Wishing You all a Happy New Year.
I am participating in the following exhibits in the first months of 2013. If you are around, please check them out.
-The Kiernan Gallery | Lexington exhibition – 30 January – 23 February 2013
Jill Endfield’s upcoming new book will also include 2 of my tintypes.
“Jill Enfied’s Guide to Photographic Alternative Processes: Popular Historical and Contemporary Techniques”.
Copper Plate based Photogravure in chine-collé. Japanese Gampi paper on Arches paper.This print is a cooperative effort between Unai San Martin and myself.
Image picked up for upcoming exhibit called “New Directions- Beautiful My Desire”
wall space | Santa Barbara exhibition – 4 January – 3 February 2013
wall space | Seattle exhibition – 5 February – 3 March 2013
I am participating in a group exhibit at Rayko Photo Center in San Francisco. It is no secret that Rayko is my favorite photography hang out in the city. If you are in SF between those dates make sure to visit their gallery.
Rayko Photo Center | San Francisco exhibition – December 19, 2012 – January 11, 2013
Carbon print Opalotype from a glass negative.
Carbon print orotone from a glass negative.
Glass plate negative 4”x5” from early 1900’s purchased from a West Chester, PA estate.
Printed in collodio chloride from a wet collodion-on-glass negative. Rochester, NY.
Collodio Chloride print made from a gelatin-on-glass negative of the late 1800s.
Positive from 4” x 5” glass negative, circa late 1800’s.
Printed in collodio chloride from a dry plate collodion-on-glass negative shot at George Eastman House International Museum of Photography and Film in Rochester, NY.
This was a 6 1/2 minutes exposure with intermittent sunlight and clouds covering the sun.
I am back again making collodio chloride prints.
Printed in collodio chloride from wet glass plate negatives shot at the Skylight Studio as part of the wet and dry glass plate collodion negative workshop with Mark Osterman and France Scully. They were scanned prior to fixing and toning in gold chloride, hence the red tones.
The first image (printed from a wet glass plate negative) shot by Mr. Osterman as a test.
Salt Print from a wet collodion negative (crystalotype). The salt print was the first photographic printing process introduced by William Henry Fox Talbot in the 1830s in England. Image taken at the skylight studio during “The Wet and Dry Plate Negative Workshop” with Mark Osterman.
A few words on Wet and Dry Plate Negatives:
Glass negatives are sharp and prints made from them produced fine detail. A photographer can produce several prints from one negative.
In 1851, Frederick Scoff Archer, an English sculptor, invented the wet plate. Using a viscous solution of collodion, he coated glass with light-sensitive silver salts. Being glass instead of paper, this wet plate created a more stable and detailed negative. Before a reliable, dry-plate process was invented (ca. 1879) photographers had to develop negatives quickly before the emulsion dried. Producing photographs from wet plates involved many steps.
A clean sheet of glass is evenly coated with collodion. In a darkroom or a light-tight chamber, the coated plate is immersed in a silver nitrate solution, sensitizing it to light. After being sensitized, the wet negative is placed in a light-tight holder and inserted into the camera, which is already pre-positioned and focused. The “dark slide,” which protected the negative from light, and the lens cap are removed for several seconds, allowing light to expose the plate. The “dark slide” is then inserted back into the plate holder, which now is removed from the camera.
In the darkroom, the glass plate negative is taken from the plate holder and developed, washed in water, and fixed so that the image would not fade, then washed again (re-developed if needed) and dried. Usually the negatives are coated with a varnish to protect the surface. After development, the plates are printed on paper and mounted.
In 1879, the dry plate was invented, a glass negative plate with a dried gelatin emulsion, but before that dry collodion plates were used. Dry plates could be stored for a period of time making it easy to develop them at one’s leisure.
Photographers no longer needed a portable darkroom and could hire technicians to develop their photographs. Also certain dry processes absorbed light quickly and so rapidly that the hand-held camera was made feasible.
Produced to be viewed with a projector, lantern slides were both popular home entertainment and an accompaniment to speakers on the lecture circuit. The practice of projecting images from glass plates began centuries before the invention of photography.
However, in the 1840s, Philadelphia daguerreotypists, William and Frederick Langenheim, began experimenting with The Magic Lantern as an apparatus for displaying their photographic images.
The Langenheims were able to create a transparent positive image, suitable for projection. The brothers patented their invention in 1850 and called it a Hyalotype (hyalo is the Greek word for glass). The following year they received a medal at the Crystal Palace Exposition in London.
A few images from the Wet & Dry Collodion Negative Workshop:
Tintype memento from the Scully & Osterman Studio. Shot with a large format bon ton camera by Mark Osterman.
Positive from 5” x 8” glass negative, circa 1890.
From the series Victorian Microscopic Glass Slide series.
Brass & Glass Heaven:
360 mm Voigtlander & Sohn Braunschweig 8″x10″ Rapid Recilinear 4.
A print of albumenized tea bags by Cathy Cakebread.
Secret Heart, a half-plate daguerreotype by Curtis Wehrfritz exhibited at ”Not Kansas” show at Rayko, SF.
Ambrotype by Filipe Alves.
Opalotype from Victorian microscope slide, ophion.
I promised a while back to Lawrence to make a collodio-chloride print (aka POP) from his beautiful nocturnal Seattle view. In the past, I always had positive experiences when printing POP, but this time around I am having a definite love/hate relationship with this process.
I understand that not all negatives (or positives depending on the process) work well with every process, but this is now officially ridiculous. After repeated testing of this negative I have reached some conclusions.
This negative has a definite balance of extremes (light and darkness) that when printed in POP tends to go like this: too much light (in general in the taller structures) v.s. not enough darkness (at the bottom of the frame) v.s. balancing out an acceptable graininess level in the sky, where any imbalance of darkness and lightness is most delicate.
A month and a half ago I printed the best option for the collodio-chloride paper I was using at the time (yes, the coated paper is also a variable here) and satisfied with the result I sent it to matte.
Two weeks later, I got the print back and I was immediately surprised to discover that the color had begun to shift. This pointed to potential problems in fixing/toning the print, I thought. After some testing of the chemicals and paper, I am now not so sure that to be the cause.
I have decided to take a break from this negative for reasons known as keeping sanity and today I am back at it. The post above is the first test with the newly coated paper, this time in 8×10 at 3,30 secs of UV exposure. Crossing my fingers.