I must be bored... but I googled vellum paper it seems you can get it everywhere, but from this copy and paste it seems that its no longer the real deal
Vellum is a unique type of paper used for arts and crafts. Though it used to refer only to a type of paper made from calfskin, modern vellum is made from cotton andwood pulp. It can be used for making greeting cards or scrapbooking, as well as for tracing designs.
Ok so who is using calfskin for their prints?????
Minor quibble: it's a print from a calotype on salted paper, not the calotype itself. The printing process used by Hill and Adamson was not made public and we are left to speculate about it. It's possible this print was sensitized with ammonio-nitrate of silver. Interesting reading here.FWIW, I love this Calotype: Robert Adamson, David Octavius Hill 1843 - 1847
That's right and nowadays the word "vellum" has been so corrupted that it hardly means anything at all. Sometimes it means a kind of tracing paper and sometimes it refers to the surface texture of opaque paper. Also the word "linen" has been abused horribly and most "linen" paper these days is not made from linen (flax fiber) but only means the surface has been textured with crisscrossing lines to look like fabric.Vellum is a unique type of paper used for arts and crafts. Though it used to refer only to a type of paper made from calfskin, modern vellum is made from cotton andwood pulp.
Ok so who is using calfskin for their prints?????
Thanks NedThat's right and nowadays the word "vellum" has been so corrupted that it hardly means anything at all. Sometimes it means a kind of tracing paper and sometimes it refers to the surface texture of opaque paper. Also the word "linen" has been abused horribly and most "linen" paper these days is not made from linen (flax fiber) but only means the surface has been textured with crisscrossing lines to look like fabric.
When paper first became more available in Europe in the 13th century, most governments continued to use animal skin vellum ( or even imported papyrus ) for official documents because they -- with good reason -- didn't trust the paper to last. In the past year, I've read several books about the history of paper: "Paper, paging through history" by Mark Kurlansky is a good one. He also wrote a fascinating book called "Salt" about the history of salt, so he covered two subjects near to the heart of people who make salt prints!
I proposed that this was a "salt print" to my resident MFA Art Historian and was corrected that it was a callotype. My resident expert was not hold reference works in hand so... In any case your comment is fair but for my purposes, it is way old and I like it unlike a huge number of images from that time.Minor quibble: it's a print from a calotype on salted paper, not the calotype itself. The printing process used by Hill and Adamson was not made public and we are left to speculate about it. It's possible this print was sensitized with ammonio-nitrate of silver. Interesting reading here.
In the UK, Acts of Parliament are still inked on animal-skin vellum.When paper first became more available in Europe in the 13th century, most governments continued to use animal skin vellum ( or even imported papyrus ) for official documents because they -- with good reason -- didn't trust the paper to last.
... it is way old and I like it unlike a huge number of images from that time.
There is no mystery or magic. It takes so little extra effort to process archivally, I don't understand why anyone would not want to do so. Of course, you do have a choice in the matter, so, like most things in life and photography, it is up to you what you want to do.I absolutely understand the reasons why it might be desirable for photographs to be 'archival', however that is defined. But the amount of threads it generates seems to me to be out of proportion to the "significance" of most photographic output. Is it one of those cases where the people have got so lost in the process involved that they've lost sight of why they're doing it? The discussion gets saturated in moralising language: "It's the right way of doing things" ... well, no.It is, however, a way of doing things, and no worse or better for that.
Besides, that rock already has writing on it. It says:"Jesus Saves". At least the ones that I have seen out West do. Anything else has a pictograph already on it left there by an earlier traveler, probably before Columbus was born by a thousand years or so which, unlike many, I think should be left alone. However Sirius summed it up in fewer words.........Regards!That is vandalism and it defaces the rock.
When I said I was taught to archivally (as much as possible) process prints in my darkroom, they only meant the final print or prints, not test strips, etc. because they were just that, TEST (use and throw away unless you have further use for them). One of my mentors is still alive and I could send him an email and ask him but he would probably think I was joking so I will wait until the next time I see him in person so I can bring him a glass of water if he needs it before answering........Regards!hi, its me, the OP of this old thread ..
the idea behind me starting this thread had to do with me digging through 35+ year old boxes of
high school and college prints. i never threw anything out, ever. i found poorly made prints, in both fiber and rc,
test strips and final prints. the test strips and bad test prints were all processed archivally like the final prints, i figured
there really is no point in not processing anything archivally, i thought they were interesting enough to save at the time, and at one point
a college roomate laughed because i took that puddy stuff and covered a wall or 2 with all this stuff where i was living. it was kind of fun but
at the same time i still can't figure out why i saved or bothered to save it all. and i haven't looked in the boxes again so i don't remember if
i put them in the trash or decided they were important enough that they be saved.
the idea that someone ( me ) would save scraps of paper that mean nothing i thought was kind of absurd. then, here on photrio ( then apug )
people are making every single thing they make archival. it got me wondering whose archive are we all making these images for ?
i know if i am lucky 1% of what i have made will have any sort of artistic, cultural or archival importance. was i just vain for just saving it all ?
i still archivally wash everything, i still perma wash everything i still take care and do things right ... probably out of habit not vanity ...and when i
make retina prints and sun prints if i open the dark drawer 1 month or 1 year or 1 day later and the images are still there on the paper i am secretly happy they didn't vanish
ned and mike
i wondered the same thing about calotype vs salt prints ... and i contacted a photo historian at a museum years ago
and what i was told was a little bit of what you both said. the process to make the NEGATIVE is a calotype a print made on salted paper is a salt print
AND ... if a calotype negative is printed on a salted paper print it might be called a calotype print or a salt print and a talbotype...
its too bad lord whft isn't here to actually correct us cause it is kind of confusing !
Screw the word "archival". I was taught to treat the prints so they would last "as long as possible", no more. You can use your own definition of what that means. There may be someone in this world who is busy "perfecting archival technique" but in over 60 years in photography, I have never met that person. I know these people exist because books have been written on the subject. The "its the right way of doing things" has, for me, no moral connotations. However, "it is the right thing to do" does.........Regards!I absolutely understand the reasons why it might be desirable for photographs to be 'archival', however that is defined.
But the amount of threads it generates seems to me to be out of proportion to the "significance" of most photographic output.
Is it one of those cases where the people have got so lost in the process involved that they've lost sight of why they're doing it?
The discussion gets saturated in moralising language: "It's the right way of doing things" ... well, no.
It is, however, a way of doing things, and no worse or better for that.
Still, if someone wants to spend forever "perfecting" their archival washing toning and mounting techniques, washing and testing and washing and testing, when their prints are destined for shoebox rather than the archives of the British Museum, who am I to decry that?
I make cyanotypes. I flatter myself that some of them are beautiful, though I'm less sure that they are works of art.
Sometimes I stick them in the window for other people to see. It's south-facing.
They get UV damaged, window condensation gets on them, spiders and flies shit on them, and after a couple of years they are so degraded that they are really good only for the bin.
I also once did a little bit of documentation work for a performance artist.
I made the prints as good as I could given my lack of skill & interest in darkroom work, and tested them for retained silver and whatnot so that I was reasonably confident they'd be good in her archive long after we're both dead.
I don't argue with her, either. I take an executive approach and let her be in charge of that stuff.Me too, and to OP's point, some of them are remarkably well preserved. Including some of Hill and Adamson's.
( I won't argue w/ an MFA -- I don't agree, but I won't argue)
If you can follow the instructions, you can "perfect archival technique". It is not alchemy. There are a lot of people that want to wrap shooting film and darkroom printing into some sort of mysterious process like they are members of the Illumanati.There may be someone in this world who is busy "perfecting archival technique" but in over 60 years in photography, I have never met that person.
hi, its me, the OP of this old thread ..
the idea behind me starting this thread had to do with me digging through 35+ year old boxes of
high school and college prints. i never threw anything out, ever. i found poorly made prints, in both fiber and rc,
test strips and final prints. the test strips and bad test prints were all processed archivally like the final prints, i figured
there really is no point in not processing anything archivally, i thought they were interesting enough to save at the time, and at one point
a college roomate laughed because i took that puddy stuff and covered a wall or 2 with all this stuff where i was living. it was kind of fun but
at the same time i still can't figure out why i saved or bothered to save it all. and i haven't looked in the boxes again so i don't remember if
i put them in the trash or decided they were important enough that they be saved.
the idea that someone ( me ) would save scraps of paper that mean nothing i thought was kind of absurd. then, here on photrio ( then apug )
people are making every single thing they make archival. it got me wondering whose archive are we all making these images for ?
i know if i am lucky 1% of what i have made will have any sort of artistic, cultural or archival importance. was i just vain for just saving it all ?
i still archivally wash everything, i still perma wash everything i still take care and do things right ... probably out of habit not vanity ...and when i
make retina prints and sun prints if i open the dark drawer 1 month or 1 year or 1 day later and the images are still there on the paper i am secretly happy they didn't vanish
And this speaks to part of my point. At the time you thought this stuff was important. As you endured 35 years of experience your context changed as did your sense of importance. I have an image that I shot very early in my learning the camera and film from 1975 which got printed that same year. It is still crisp and neutral toned. Contemporary efforts to print it have benefitted from digital management but none of that is possible unless the neg was properly exposed. That said, archival or not, good chemistry properly processed is the key. Nothing artsy-fartsy, or densitometry geeky, just following the recipe.
chemical based black and white photographers are fixated on a lot of things
from getting beautiful full scale images, to the perfect combination of grain and sharpness and bokeh
to getting positive vibes from using old and new beautiful cameras that could probably be in a museum somewhere
but they are also fixated on archival quality of images.
some say if procesed correctly a black and white fibre ( and maybe rc ) prints can last 500 years.
unless the images are in a public or private archive or museum why do we care if our photographs are able to last hundreds, or some say close to 1000 years.
are we vain ? are our photographs that interesting that they will dodge the dumpster and make it to the future ?
im guilty of some of the things ive mentioned, i like using old junk cameras, i like making photographs i like to make
and some of them make it to the library of congress or state archives, some of it to a pile on the darkroom shelf,
even though theyare archival i am not quite sure teh ones on the shelf will dodge teh dumpster.
why do you make archival photographs ?
My photographs are inherently archival ... that's because I don't consider them finished until I've backed them up (they're digital, either original or scan).
digital files are inherently archival?
that's the first i have heard of that ...
people i know who are heavily involved with this digital age we are in
cringed when i told them state and local HABS/HAER submissions
were digital. they remarked that digital is not archival at all.[/QUOTE
Hearsay rules in some circles.
Hearsay rules in some circles
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?