ambrotype. one is backwards one is not.....

about 1 sec at f16

[Joe Smigiel]

Not getting to show your photo is comparable to getting your heart ripped out?

I read it as equivalent to getting skinned alive.



... Work that has strength will eventually get its day in the sun.

Not if those high priests have their way and the rains begin.

[GSX4]

This is just outstanding work indeed!!!!! Love it!


Excellent thread. This one's a Pt/Pd print made with the Na2 method.

[PViapiano]

Here's how I personally feel:

Sandy's right on this one...

This subsection is titled On Photography. There should be no restrictions here re camera size or about digital anything.

Does this mean we should not discuss HCB or Kertesz here? That would be ridiculous and I'm sure if you go back in the archives you'll find people discussing non-LF related photographers and/or philosophy.

As much as I am dedicated to analog processes, this particular forum (LF Forum) is not an analog only one.

The title and subheading "On Photography - Discuss aesthetics, philosophy, history, photographers and photographs." doesn't preclude any format, and the aesthetics, philosophy and history that inform one set of formats always informs and cross-pollinates to another, because art wants to be free and not pigeon holed into tight little boxes.

OTOH, if you don't have the courage to make a stand for the above, move the thread as suggested to The Lounge. Most, if not, all of us read this thing in Unified View and NEVER look to see what dumb category a particular thread happens to reside in.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading the Guidelines...I understand the ENTIRE FORUM is for posting about LF ONLY.

BUT, there must be a btter way to include these discussions PLUS it also states that exceptions can be made for frequent contributors. Sandy is a frequent contributor and a huge asset to any photographic community...let's not start chasing people away, esp people of his stature and talent. You already did that last year and now we don't see Domenico around anymore...sheesh!

[cyrus]

Gandolfi- my turn to be jealous. Gravures for me are THE process. Wish I could find a reasonable press and get started. What a fantastic image.

Hey Andrew, it's a 5x12. I haven't started enlarging negatives for carbon yet. But a 10x24 carbon could be pretty cool.

I do some traditional copper-plate photogravures (took lessons from Lothar Osterburg's (http://home.earthlink.net/~lotharosterburg/)classes in Brooklyn, NY) which is quite difficult -- what with the chromium and the ferric chloride etc -- but there are much easier techniques out there.

For example, try solar plate etching (http://www.solarplate.com/).

[mandoman7]

I'm with Sandy, too, but on a different level.:)
While there may be disagreement about whether an image that started as small format digital should be posted here, I don't see it as a crisis if the management choses to rule it out. Yes the distinction can be seen as arbitrary, but it can also be seen as an attempt to keep this place the way we like it. Isn't that the motivation rather than suppressing somebody's vision?

[sanking]

Where is this mythical place you're thinking about? Every group of artists is a circus. Come on.:rolleyes:

Plus, isn't the real test going to be how the lay crowd responds to that work anyway? Rather than showing to known fans of the genre.

John,

You have for some reason gotten the wrong take on this. For one thing, I show my work rather widely to lay kind of folks. For example, I just had a month long exhibition of my work at the Holos Gallery in Xalapa, Mexico that was seen by persons of rather diverse background, incluidng but not limited to the presons frequently the Symposium on Alternative Photography of which my exhibit of carbon transfer prints was one small part. About 75% of the work I showed there was from 5X7" film capture, printed with digital negatives, and most of the rest was from 6X7cm film capture, and two or three prints from DSLR capture. No one who saw the exhibition that I spoke to, regardless of back ground, asked me anything about camera format, but many recognized the uniquess of the images because of the dimensional surface quality of carbon transfer prints. The issue is not that the moderators are suppressing my vision since well over 80% of the work I have done with alternative printing over the past twenty years has been from LF and ULF negatives and I could just have easily posted that work in the thread.

So if my purpose was just to show work on this forum, or even best work, I would have chosen something other than the IR shots made with the Canon G9. However, my purpose was not to show "best" work or to impress others but to show what was possible in alternative work with such a small camera. Like most of the images I post the work was quite recent and the prints made just day before yesterday so I was just pretty excited about the results. I was really quite surprised that anyone would have seen this a a violation of the forum rules since this thread is a category that has absolutely nothing to do with camrea format and where, as others have pointed out, many topics not LF in nature have been discussed in the past.

It would be quite simple to resolve this issue by segregating categories that have nothing to do with format from those that relate to equipment, where format is an important issue. For example, just shift categories like On Photogtraphy, Style and Technique, Resources, etc to Community. That would be the right thing to do, not only for discussions of alternative work, but also for all of the other discussions about aesthetics, history, etc. that are not format specific. However, it seems to me that folks have just drawn a line in the sand with their rules. So be it.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Now that is a real shame. We have not gotten along but I have great admiration for your work. All of us will be the poorer for this.

I really think in a case like this it is appropriate to simply move the thread to the lounge where it is not against the LF rules and continue. What seems to have happened is unfortunate and no insult of any kind was intended so just moving the thread is an elegant solution.


Well, thanks for the comment. But aside from a couple of miscommunications I don't think we have gotten along all that poorly.

BTW, no one is forcing me to leave the LF forum and I have no plans to do so. I have only stated that under the circumstances I do not plan to contribute anything in the area of alternative printing, or post any images of that work. I have taken the same stand on APUG, and for similar reasons. I see no reason to participate in discussions about alternative print making when arbitrary and unreasonable boundaries are placed on what can and can not be discussed. Camera format, fill or digital capture, in-camera versus digital negatives, etc. are simply not relevant to alternative print making as I see it.

That said, there are many other areas of discussion, both here and on APUG, where I have no problem at all with the rules and how they are applied and I plan to continue in those areas.

Sandy King

[Emil Schildt]

I do some traditional copper-plate photogravures (took lessons from Lothar Osterburg's (http://home.earthlink.net/~lotharosterburg/)classes in Brooklyn, NY) which is quite difficult -- what with the chromium and the ferric chloride etc -- but there are much easier techniques out there.

For example, try solar plate etching (http://www.solarplate.com/).

hi Cyrus.
I stated over my image, that it is a "photopolymer gravure". I never said it was the traditional copper-plate gravure.

I have an objection, however... it is not easy!!:rolleyes:

You link to a site describing the "solar plate" techniques..
And I have been confused for some time now..
What is - if any - the difference between photopolymer gravure and solar plates?

Photopolymer gravure is "invented" by a Dane (Eli Ponsaing) in 1989 -(http://personal.inet.fi/taide/kari.holopainen/gravyyri/page1.htm)

on the other site it states that solar plates have been in use since the 70ties (Dan Welden).

are they just similar - or is there a difference?

[sanking]

Do you guys know of Jon Goodman? Jon is a master photogravure worker who works with copper-plate gravure. I had a chance to spend some time with him a couple of weeks ago in Xalapa, Mexico where we both were doing workshops. Jon much prefers the traditional copper plate gravure process to photopolymer, as do I. The work he does with copper plate is so much superior to anything I have seen with photopolymer that I consider the two totally different media.

Just for the record, I have an article on making carbon tissue for copper plate gravure in a book by David Morrish and Mrlene MacCallum, Copper Plate Gravure: Demystifying the Process, Focal Press, 2003.

Anyway, check out Jon's site. http://jgoodgravure.com/



Sandy King




hi Cyrus.
I stated over my image, that it is a "photopolymer gravure". I never said it was the traditional copper-plate gravure.

I have an objection, however... it is not easy!!:rolleyes:

You link to a site describing the "solar plate" techniques..
And I have been confused for some time now..
What is - if any - the difference between photopolymer gravure and solar plates?

Photopolymer gravure is "invented" by a Dane (Eli Ponsaing) in 1989 -(http://personal.inet.fi/taide/kari.holopainen/gravyyri/page1.htm)

on the other site it states that solar plates have been in use since the 70ties (Dan Welden).

are they just similar - or is there a difference?

[Emil Schildt]

Do you guys know of Jon Goodman? Jon is a master photogravure worker who works with copper-plate gravure. I had a chance to spend some time with him a couple of weeks ago in Xalapa, Mexico where we both were doing workshops. Jon much prefers the traditional copper plate gravure process to photopolymer, as do I. The work he does with copper plate is so much superior to anything I have seen with photopolymer that I consider the two totally different media.

Just for the record, I have an article on making carbon tissue for copper plate gravure in a book by David Morrish and Mrlene MacCallum, Copper Plate Gravure: Demystifying the Process, Focal Press, 2003.

Anyway, check out Jon's site. http://jgoodgravure.com/



Sandy King

I didn't know him - thanks for the link.

you say "The work he does with copper plate is so much superior to anything I have seen with photopolymer that I consider the two totally different media."

I have heard this before (there is a danish master copper gravure printer that states the same), and I am not telling you, you're wrong.
Different medias, yes.

The Finnish Guy I linked to (Kari Holopainen), makes polymer gravures from up to 5 plates (separation of the gray tones, and printing them on top of each other), with more than stunning results..

I am doing the polymer gravures, as that is my option.
I think it is a very difficult technique to master, but I am content with the fact, it for once is not poisonous (we have an ongoing fight with the goverment about the use of poisonous/hazardous chemicals...)

[Colin Graham]

I do some traditional copper-plate photogravures (took lessons from Lothar Osterburg's (http://home.earthlink.net/~lotharosterburg/)classes in Brooklyn, NY) which is quite difficult -- what with the chromium and the ferric chloride etc -- but there are much easier techniques out there.

For example, try solar plate etching (http://www.solarplate.com/).

Well, it's not the difficulty or danger holding me back, it's finding a decent intaglio press that isn't several thousand dollars.

[Steve M Hostetter]

sandy ,, I don't blame you, I wouldn't post any photos on this thread either...

I may be winding down here myself,,, ppl just don't seem to appreciate anything you do and I'm finally seeing that..

the sad part is some of these ppl I refer to had offspring

[Doug Howk]

I don't understand the controversy. Why someone visits this site is based on what he/she expects to find. If I shop at a bicycle store I don't expect to get advice on a motorized bike for racing at Tour de France. If I visit APUG, I expect to find discussions on traditional photographic methods; not on how only the end result matters. For the Alt Photo forum, I don't expect to find discussions on how Corel Painter can emulate all processes. If I visit B&S forum on Carbon printing, hope to not find discussions on carbon inkjet printing. So why should I visit this site and expect to find discussions on replacing my Large Format cameras with some other format? Even though Photo.net is a one size fits all photo site, they have categories; and one does not find discussions of sensor size in the neg development section.
I hope the LF forum remains Large Format, its what I would expect to find here.

[dwross]

I don't understand the controversy...
I hope the LF forum remains Large Format, its what I would expect to find here.

The 'controversy' is the pain of sorts it is to artists (not a dirty word!) who are forced to split their work - and by extension, themselves - to post on one forum or another. Like many contemporary photographers, my work weaves through many materials and many formats. I've pretty much given up trying to post images anywhere but my own site, and, as most of us know, that can be a pretty lonely way to go :)

I completely understand the need for a website to have an identity. The world is homogeneous enough already. But, every serious photography site should have a forum (such as 'On Photography') that encompasses the whole of our increasingly marvelous craft.

d

[Miguel Curbelo]

I am away from home and can not do so, but could someone please post another image before this thread loses its interest?

[Jim Cole]

I concur...I was really enjoying the work...

[Emil Schildt]

I am away from home and can not do so, but could someone please post another image before this thread loses its interest?

I don't know whether it will loose interest, as I find the discussion important.

But - I surely hope the people involved in the discussion will continue to post images.

here is one.

Bromoil print of Cecilie.

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/34/86/1638634-02393e41df98c4f7.jpg

[Ray Bidegain]

Here is one of my newer Black glass ambrotypes.

Ray

[Doug Howk]

Tea-toned Cyanotype. A cheap black tea for several minutes.

[sanking]

The 'controversy' is the pain of sorts it is to artists (not a dirty word!) who are forced to split their work - and by extension, themselves - to post on one forum or another. Like many contemporary photographers, my work weaves through many materials and many formats. I've pretty much given up trying to post images anywhere but my own site, and, as most of us know, that can be a pretty lonely way to go :)

d


Thanks Denise,

I think we are kindred souls so I am not surprised that you understand. And I appreciate your comments.

BTW, your site is fabulous, as I may have already mentioned in the past. I would like to do something similar for carbon transfer printing but just starting out to make something like this seems overwhelming.

Sandy King

[sanking]

I don't understand the controversy. Why someone visits this site is based on what he/she expects to find. If I shop at a bicycle store I don't expect to get advice on a motorized bike for racing at Tour de France. If I visit APUG, I expect to find discussions on traditional photographic methods; not on how only the end result matters. For the Alt Photo forum, I don't expect to find discussions on how Corel Painter can emulate all processes. If I visit B&S forum on Carbon printing, hope to not find discussions on carbon inkjet printing. So why should I visit this site and expect to find discussions on replacing my Large Format cameras with some other format? Even though Photo.net is a one size fits all photo site, they have categories; and one does not find discussions of sensor size in the neg development section.
I hope the LF forum remains Large Format, its what I would expect to find here.

We agree on the fact that we visit certain sites, and threads and categories at those sites, with certain expectations. From that perspective you should undestand the controversy and I would think agree with my position. This thread is called "Post Alternative Techniques" which to me suggests two concepts: 1) that it will be about alternative printing, not equipment, and 2)there will be discussions of modern methods of printmaking. With that in mind I joined the thread to look at the work of other alternative printmakers and to post some of my own images. I had no expectation at all of discussing equipment, and the first image I posted did not mention equipment. However, when I posted the IR images I thought it would be nice to mention how they had been made because there are very few sources of LF IR film around these days and I suspected that some might be interested in the technique.

The very last thing I expected was that someone would complain to the moderators that the image capture was with a digital point and shoot camera. Why would that be a problem to anyone? Is there someone out there with the misguided notion that it is easier to make carbon transfer prints if you start with a piece of film or with a digital MF back on a LF body than if you start with a smaller camera. If so, that person is plenty ignorant of what it takes to make high quality carbon transfer prints and all I can say is that I am glad that I don't think that way.

Anyway, I have said my peace on this. The moderators can address the issue or ignore it -- makes no difference to me at all at this time.

Sandy King

[redrockcoulee]

First off I would like to say that I am extremely glad I am not a moderator, especially as a volunteer. Secondly I have really enjoyed viewing the alternative process images.

I would have thought that making a internegative either in the darkroom or on a computer that is as large or larger than 4X5 would be large format but that is only the way I would have personally interpretated it and I have no qualms if anyone or everyone disagrees with that notion. Perhaps 'On Photography" and 'Location' forums should be moved to the Community section as some of the other threads on those two forums are also open to interpretation and anyone of us could send off a complaint or a moderator needs to make a decision that may not be needed to be made. Ansel Adams used MF for some of his photos can we not discuss those images but can his others. Or the rules relaxed somewhat on just those two forums. Just a thought to make it more flexible for us and easier for the moderators.

Hope to be able to contribute images to a similiar thread by next spring, Thanks for the inspiration (s)

[Doug Howk]

Hi Sandy,
I'm re-reading yours & Dick's books on Carbon printing, took the tissue from last year out of freezer, and will again venture into that process. So may be asking some more questions over at the B&S forum.

Thanks for your extended reply above. It does seem rather silly that we discuss/show something on one forum and can't on another. We're a rather small community even including APUG, here, AlternativePhotography, etc.; so its not like we are unaware of what others (at least the major players) are doing. But as to the Large Format forum, I'm not sure how one thread can be labeled open to all while other threads are LF only. These various forums do have a silo effect that hinders cross pollination of ideas. Maybe Google will come up with something other than just searches to tie/link these separate entities. Until then, seems like all we can do is post appropriate material to the various forums and hope for stimulating discussions.

[Emil Schildt]

ok - What isan alternative technique?
there has been a small discussion, whether a polaroid would such a thing...

what about this?

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/50/52/105250-aed857a461783c4c.jpg

a portrait of Kala - Painted with light - exposed on polaroid 665 - printed with liquid emulsion on heavy paper, and finally handcoloured, only using coffee and cigarette ashes...

(I am most interested to hear, whether the liquid emulsion would be acceptable as an alternative technique)

[sanking]

Hi Sandy,
I'm re-reading yours & Dick's books on Carbon printing, took the tissue from last year out of freezer, and will again venture into that process. So may be asking some more questions over at the B&S forum.



Doug,

Please feel free to email me directly if you have any questions. I also like the hybrid forum for questions about alternative printing since virtually anything goes there and most of the people who know something about carbon monitor the site. The B&S carbon forum is also a great place to ask questions about carbon.

I probably need to do like Denise and put up a good web site with my writings and some galleries and link to there from other sites whenever issues like this come up.


Sandy

[Blueberrydesk]

ok - What isan alternative technique?
there has been a small discussion, whether a polaroid would such a thing...

what about this?

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/50/52/105250-aed857a461783c4c.jpg

a portrait of Kala - Painted with light - exposed on polaroid 665 - printed with liquid emulsion on heavy paper, and finally handcoloured, only using coffee and cigarette ashes...

(I am most interested to hear, whether the liquid emulsion would be acceptable as an alternative technique)

This is simply outstanding. Absolutely beautiful. Just, wow.

[Emil Schildt]

This is simply outstanding. Absolutely beautiful. Just, wow.

thanks - When mixing coffee with cigarette ashes, the tones tend to go towards a nice greenish hue.. I like that.

(+ I can say I am smoking - not because I like it, but only because I need the ashes...:D )

[eddie]

Tea-toned Cyanotype. A cheap black tea for several minutes.

wow! i love it. the trees are awesome.

[Colin Graham]

Great work Gandolfi- 'just wow' is a nice way to put it.

Here's a platinum toned kallitype

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2493/3746105114_3a033b1d00_o.jpg

[sly]

Gandolfi - Photography has always involved some nasty and poisonous substances, but only this amazing photo of yours could actually make me regret that I've never smoked and am allergic to caffine!

[Nathan Potter]

Looking again - Gandolfi and Colin, these are wonderful images and great work.

Nate Potter, Harrington ME.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

We agree on the fact that we visit certain sites, and threads and categories at those sites, with certain expectations. From that perspective you should undestand the controversy and I would think agree with my position. This thread is called "Post Alternative Techniques" which to me suggests two concepts: 1) that it will be about alternative printing, not equipment, and 2)there will be discussions of modern methods of printmaking. With that in mind I joined the thread to look at the work of other alternative printmakers and to post some of my own images. I had no expectation at all of discussing equipment, and the first image I posted did not mention equipment. However, when I posted the IR images I thought it would be nice to mention how they had been made because there are very few sources of LF IR film around these days and I suspected that some might be interested in the technique.

The very last thing I expected was that someone would complain to the moderators that the image capture was with a digital point and shoot camera. Why would that be a problem to anyone? Is there someone out there with the misguided notion that it is easier to make carbon transfer prints if you start with a piece of film or with a digital MF back on a LF body than if you start with a smaller camera. If so, that person is plenty ignorant of what it takes to make high quality carbon transfer prints and all I can say is that I am glad that I don't think that way.

Anyway, I have said my peace on this. The moderators can address the issue or ignore it -- makes no difference to me at all at this time.

Sandy King


Sandy, I agree with you on this one also. I know what it takes to make a quality carbon transfer print. I have always thought we should share our ideas especially on alternative processes. Thanks for all of your help with my carbon transfer work.

Doug, I'll also have to agree with Sandy on getting a site up and my images in a gallery and do some write ups on my successes and failures. If it helps someone learn carbon transfer that is great. Let me know if I can help also.

Jim

[Emil Schildt]

deleted - picture didn't show

[Colin Graham]

Many thanks Nate.

a pd-toned kallitype this time.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/3749345850_298bc21cc3_o.jpg

[Jiri Vasina]

Colin, again a wonderful one. Plain wonderful. The way the trees are closing on the path... Wonderful...

Jiri

[Colin Graham]

Thanks Jiri!

[Jeremy Moore]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/3748755423_33f53438af_o.jpg

16x20 platinum/palladium print.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . This forum's got some things going for it, but its just a bunch of guys with a shared interest. . . .

Darr for one might question that.

[Brian Ellis]

Good point. There is really no good discussion site that is open to all aspects of alternative printmaking. At APUG you have restrictions on digital, but any camera system goes. Here the discussion is limited to camera system, and digital is ok in certain circumstances, say when if it is combined with a LF camera.

The hubrid forum comes to mind but I bet that if someone went over there and posted an image of a beautiful pt/pd print made with an in-camera ULF negative somebody would bitch that there was no digital involved in the work flow.

Sandy King

There used to be a rec.photo alt process group in which a lot of great alt process printers participated. It was a very contentious group but also contained a lot of excellent discussions and information. That group got me started with gum printing. Is it no longer around?

Not to add more noise but I agree with your points about the rule in question as others also obviously do. So why not discuss it again as it applies to alt processes and possibly change it? I actually don't remember the rule being discussed in the first place but whenever it was being discussed I doubt that there was a lot of focus on how it would work with alt processes. I'm not sure putting things in the Lounge is a good solution. Some of us have blocked the Lounge from our unified view and I for one would hate to have to open it up again just to see the occasional alt process thread.

[mandoman7]

Darr for one might question that.

Not meant to offend anyone, Brian.
Peer review groups can be tricky places to have your passions revealed. Sometimes I think its good to not take it too seriously, is where I was going.

[sanking]

There used to be a rec.photo alt process group in which a lot of great alt process printers participated. It was a very contentious group but also contained a lot of excellent discussions and information. That group got me started with gum printing. Is it no longer around?

Not to add more noise but I agree with your points about the rule in question as others also obviously do. So why not discuss it again as it applies to alt processes and possibly change it? I actually don't remember the rule being discussed in the first place but whenever it was being discussed I doubt that there was a lot of focus on how it would work with alt processes. I'm not sure putting things in the Lounge is a good solution. Some of us have blocked the Lounge from our unified view and I for one would hate to have to open it up again just to see the occasional alt process thread.


I sure don't recall any discussions to the effect that the equipment rules of the format also applied to discussion of alternative photography so it was something of a surprise to me when others asserted this as established policy. Whatever, it sure makes no sense to me and the fact that quite a few others agree with me is comforting in that I know I am not out there on a limb with some dangerous and radical thought.

Is there some established process for bringing up discussion of the rules?

Sandy

[Brian Ellis]

Not meant to offend anyone, Brian.
Peer review groups can be tricky places to have your passions revealed. Sometimes I think its good to not take it too seriously, is where I was going.

I'm sure you didn't intend any offense and I hope my little dig didn't offend you. I started to put a smiley next to it but was afraid someone would take me to task and claim I was making light of a serious subject.

[Colin Graham]

My bag of tricks is dry, but here's another carbon- lamp black with a little azo yellow

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3750926606_5c51fa55dc_o.jpg


Anyone here doing any gumoil work? Some great bromoils on the thread but wondering if anyone other than Karl Koenig is having much luck with the process. Looks interesting- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8397089367707351277

[Paul Metcalf]

Colin, this thread notwithstanding, your images are some of the most outstanding I've seen. I've scoured your website numerous times.

[SadChi]

Some really wonderful work!
Here's two whole plate alumitypes
http://www.schroederworks.com/Wetplate/Chair002.jpg

http://www.schroederworks.com/Wetplate/WindowLamp.jpg

Great pictures!

[Emil Schildt]

SO NICE to see images again!
And great ones too!!

Colin: you asked about gumoil printers. I have a friend, that "dabbles" with that technique - I don't think he is a member in here (kind of old, and not too familiar with the web....) BUT he IS on APUG, and he has a portfolio in there.
I am amazed about the techical quality and precision in his images.
He taught him self in doing this ("I use the long winter nights to practice")......

I have never thought much about this technique untill I saw his work..

Take a look: http://www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=19686

Here are four images, made from the same negative, as bromoils.
I use liquid emulsion as matriz, and that gives me the possibillity to manipulate the emulsion, before making it a bromoil.
the results are quite different - see for your selves..

http://www.emilschildt.com/BROM/serie/kys.jpg

http://www.emilschildt.com/BROM/serie/kys-(3).jpg

http://www.emilschildt.com/BROM/serie/kys-(1).jpg

http://www.emilschildt.com/BROM/serie/kys-(2).jpg

[Colin Graham]

Thanks Paul! That made my morning, I really appreciate it.

Thanks for that link Gandolfi- what extraordinary work. I really want to try some sort of duotone or tricolor process and had been thinking of gum or gumoil but after seeing all these great bromoils of yours the choise is even more difficult.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Gandolfi,,

these are incredible,, looks like old charcoal drawings

[Ralph Barker]

The general (and somewhat loose) policy against posting small-format digital captures to to avoid the "my pixel is better than your grain of silver" types of discussions that always seem to creep in. Because of that, we have tried to keep the core forums LF-related. There is nothing preventing discussions of non-LF photography (or, digital printing) in The Lounge, however.

Discussions of traditional printing processes that have historically been dubbed "alternative processes" (carbon transfer, gum, etc.) are also allowed by the guidelines in either the Darkroom section or the On Photography section, even though they may not be originated from LF negs. Which section would be most appropriate depends on the nature of the discussion. The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved), not the method of image capture.

How to tone an inkjet print made from a digital P&S camera with a mix of tea and Roadrunner urine probably wouldn't be appropriate in either section of the core forums, however. ;)

[Jimi]

Anyone here doing any gumoil work? Some great bromoils on the thread but wondering if anyone other than Karl Koenig is having much luck with the process.

I don't, but if you look up Karena Goldfinch on Flickr, she does really great stuff.

Look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/22267060@N04/

[Emil Schildt]

Discussions of traditional printing processes that have historically been dubbed "alternative processes" (carbon transfer, gum, etc.) are also allowed by the guidelines in either the Darkroom section or the On Photography section, even though they may not be originated from LF negs. Which section would be most appropriate depends on the nature of the discussion. The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved), not the method of image capture.


I promised my self not to go into this discussion, but now I am confused, and would like to understand..
(bear with me - I am a dumb Dane...)

If this is true, then Sandy's images shouldn't have been deleted(?).
He mentioned his camera, but the reason for showing it was - to quote you again: "The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved)..."

reading the discussion (and being a dane with limited english knowlegde), it is exactely what Sandy argued he did (?)

Or was the mentioning of the original camera his crime?

I find it fascinating that almost ALL cameras can be used as start tool for alternative printing - it all ends up being unique LF images.

Highly inspiring, I must say.
Good to know!! I pass all this great information on to my students, and that way I lure them into Lf photography.
How great is that?

[Brian Ellis]

The general (and somewhat loose) policy against posting small-format digital captures to to avoid the "my pixel is better than your grain of silver" types of discussions that always seem to creep in. Because of that, we have tried to keep the core forums LF-related. There is nothing preventing discussions of non-LF photography (or, digital printing) in The Lounge, however. . . .

You seem to be saying that digital printing is supposed to be discussed in the Lounge. Is that correct?

[PViapiano]

Don't ask, don't tell...

[PViapiano]

Peony
Palladium print
Fabriano EW
Sun exposure

[Paul Metcalf]

a pd-toned kallitype this time.Collin,
I looked through Rudman's toning book but didn't see anything on brewing pd/pt toner, and I don't see anything on Photographers Formulary in a kit form. Do you have a good source for mixing up such? thanks. Paul

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I thought I would post this image here because the print is a carbon transfer print. The nice thing about this process is the total control or lack thereof of the process. This image has some artifacts around the breast area that may be due to poor filtering of the glop or phases of the moon. The really great thing is the tonal range in the shadows. Still working on this image to get it right.

Jim

[Paul Metcalf]

IThis image has some artifacts around the breast area...
I'm really biting my tongue on this one...;)

A much less exciting 5x7 Salt Print of my wife's "stash" (she's a quilter) and cabinet hardware, and a 8x10 Salt Print of a common site in the NW.

[Jim collum]

Platinum (Ziatype) over color pigment. scans of the prints (11x14)


http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/daventport1.jpg


http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/moss3.jpg


http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/moss5.jpg


http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/davenport1.jpg

[Doug Howk]

anything on brewing pd/pt toner
From Dick Stevens book on Kallitypes:
Platinum toning bath:
1.25 ml potassium chloroplatinate 20% solution
12.5 ml sulfuric acid
distilled water to make 250 ml solution

For Palladium toning bath, substitute sodium tetrachloropalladite 20% solution

[xmishx]

It was so nice and inspiring when this thread was about photos and not words... If you have to have a discussion about your conflicts, does it have to be here on this thread?

Ted Mishima

[eddie]

Platinum (Ziatype) over color pigment. scans of the prints (11x14)



WOW! stunning. where can i read more about this process? it looks awesome.

eddie

[Colin Graham]

Collin,
I looked through Rudman's toning book but didn't see anything on brewing pd/pt toner, and I don't see anything on Photographers Formulary in a kit form. Do you have a good source for mixing up such? thanks. Paul


I make a 15% solution of pd (5g palladium chloride, 3.5 g salt in 55ml of distilled water) To make a liter, put 5ml of this solution in a liter of water with 5g of citric acid. It's a one-shot toner, an ounce being plenty for a 5x12 print. pd chloride is ~$15 a gram from Artcraft, so it's a fairly inexpensive toner really.

Platinum toner I make just the same (5ml solution +5g citric acid/l) but using a 20% solution of potassium chloroplatinite. I didn't see much savings in making the solution myself, so just get the prefab #3 Platinum Solution from Bostick and Sullivan.

BTW, I can't recommend Sany King's kallitype article enough -http://www.alternativephotography.com/process_kallitype.html A fantastic resource for kallitypes.

[willwilson]

Platinum (Ziatype) over color pigment. scans of the prints (11x14)

http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/moss3.jpg


Jim, simply stunning.

[mandoman7]

It was so nice and inspiring when this thread was about photos and not words... If you have to have a discussion about your conflicts, does it have to be here on this thread?

Ted Mishima

..but you've added words, not photos. The enemy may not be where we think he is.

[Jim collum]

WOW! stunning. where can i read more about this process? it looks awesome.

eddie

Dan Burkholder was the first to try this. I read an article about it, and reverse-engineered.

The most complicated part is the creation of the digital negative. There are a number of books/sites describing the process... Dan Burkholder has a book, Ron Reeder as well. Mark Nelson has an ebook ( http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/ ) that i've ended up using for curve creation and calibration.

[D. Bryant]

WOW! stunning. where can i read more about this process? it looks awesome.

eddie

Pigment over palladium was originally the brain child of Dan Burkholder, though View Camera magazine attributes Ron Reeder as the progenator of this palladium printing variation.

I've been fortunate to see Jim Collum's work first hand - his work is ewxcellent.

Don Bryant

[mandoman7]

Great work Gandolfi- 'just wow' is a nice way to put it.

Here's a platinum toned kallitype

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2493/3746105114_3a033b1d00_o.jpg

Seeing this I went to your site, and loved your work, Colin. It does more for me when the alternative processes have a shared role in the imagery rather than being the whole story. There's a lot of craft in your work that's happening before the printmaking. Takes it to another level.

[Colin Graham]

Thanks very much John, that really means a lot. It's very gratifying to hear that it comes across that way. I put alot of work into each image and I tend to loose objectivity quickly, so I appreciate the comment.

[sanking]

Ralph Barker wrote:

Discussions of traditional printing processes that have historically been dubbed "alternative processes" (carbon transfer, gum, etc.) are also allowed by the guidelines in either the Darkroom section or the On Photography section, even though they may not be originated from LF negs. Which section would be most appropriate depends on the nature of the discussion. The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved), not the method of image capture.



Given this statement by Ralph Barker I am left with the understanding that the image of a carbon transfer print that was deleted by Kirk Gittings was deleted because I specifically stated that the original capture was made with a Canon G9 digital camera, not due to the fact the original capture was actually made with the Canon G9.

That being the case, I am going to post the image again. It is a 12X17" carbon transfer print made with a 12X17" negative. Fortunately I just happened to have a 12X17" camera loaded with IR film in the highlands of Xalapa, Mexico when this image was made so I am able to substitute it for the earlier one made with a point and shoot camera.

Now, before Kirk deletes this file I suggest that he get with Ralph Barker and the rest of the moderators and come to some coherent understanding of the rules that apply to alternative prints.

Sandy King

[Jim collum]

Sandy and Colin,

Thank you for posting your images.. This thread has, by far, some of the most stunning work i've seen in the LF forum. Looking at your images makes me want to take out the camera and shoot

(I hope Sandy's work remains!)

jim

[jb7]

Yes, I'd agree with Jim-
I had written something to that effect earlier, and didn't post-
the images just get better and better,
and I'm glad to have seen them all now-


joseph

[Kirk Gittings]

I have initiated a discussion amongst the moderators on this topic. This may lead to changes or clarifications. Give it time. We are a few volunteers with diverse schedules.

In the meantime, Ralph's opinion does not negate my opinion or my decision. From the guidelines: "The decisions of the moderators are always final, even if they are wrong." I will be happy to review my decision after some discussion on this topic amongst the moderators. In the meantime my original decision stands. Nothing that has been mentioned here so far has convinced me otherwise. This is by no means personal. Remember Dominico Fosci? He was and is a friend of mine whose work I admire greatly (as I do Sandy's). He left the forum after repeatedly having his small format images deleted from "post your images" threads that weren't in the lounge. I was one of those who regularly deleted his sf image posts. I regretted his leaving and tried to talk him out of it. He had plenty of first rate LF images to post but chose not to.

This discussion will greatly effect the future direction of this forum, if you change the On Photography threads to allow posting of images that are not LF, any "post your images" thread could justifiably be made in the On Photography section and we could be inundated with non LF image posts and change the fundamental nature of this forum. But I am open.

[D. Bryant]

Here is palladium print made with NA2 from a digital negative - original shot on 4x5 film.

[Jim Edmond]

Sandy and Colin,

Thank you for posting your images.. This thread has, by far, some of the most stunning work i've seen in the LF forum. Looking at your images makes me want to take out the camera and shoot

(I hope Sandy's work remains!)

jim

Agreed. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see the originals in a gallery? I imagine the computer screen barely does them justice.

[Jim Cole]

Here is palladium print made with NA2 from a digital negative - original shot on 4x5 film.

Wow! Absolutely stunning. What a glow! Post some more. I can't wait to complete my move so I can set up a darkroom. I am so motivated.

Jim

[D. Bryant]

Gum over palladium from original 8x10 negative.

[D. Bryant]

Ziatype from 4x5 negative

[D. Bryant]

Gold toned kallitype from 8x10 in camera negative (cropped with ruby-lith)

[sanking]

Kirk,

I think before the moderators make any decisions they need to at least get on the same page on this thread because you and Ralph Barker are asserting points of view that are quite simply out of line with one another.

Barker clearly stated, “Discussions of traditional printing processes that have historically been dubbed "alternative processes" (carbon transfer, gum, etc.) are also allowed by the guidelines in either the Darkroom section or the On Photography section, even though they may not be originated from LF negs. Which section would be most appropriate depends on the nature of the discussion. The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved), not the method of image capture.”

On the basis of that statement I re-posted my image file, which clearly falls under the guidelines noted by Barker, at least by my reading and understanding of what he said.

Consistency is an important operating principle of any organization. It is lacking here.

Not undermining the people you work with is also important. That also appears to be lacking. At the very least, if you assert that "The decisions of the moderators are always final, even if they are wrong" you should do in a context where the moderators at least are in agreement.

Sandy

[D. Bryant]

Palladium print with NA2 print from digital negative from original 5x7 exposure

[D. Bryant]

Kirk,

I think before the moderators make any decisions they need to at least get on the same page on this thread because you and Ralph Barker are asserting points of view that are quite simply out of line with one another.

Barker clearly stated, “Discussions of traditional printing processes that have historically been dubbed "alternative processes" (carbon transfer, gum, etc.) are also allowed by the guidelines in either the Darkroom section or the On Photography section, even though they may not be originated from LF negs. Which section would be most appropriate depends on the nature of the discussion. The discussion, however, should be about the printing process (and/or the aesthetics involved), not the method of image capture.”

On the basis of that statement I re-posted my image file, which clearly falls under the guidelines noted by Barker, at least by my reading and understanding of what he said.

Consistency is an important operating principle of any organization. It is lacking here.

Not undermining the people you work with is also important. That also appears to be lacking. At the very least, if you assert that "The decisions of the moderators are always final, even if they are wrong" you should do in a context where the moderators at least are in agreement.

Sandy

I have to agree with Sandy - Kirk's decision seems to be quite abritrary based on the context of this thread contained in this forum and reading Ralph's post.

Hopefully, whatever the outcome, Sandy will post a few of his latest carbons derived from a large format negative if prints from a small format camera are banned.

For me personally I have some tri-color gums that I would like to share here but since their origin was from non-large format roots i'll refrain from posting them.

I agree that THIS IS the Large Format Forum and that our mods wish to maintain a pruritiy of large format essence. However as you can see from a couple of my previous posts showing my alt-process work some of the images were made with digitally generated negatives. As such I don't see the big deal including images made from digital negatives not initially exposed with a Large Format camera since the topic of this thread is alternative techniques.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Wow! Absolutely stunning. What a glow! Post some more. I can't wait to complete my move so I can set up a darkroom. I am so motivated.

Jim

Thanks Jim, good luck with your darkroom.

Don

[Jan Pedersen]

Kirk, Keep up the good work you have provided since you became a moderator on this forum.
If capture of the original photo was digital or something other than what most agree is Large Format it should only be displayed in the Lounge as the rules are now.
It is unfortunate that some have desided to change the work flow to include other formats than what this Forum is about and then expect the forum to mold into something that it was not meant to be.
A negative whether it is created digitally or in the wet darkroom does not make it Large Format unless the capture was with a large format camera in the first place.

My opinion has nothing to do with the quality of work from both Sandy's and others work that is simply outstanding, this is just my opinion on the principle of this Forum.
The Large Format Forum can soon enough be flooded with anything but Large Format Images if everybody choose to put more importance on own ambitions than to continue to keep this place a unique outlet for a little but important group of people who share the the love for large in camera negatives.

Jan

[Paul Metcalf]

Gold toned kallitype from 8x10 in camera negative (cropped with ruby-lith)

Dang, between you, Colin, Sandy, Jim C., Jim F., g-man, etc. I can see I have a (very) long way to go. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that I think the "alternative process" moniker ought to just be "THE process." The heck with any "standard" process.

Ok, I know the rules, no word-only posts - so here's another 8x10 salt print from near the ocean in Washington State (of course, salt, naturally). I wish I'd been there when Colin was so I could learn something.

[Doug Howk]

If a potential post is germane to current thread/discussion yet is outside the rules of that particular forum, then a link to the image/text would seem to be the appropriate means to share the information yet not violate the rules.

Here's an image on Arches Platine using liquid emulsion thinned with water 1:1

[Emil Schildt]

Gold toned kallitype from 8x10 in camera negative (cropped with ruby-lith)

this is absolutely STUNNING!
I can't see any brush strokes or anything else, that gives the technique away..

And it is glowing!!

[Emil Schildt]

Here's an image on Arches Platine using liquid emulsion thinned with water 1:1

AHA!!
good to see others working with liquid emulsion. (What brand are you using?)

BUT it doesn't answer my question, I asked some time ago: IS liquid emulsion work considered alternative?
It doesn't require contact printing...

I'd like to know what others think - I have a LOT of images made with LE, as it is my favourite choise of "paper"...

[kev curry]

Hi Emil, quick question... what kind of paper are you using for painting your liquid emulsion on to?

[Pete Watkins]

I agree with Jan Pederson and Kirk. It's a Large Format Photography Forum. Big cameras, big negatives and a minimal use of Photoshop, or whatever digi programme is your choice. Personally when I scan a neg to put on my hard drive I use a very out of date version of Paint Shop Pro to get rid of dust etc. and change the brightness and contrast if neccessary to get a decent image on my monitor. Big digital "negatives" are not Large Format, never were, never will be.
Just my opinion,
Pete.

[Paul Metcalf]

I agree with Jan Pederson and Kirk. It's a Large Format Photography Forum. Big cameras, big negatives and a minimal use of Photoshop, or whatever digi programme is your choice. Personally when I scan a neg to put on my hard drive I use a very out of date version of Paint Shop Pro to get rid of dust etc. and change the brightness and contrast if neccessary to get a decent image on my monitor. Big digital "negatives" are not Large Format, never were, never will be.
Just my opinion,
Pete.Pete - there seems to be a couple number of contridictions in your comment. First, a "minimal use of photoshop" to "change the brightness and contrast" may be simple/easy with digital file, but compared to "standard" analog process this is very involved and very fundamental to the photographic printing process. Also, getting rid of dust conventionally is a major PITA using print spotting and/or negative retouching. I bring this contradiction up because I don't think the rules on this forum can apply simply because they are considered "minimal" as that is too subjective.

Secondly, your last sentence (big digital negatives) seems at odds with many of the posters on this thread as they are using enhanced big digital negatives created from scans of smaller (hopefully LF, right?) formats. Or did you mean big digital negatives from megapixel cameras, perhaps?

Ok, so I don't violate "my" rule of no word-only posts on post-request threads, here's another 8x10 saltprint from Kamloops Island. Cheers.

[Emil Schildt]

Hi Emil, quick question... what kind of paper are you using for painting your liquid emulsion on to?

Hi Kev.
I use a not too expensive, but high quality paper of 340grams.
"Zerkall" it is called - German brand.

It os not a watercolour paper, but a paper for use in classic etching/printing techniques.

Really nice - easy to work with, and as said - worth the money, which isn't too high..

(found their website, but I am buying from a danish store)

I think I found the paper, and it says:

Mould Made Printmaking Paper, wove

340 g/sqm, ca. 50 x 68 cm lg, rough surface, cotton content
Nr. 7314/1: off white

Applications: silkscreen, hand lithography, offset, etching,
embossing, block printing, letterpress printing, pastel, pencil

(http://www.zerkall.com/English/Paper/Planopapiere.E1.html)


http://www.zerkall.com/English/Info.E.html

[D. Bryant]

this is absolutely STUNNING!
I can't see any brush strokes or anything else, that gives the technique away..

And it is glowing!!

Gandolfi,

I don't prefer to show coating/brush marks on my prints. I mask the paper with tape when coating and mask the negative to prevent the over coating from exposing.

When I mount gum prints I'll trim the brush marks and drymount the print to another sheet of art paper.

I've never understood the allure of showing coating/brush marks on the final print.

I even know people who make pains taking efforts to produce "attractive" brush marks. Just not my 'thang'!

Don

[kev curry]

Thanks for the links Emil I'll check them out. Its good to know that paper suitable for etchings etc is usable.

[D. Bryant]

Big digital "negatives" are not Large Format, never were, never will be.
Just my opinion,
Pete.

Pete since that is your opinion I'll respect that but is a print from an enlarged negative disqualified also if the original was made with a large format camera?

The attached cyanotype was printed from an enlarged film negative. I've used enlarged film negatives and digital negatives and as far as the quality of the end print is concerned I see little if any difference.

Mortensen and others manipulated thier negatives extensively in some cases. LeGray <sp?> added clouds from other negatives to create the final print yet if someone does that with PS they are somehow considered to be cheating or they are considered to be a hack. I don't get that attitude. It's all about creativity in my mind. Just because one of the sainted greats didn't manipulate their work why does that exclude us working in LF from doing so now. Look at Gandolfis work - a little or a lot of wabi-sabi can go a long way to augmenting ones vision. And even if you can't tell if the manipulation is done by hand or PS who cares? I'm not including documentary or reportage here. Just my view.

BTW, the color of this cyanotype isn't accurate. The print was so large it had to scanned in sections and stitched back together.

Don Bryant

[Colin Graham]

Mercy that's nice!


Ziatype from 4x5 negative

[Jim collum]

Pete since that is your opinion I'll respect that but is a print from an enlarged negative disqualified also if the original was made with a large format camera?



how about a print from an enlarged digital negative, captured using a scanning back on a 4x5 view camera :)

[Jim collum]

Gold toned kallitype from 8x10 in camera negative (cropped with ruby-lith)

love everything you've posted here Don, but this one is spectacular

[Jan Pedersen]

love everything you've posted here Don, but this one is spectacular

Agree with Jim, Excellent work Don.

[sanking]

Kirk, Keep up the good work you have provided since you became a moderator on this forum.
If capture of the original photo was digital or something other than what most agree is Large Format it should only be displayed in the Lounge as the rules are now.
It is unfortunate that some have desided to change the work flow to include other formats than what this Forum is about and then expect the forum to mold into something that it was not meant to be.
A negative whether it is created digitally or in the wet darkroom does not make it Large Format unless the capture was with a large format camera in the first place.

My opinion has nothing to do with the quality of work from both Sandy's and others work that is simply outstanding, this is just my opinion on the principle of this Forum.
The Large Format Forum can soon enough be flooded with anything but Large Format Images if everybody choose to put more importance on own ambitions than to continue to keep this place a unique outlet for a little but important group of people who share the the love for large in camera negatives.

Jan

It is important to understand that alternative printmaking does not belong to any type of photography, be it small format, medium format, or large format, nor can it be classified by its analogue or digital origins. Rather, it is a marriage of the old and new with no disciplinary borders. Alternative photography may involve equally pin hole and zone plates on digital and large format cameras, and the sharpest lenses on 35mm and ULF formats. As a long time alternative printer (from the 1980s) the idea that discussions on alternative printing should be limited by type (digital or analogue) or format (small format versus large format) of the taking camera is to me utterly absurd. I don’t accept these limitations for my work, and I am sure that my feelings are shared by the great majority of persons who do high quality work with alternative printmaking.

I have no issue with the general guidelines on the LF forum regarding the prohibition in the galleries and discussion forums of work done with small format cameras, both digital and film. That is to be expected.

However, alternative print making is different from general photography in at least two very important ways whenever it involves digital processing, either when the capture is with film and a scan is made of the film, or when the capture is with a digital camera. First, with alternative printing, whether original capture is made in the camera or with a film scan. it is only an intermediate step. In order to make an alternative print you must first learn how to take this file and make from it a digital negative of the same size needed for the final contact print. It is only at this point that you are back to the same base line with direct capture with LF film. And making good digital negatives is pretty much an art to it self, as most people who have worked this way know very well.

The second way in which alternative printing is totally different from printing with digital files on inkjet printers is in the process itself. When printing digitally, one can take the image file, adjust it a bit, and print directly with an inkjet printer. It is a very fast and direct method of making a print. With alternative printing, one must 1) first learn to make the digital negative, and 2) learn control of a very complicated wet processing system. The time required for each step is on the order of hours, even after one has acquired mastery of both steps.

You are free to disagree with my point of view, as you like, but my credentials as an alternative printer are there for you to see. I have many articles on the web on alternative printing, a book on printing with carbon transfer, and I have exhibited my work widely. I have printed with ULF in-camera negatives (see p 203 of the second edition of Dick Arentz’ book Platinum and Palladium Printing, 2nd edition for a palladium print printed directly from a 20X24" in-camera negative, directly from LF negatives and from digital negatives made of scans of large format negatives, from digital negatives made from scans of medium format film, and from digital negatives made from digital files of DSLR and another direct digital capture.

Finally, it really bothers me that some people claim that I don’t want to play by the rules. I have made over 2800 informative and opinion posts to this forum over the past six or seven years and all of them were made in accordance with the rules. However, when rules don’t make any sense to me please do not expect me to stand by blindly and ignore the absurdity.

Thanks for reading.

Sandy King

[Emil Schildt]

In order to make an alternative print you must first learn how to take this file and make from it a digital negative of the same size needed for the final contact print. It is only at this point that you are back to the same base line with direct capture with LF film. And making good digital negatives is pretty much an art to it self, as most people who have worked this way know very well.

...... With alternative printing, one must 1) first learn to make the digital negative, and 2) learn control of a very complicated wet processing system. The time required for each step is on the order of hours, even after one has acquired mastery of both steps.



Sandy: not that I am not agreeing with you, but sitting here, reading this, I get confused (I do that easily...)

When you're talking about "alternative printing", you seem to equal this only to contact printing. (?)
I do know, that most(?) of the alternative printing techniques requires a large negative (and here I agree with you), BUT I also know it is not all.

that's one of the reasons bromoil was invented... to be able to make a darkroom print in a normal way, using any negative format, and then turn that into a bromoil..

I have also asked twice now (not to you but in this thread), whether using liquid emulsion is regarded as an alternative printing technique. (no answer yet). Here the same story.

All in all: do you think that a technique that falls under the category "alternative printing" (I use the term alternative technique) has to be contact printing only?

[sanking]

that's one of the reasons bromoil was invented... to be able to make a darkroom print in a normal way, using any negative format, and then turn that into a bromoil..

I have also asked twice now (not to you but in this thread), whether using liquid emulsion is regarded as an alternative printing technique. (no answer yet). Here the same story.

All in all: do you think that a technique that falls under the category "alternative printing" (I use the term alternative technique) has to be contact printing only?

Without question bromoil falls under the category of "alternative printmaking". In fact, it was one of the most important of the alternative processes in the day of Pictorialism. And of course, bromoils were usually made by enlargement from small and medium format negatives. If one rejected the use of small and medium format negatives for bromoil we would have to throw away most of the bromoil work that was done in the past. This to me is just another absurdity of the very attempt to limit our discussion of alternative printmaking to original LF capture. It is absurd, to say the least. Perhaps stupid and ignorant would be a better choice of words to describe this. And bromoil is of course an alternative process, even though it is not a contact printing process.

BTW, I have a book on the Spanish bromoil artist Schmidt de las Heras, entitled Schmide de las Heras: Fotografía 1944-60, published by the Xunta de Galicia in 1995. The book contains my text on pictorial photography in Spain, and many large four-color plates of the bromoil prints of Schmidt de las Heras. Virtually all of Schmidt's work was done with medium format cameras.

BTW, most of the bromoil work that was done in Spain was bromoil transfer, in which the bromoil print was inked and passed through a press which put the ink on a special art paper. The result is very much like photo gravure.

My point again, if you are going to allow discussion of alternative printmaking on this site, please allow it to be discussed within the context of its historical and present day use, not with these idiotic restrictions that some want to impose.

Sandy King

[Jan Pedersen]

It is important to understand that alternative printmaking does not belong to any type of photography, be it small format, medium format, or large format, nor can it be classified by its analogue or digital origins. Rather, it is a marriage of the old and new with no disciplinary borders. Alternative photography may involve equally pin hole and zone plates on digital and large format cameras, and the sharpest lenses on 35mm and ULF formats. As a long time alternative printer (from the 1980s) the idea that discussions on alternative printing should be limited by type (digital or analogue) or format (small format versus large format) of the taking camera is to me utterly absurd. I don’t accept these limitations for my work, and I am sure that my feelings are shared by the great majority of persons who do high quality work with alternative printmaking.

I have no issue with the general guidelines on the LF forum regarding the prohibition in the galleries and discussion forums of work done with small format cameras, both digital and film. That is to be expected.

However, alternative print making is different from general photography in at least two very important ways whenever it involves digital processing, either when the capture is with film and a scan is made of the film, or when the capture is with a digital camera. First, with alternative printing, whether original capture is made in the camera or with a film scan. it is only an intermediate step. In order to make an alternative print you must first learn how to take this file and make from it a digital negative of the same size needed for the final contact print. It is only at this point that you are back to the same base line with direct capture with LF film. And making good digital negatives is pretty much an art to it self, as most people who have worked this way know very well.

The second way in which alternative printing is totally different from printing with digital files on inkjet printers is in the process itself. When printing digitally, one can take the image file, adjust it a bit, and print directly with an inkjet printer. It is a very fast and direct method of making a print. With alternative printing, one must 1) first learn to make the digital negative, and 2) learn control of a very complicated wet processing system. The time required for each step is on the order of hours, even after one has acquired mastery of both steps.

You are free to disagree with my point of view, as you like, but my credentials as an alternative printer are there for you to see. I have many articles on the web on alternative printing, a book on printing with carbon transfer, and I have exhibited my work widely. I have printed with ULF in-camera negatives (see p 203 of the second edition of Dick Arentz’ book Platinum and Palladium Printing, 2nd edition for a palladium print printed directly from a 20X24" in-camera negative, directly from LF negatives and from digital negatives made of scans of large format negatives, from digital negatives made from scans of medium format film, and from digital negatives made from digital files of DSLR and another direct digital capture.

Finally, it really bothers me that some people claim that I don’t want to play by the rules. I have made over 2800 informative and opinion posts to this forum over the past six or seven years and all of them were made in accordance with the rules. However, when rules don’t make any sense to me please do not expect me to stand by blindly and ignore the absurdity.

Sandy, I agree with most of your last post, i know that you have made a large contribution to the photography community and i know very well that you are a perfectionist in the creation of alternative print making and many other photography related matters. I use with great satisfaction your Pyrocat developer and am thankfull for your free contribution of these formulas.
However, if i were to base my opinion on this it would not be objective and i don't want to go there.

Where we disagree is on the forums guidelines or rules or whatever we choose to call them.
Since both you and i don't own this Forum i believe we should respect QT's decision whether absurd or not.
With this i have nothing further to say but to accept that we disagree on this one issue.
I look forward to see many more contributions to this thread, it's been great so far.

jan

[sanking]

Where we disagree is on the forums guidelines or rules or whatever we choose to call them.
Since both you and i don't own this Forum i believe we should respect QT's decision whether absurd or not.
With this i have nothing further to say but to accept that we disagree on this one issue.
I look forward to see many more contributions to this thread, it's been great so far.

jan

Jan,

Of course, we have no choice but to accept QT's decision on this. That is not in question. But since one long term moderator (Barker) has expressed an opinion that is different from that another moderator (Gittings) I don't really understand why you consider the matter closed. In my world when people disagree it is necessary to reach some kind of consensus, which might be to agree to some sort of compromise, or to reject entirely one or the other points of view. But so far as I am concerned, that situation has not been reached.

Whether you agree or not with me is not important. I am merely expressing my view of the nature of alternative printmaking, and what it is and is not. Hopefully at some point the moderators will weigh in and bring closure to the issue. Until that happens I will continue to express my point of view. I have nothing against Kirk Gittings, in fact am on record as giving him credit for being a good moderator. But my feeling is that he has made a mistake here, perhaps out of ignorance for the history and practice of alternative printmaking. But whatever, my major interest will continue to be alternative printmaking, not camera format.

BTW, I do regret that my contributions in this thread have become words rather than images. But that matter was taken out of my hand by the actions of Gittings.

Regards,

Sandy King

[Jan Pedersen]

Sandy,
I may have expressed myslef a little unclear, i don't consider this issue closed in anyway. I do as you want to see a closure to this discussion.
What i meant to say was that i don't have anything more to ad to the discussion, i believe i have stated my opinion and it serves no purpose to continue just for the sake of continuation. The number of posts here witout any art attached is already to high.

Best.
jan

[Paul Metcalf]

BTW, I can't recommend Sany King's kallitype article enough -http://www.alternativephotography.com/process_kallitype.html A fantastic resource for kallitypes.Thanks Colin. I've read this article many times and it is good. Question on exposure - is the Kallitype a POP process like saltprints or vandykes? Do I review the progress of the exposure and pull it from the UV source (sun for me for now) at some appropriate time? Should this be over exposed like VD's to allow for some loss of density during fixing? thanks. Paul

[Doug Howk]

For exposure of Kallitypes, the image should be evident but not complete. Christopher James calls it a stage whisper.

[Emil Schildt]

As said before, I like to "play" with photopolymer gravure ("Solar plate" in american?).

here are two examples.
Image painted with light - then the negative (polaroid 665 pos/neg) was manipulated with sand paper - transferred to a polymer plate and printed with several colours (only one print)

http://www.phosee.dk/pictures/00000113/275-.jpg

and same story here, except, that the negative also has been treated with some bleach...

http://www.phosee.dk/pictures/00000113/274-night.jpg

[Colin Graham]

Thanks Colin. I've read this article many times and it is good. Question on exposure - is the Kallitype a POP process like saltprints or vandykes? Do I review the progress of the exposure and pull it from the UV source (sun for me for now) at some appropriate time? Should this be over exposed like VD's to allow for some loss of density during fixing? thanks. Paul

It is a developing-out process. Like Doug says, just barely evident during exposure, just as the midtones become visable. But exactly how visable will depend on how dry the paper is- I've printed some that almost act like POP if the sensitizer is still somewhat damp. You do loose some density both in the clearing and fixing stages. You do get quite a bit back if you tone after the clearing stage with a noble metal, and what you loose after that in the fix is countered by drydown, so I tended to go for something that looked about right after toning when I was using a split-frame printer and judging exposure visually.

I think you also regain some dmax toning after fixing with selenium, but it's been so long since I've used selenium I can't remember.


Here's another pd-toned kallitype. From a 3800/QTR digital negative scanned from a 5x12 incamera original. A nice thing about digital negatives you can achieve a target density and get rid of the exposure variable altogether.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/3761317013_11b97767b2_o.jpg

[Paul Metcalf]

For exposure of Kallitypes, the image should be evident but not complete. Christopher James calls it a stage whisper.thanks Doug and Colin. Sounds a bit like exposing a van dyke with the image becoming stronger during development, which makes sense now that I think about it. Time to give it a try.

[D. Bryant]

Agree with Jim, Excellent work Don.

Thanks guys, it's always rewarding to receive praise from ones peers.

Caio,

Don

[D. Bryant]

thanks Doug and Colin. Sounds a bit like exposing a van dyke with the image becoming stronger during development, which makes sense now that I think about it. Time to give it a try.

Paul,

The effect of developemnt is a lot different than developing a VDB. The developer is poured on quickly and wosh the full image appears almost instantly. Depending on the humidity and exposure the print out of the frame before development will be a whisper of the image.

I don't recommend esposure by inspection for any of the POP processes since each time the contact printing frame is opened the humidity of the print is affected. Print by time or exposure units, IMO.

Kallitype was one of the most difficult processes for me to tame (except for carbon which I am a novice). Paper staining was the primary problem and it just about made me quit the process a time or two.

Partial toning with selenium followed by gold can create beautiful tones. I've used KST but it needs to highly diluted to prevent bleaching of the print. No matter how I tone the print I use the toner as a 1 shot using a flat tray.

Good luck and have fun if you try this process.

Don Bryant

[sanking]

Kallitype was one of the most difficult processes for me to tame (except for carbon which I am a novice). Paper staining was the primary problem and it just about made me quit the process a time or two.

Partial toning with selenium followed by gold can create beautiful tones. I've used KST but it needs to highly diluted to prevent bleaching of the print. No matter how I tone the print I use the toner as a 1 shot using a flat tray.

Good luck and have fun if you try this process.

Don Bryant

Don,

I have certainly enjoyed looking at your prints, especially the toned kallitypes. Whatever difficulties you had in the beginning you seem to have solved the problem. I especially liked that gold toned kallitype that others had commented on.

Sandy King

[katie cooke]

a 4x5" clear glass ambrotype

[Emil Schildt]

a 4x5" clear glass ambrotype

how simple and stunning!

[D. Bryant]

Don,

I have certainly enjoyed looking at your prints, especially the toned kallitypes. Whatever difficulties you had in the beginning you seem to have solved the problem. I especially liked that gold toned kallitype that others had commented on.

Sandy King

Thanks for the positive comments Sandy. Without your help I probably would have gave up on the kallitype process.

I've just looked at the gold toned kallitype print again and full disclosure forces me to say that the color of the scanned print as displayed in the browser isn't totally accurate. The tones in the actual print are much more subdued, but it still looks nice. The tones in the print have a mellow rich tone and by comparison the image posted here looks a bit orange-ish. I've printed this particular negative quite a few times with different processes and people always react possitively to this image.

The shot was made the old pool room at the R.J. Reynolds mansion on Sapello Is., GA, one of my favorite places to photograph when I can get there. I probably should get a drum scan made of the original negative before it gets ruined. The image might be a good candidate for gum over palladium. Of course it also occurs to me that it might make a nice warm toned carbon print too!

Thanks,

Don

[PViapiano]

I don't know what all the hulabaloo is about...

QT posted a recent thread about Kertesz and his small contact prints in the On Photography section...so...?

[Blumine]

Here's another pd-toned kallitype. From a 3800/QTR digital negative scanned from a 5x12 incamera original. A nice thing about digital negatives you can achieve a target density and get rid of the exposure variable altogether.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/3761317013_11b97767b2_o.jpg

Colin,

If you dont mind me asking what developer are you using for your Kallitypes. I love the prints you have posted.

Thank You.

Blumine

[Colin Graham]

Thanks a bunch Blumine. I use 20% sodium citrate with 2ml of a 5% potassium dichromate solution added for contrast. The native color is sort of an angry iodine-orange, which is neutralized by the pd or pt toner.

For untoned or selenium toned stuff I used to really like 7.5% sodium acetate with 3g of tartaric acid/l and the same amount of dichromate. Nice reddish blacks. But after using noble metal toners I can't tell much difference in final print color between the developers I've tried- but the acetate does seem to have a slightly softer midtone curve.

[Paul Metcalf]

Depending on the humidity and exposure the print out of the frame before development will be a whisper of the image.
Thanks for the heads up Don, I didn't see anything about humidity in Sandy's article on Kallitypes.


I use 20% sodium citrate with 2ml of a 5% potassium dichromate solution added for contrast.
I didn't know that the potassium dichromate could be added to the developer, I always thought it was added to the sensitizer during coating. Do you know if this will work with other alternative POP techniques (i.e. saltprints)?

I posted this one on the portrait thread, another 8x10 saltprint.

[MIke Sherck]

a 4x5" clear glass ambrotype

Outstanding! What a great thing to see, first thing in the morning! Thanks for sharing!

Mike

[Blumine]

Thanks a bunch Blumine. I use 20% sodium citrate with 2ml of a 5% potassium dichromate solution added for contrast. The native color is sort of an angry iodine-orange, which is neutralized by the pd or pt toner.

For untoned or selenium toned stuff I used to really like 7.5% sodium acetate with 3g of tartaric acid/l and the same amount of dichromate. Nice reddish blacks. But after using noble metal toners I can't tell much difference in final print color between the developers I've tried- but the acetate does seem to have a slightly softer midtone curve.


Colin,

Thank you very very much! That is very nice to know, I will play sound a little bit with that next time I print.

Best!

Blumine

[katie cooke]

Gandolfi and Mike: thank you so much!

[Emil Schildt]

An old lady. and no: it isn't my mother...

Made with "Rembrandt lightning", which is something compleately different than the techniques you can read about at the web... (which to my understanding, has all to do with motion picture making)

Printed with liquid emulsion on heavy paper - selenium toned.

http://www.phosee.dk/pictures/00000113/837--ja---portraet.jpg

[Joe Smigiel]

A couple more Van Dyke Brownprints:

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/technical/VDB_Au_100307.jpg
Thiourea/gold-toned VDB



http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/Melissa_VDB.jpg
From a type 55 Polaroid negative

[Joe Smigiel]

and a full-plate ambrotype on black glass:

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/technical/collodion/Ellen_glass.jpg

[PViapiano]

Joe...love that 2nd VDB!

[Joe Smigiel]

Found one more VDB:

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/Sabattier_VDB.jpg
from a 5x7 negative given the Sabattier treatment

[Emil Schildt]

I learned this sentence long time ago: "I don't remember what I did, but I'll never forget it.."

This applies to this cyanotype I found lying somewhere in my house...

Partially toned/bleached.

http://www.emilschildt.com/cyan/_cyankala-blgul-STOR.jpg

[Ralph Barker]

For purposes of clarification, there has been no change in the forum guidelines on image posts appropriate for the core forums vs. what should be posted in The Lounge. Additionally, there is no disagreement on the matter between myself and Kirk. The only difference relates to how my earlier comment in this thread has been (mis)-interpreted, for whatever reason.

If an image is identified as originating from small format film, medium format film shot in an MF camera, or small-format digital, it should be posted in The Lounge, since such images are "off-topic" to the core forums. Images posted in the core forums are expected to be large format (4x5 film or larger), or those LF adaptations that we have historically allowed (medium-format film shot with a view camera, or from a digital back on a view camera [the digital equivalent of an MF film adapter]).

The points I was trying to make earlier were that:

1) if the capture device is not identified, we have no means of determining whether it is "large format" or not, and

2) that the format of the original capture is usually not germane to a discussion of the alternative printing process (as traditionally defined).

If the original capture format is really pertinent to the particular printing process discussion, and it doesn't qualify as "large format", the discussion should be posted in The Lounge.

Administratively, we can move non-LF thread starters to The Lounge, but cannot start new threads from a response in an existing thread, and attribute that thread to the original poster. Thus, non-qualifying responses have to be deleted.

So, to some extent, the issue becomes one of honesty of presentation and respect for the purposes of the forum. It is certainly possible for someone to post a small-format digital capture, not mention its origin, and pass it off as a large format image (the photo equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell"). We would hope that people here would be more honest, however, and simply post the (presumably interesting) image in the appropriate area - The Lounge.

Over the years, we have gone through several iterations of individuals wanting to extend the definition of "large format" to include high-pixel-count images made with small-format digital cameras (either directly or via "stitching" - combining multiple images). Our image policies reflect the fact that we have no interest in doing so, or in changing the name of the site to "The Any Format Photography Forum".

[Don Dudenbostel]

How about alternative capture without a camera vs alternative printing.

Direct x-ray on 2 - 11x14 sheets of HP-5 then scanned and joined in photoshop.

This should bring up a few questions regarding what is appropriate LF and what is not. No camera used here and the 2 11x14 sheets of HP-5 would be considered the end product. Would the sheets of film as end product be considered alternative if prints are normally the final product? Film is a silver gelatin product but on a plastic base. Would Man Ray's Rayograms be considered LF and alternative if they were done on 11x14 film or at least something as large as 4x5? If were talking alternative then let's discuss a truly alternative process.

[h2oman]

For anyone who has never checked out Don's x-ray prints of flowers, don't miss them! I also like a bunch of his older B&W work from the Appalachians, particularly the one of several young bad-ass boys smoking cigarettes with shirts open.

[Don Dudenbostel]

For anyone who has never checked out Don's x-ray prints of flowers, don't miss them! I also like a bunch of his older B&W work from the Appalachians, particularly the one of several young bad-ass boys smoking cigarettes with shirts open.

Thanks for the plug!

For those interested here's a small sample of the Appalachia. Some LF, MF and 35mm.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7168285@N04/

x-rays here but need to update the site

http://www.x-rayarts.com/

Hope you enjoy!

Don

[Andrew ren]

nice work! Don.

Andrew

[spiky247]

don't know if this would count, but here is a photo shot on slide film, then solarized in print.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2748065346_d193086d0f_o.jpg
Provia 100.
Ilford Multigrade RC paper.

[jnantz]

"found"
"hand made"
"photogram"

[D. Bryant]

don't know if this would count, but here is a photo shot on slide film, then solarized in print.


Provia 100.
Ilford Multigrade RC paper.

Any print made on factory manufactured light sensitive paper with the exception of bromoils isn't usually considered to be alternative. As for myself I also don't think Polaroid transfers or lifts or IR to alternative either. I'm on the fence for liquid emulsion.

Don

[Don Dudenbostel]

I read the thread as "alternative techniques" which could be capture technique as well as print technique. Wouldn't alternative be anthing other than the standard capture, process or printing technique?

[D. Bryant]

I read the thread as "alternative techniques" which could be capture technique as well as print technique. Wouldn't alternative be anthing other than the standard capture, process or printing technique?

Inkjet printing at one time was considered alternative. Is it now? How about pinhole or zone plate captures? Would a print made on a Lamda printer be considerd alt.? How about dye transfer?

It all depends on how liberal the phrase "alternative techniques" is interpreted.

Don

[PenGun]

I read the thread as "alternative techniques" which could be capture technique as well as print technique. Wouldn't alternative be anthing other than the standard capture, process or printing technique?

You should be a bit careful. I print fractals I generated many years ago but this is in no way photographic.

[Jim collum]

Scan of print
Dawn, Aces&Spades, North Shore
Platinum over Pigment


http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/acesspades.jpg


the color information for that print

http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/acesspadescolor.jpg