Wet Plate for Architectural & Portrait

[Andreas]

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

[paulbarden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim Meisburger]

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

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

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

[Wesito]

Thank you Paul! Your advice is very helpful!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wesito]

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

[AgNO3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance.

[paulbarden]

Thank you Paul! Your advice is very helpful!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Hofstätter will be an excellent teacher. Good choice.

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

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

[AgNO3]

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

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

Marcus Hofstätter will be an excellent teacher. Good choice.

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

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

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

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

[Tim Meisburger]

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

[paulbarden]

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

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

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