Duplicating/enlarging tintype?

[Donald Qualls]

One thing I hear about tintype from time to time, from people who reasonably ought to know better (and in one recent, who then went on to immediately prove himself wrong) is that a tintype is a "unique object" and "can't be duplicated the way a negative can."

This is a patently absurd statement -- even a daguerreotype can be rephotographed, though the lighting needed to show a dag image and still produce reasonable exposure times is somewhat tricky to set up. Tintypes, on the other hand, are much faster than dags and have much higher contrast at non-optimal angles. Obviously, rephotographing to any size plate you can coat, expose, and develop is not a huge big deal.

On the other hand, if I want to make, say, a 16x20 copy of one of my (so far, hypothetical) 4x5 tintype plates by this method, I'd need to have a 16x20 camera, at least improvised, and a lens that will cover 16x20 when focused for a 4:1 image size (which is much less of a problem than covering that size at infinity, at least).

It seems to me an opaque projector, built as an enlarger, would hold the answer for this -- a plate could be simply laid on the enlarger base board, the the plate to be duplicated projected with a strong, high-UV light source, suitable exposure given, and the plate developed as usual.

Potential problems are heating and UV damage to the coating of the original plate, long exposure times with continuous light (potentially solved by using continuous light to focus but high powered strobes, possibly multiple firings, for the actual exposure), and the usual issues of coating, sensitizing, and processing such a large plate.

Still, those don't seem like much larger roadblocks than wet plate photographers deal with on a routine basis -- highly flammable and potentially toxic materials, for instance, short working time for the entire process between coating and setting the plate to dry, and so forth. Yet, tintype photographers seem to act as if they're unaware of this as a possibility. Why is this? What am I missing?

 

[nmp]

You might be able to do it, but the question is why? Why not just create another original one-of-a-kind 16x20 inch plate if you were going thru all the trouble.

 

[removed account4]

blind pig made a paper negative enlarger here. >>. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/a-different-approach-for-enlarging-paper-negatives.134040/
maybe it can double time as an enlarger for your hypothetical tintypes ?

 

[ic-racer]

Photograph it with film.

 

[fgorga]

Re-photographing a tintype or a daguerreotype is not really making a duplicate of the original object... rather it is making a new object that superficially resembles the original.

This is because the originals are in fact unique objects. I submit that all of the flaws that make up a tintype are part of their charm/appeal and are what make each unique. Even if one devises a method to copy (or enlarge) a tintype using tintype materials one will end up with a substantially different object than the original. There is, in my view, simply no way to make such a copy that preserves all of the characteristics of the original without introducing new flaws in the process.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I generally agree with you, @fgorga in terms of the level of reproduction, but the way tintype photographers talk about it, it might as well be gold pressed latinum.

@nmp I see it as a lot easier to build an opaque enlarger (or modify an existing enlarger for front lighting the original) for original 4x5 plates than to create a 16x20 camera. A 150mm enlarging lens is FAR easier to come by than a 600-900 mm lens for portraits on 16x20.

 

[monst]

Just shoot onto clear glass and you can use it as a negative or back it with black velvet for a positive.

 

[fgorga]

I generally agree with you, @fgorga in terms of the level of reproduction, but the way tintype photographers talk about it, it might as well be gold pressed latinum.

Ahhh... don't confuse marketing hype with reality!

 

[removed account4]

Donald
sorry to sound like a hedonist but you might consider making small tintypes and scanning them to make them larger. ... in the end the 2ndary images are going to be reproductions and a scan will give you a better control, a better image, and better options for printing, in the end reproductions are reproductions ( whether they are film or pixels )... I've scanned silver gelatin tintypes / ferrotypes and ambrotypes before and made giant prints from them, in the end the reproductions are just that.. and they take on a life of their own.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Donald
sorry to sound like a hedonist but you might consider making small tintypes and scanning them to make them larger. ... in the end the 2ndary images are going to be reproductions and a scan will give you a better control, a better image, and better options for printing, in the end reproductions are reproductions ( whether they are film or pixels )... I've scanned silver gelatin tintypes / ferrotypes and ambrotypes before and made giant prints from them, in the end the reproductions are just that.. and they take on a life of their own.

The down side of this is that I don't know of a printing method that can accurately reproduce the look of tintype. Even tintype substitutes (like the Rockland Colloid product) don't really look quite right. The main reason I'm interested in wet plate is this almost Polaroid-like process to produce such a beautiful artifact -- and never mind the quality of the image, but do that well, too, and you create a treasure. The scanned prints I've seen from this look like, well, photographs of the tintype. A tintype of a tintype seems like it would better preserve the color and texture of the original collodion image.

 

[removed account4]

I see what you mean, and understand what you are saying but IDK. it is possible to get a faithful rendering from a scan and modern printing technology to look like wet plate ( you can even get dye sub on black aluminum printed virtually any size if you want ). what a lot of people have wrong is the rockland product is not made up to look like a wet plate, it's not their process but an actual process that existed soon after dry plates were discovered, and it was less harmful/dangerous ( you didn't need to use volatile materials or cyanide ), its what street photographers were doing with a mandelette camera ( and countless other cameras ). it doesn't look like a wet plate tintype because it isn't a wet plate tintype..
Elsa Dorfman, the Cambridge based photographer who made a career out of shooting 20x24 polaroids, used to re-photograph all of her work with color film, and make prints for her clients. maybe following her lead and using color ( film or digital ) materials and getting good at rephotographing art and artifacts (like museum catalog type work or portfolio reproduction work) might be an affordable way to make faithful reproductions. printing giant tintypes is "spendy". in Ian ruhter's video he talks about how much a big plate costs .. it isn't cheep https://www.ianruhter.com/new-gallery-1/2017/7/15/silver-light

whatever you end up doing, good luck and have fun

 

[Donald Qualls]

whatever you end up doing, good luck and have fun

I foresee much fun, with the possibility of art.

Just last night, I ran across a video from an Irish worker who makes ca. 1860 vintage process "orotone" -- glass plate positive prints on albumen, backed with (traditionally) gold leaf or bronzing powder, though he currently uses metal-flake acrylic (and mentions it can, at need, be removed from the back side of the glass). His process is very similar to wet plate -- pouring the salted albumen like collodion, though heat curing before and allowing to fully dry after sensitizing. I suspect that, plus the need to wash out all the silver nitrate in order to be able to keep the plates more than a few hours, is responsible for a speed a small fraction of that of even collodion (based on his in-camera exposures, it seems comparable to chloro-bromo-iodide daguerreotype -- multiple minutes at f/8 in Sunny 16 conditions vs. 1-5 seconds in the same conditions with wet collodion). I also saw a video on dry collodion -- similar if even a little slower, so no mystery why that process vanished; even the earliest dry gelatin plates were at least as fast as wet collodion.

I just looked over one of the plate holders for my Ideal, and I'm pretty sure I can install and remove wet collodion plates in place of the film sheaths without damaging the collodion -- I'll need to make up a pusher tool to compress the spring behind the plate while I operate the latch, but that same spring should pop the plate up enough on unlatching to get a fingernail (or the pusher tool) under the end of the plate in order to lift it out. It'd be the same process as installing and removing the film sheath, which I do in total darkness when loading film -- and for collodion, I can do it under pretty bright safelight.

That means I don't need any hardware; just the money to buy a collodion starter kit.

I also just looked for black on aluminum engraving plate -- looks like if I buy 50 or more, I can get a significant discount, 4x5 plates come in a little under $3 each, and if I can get nearest 1/16 (instead of the nearest 1/8 on the web site) 9x12 would be a bit less (because 4" width is an up charge). These are 1mm (.040") thick, so no question they'll fit my Ideal plate holders.

 

[jp498]

Nothing is quite like the look of seeing the actual silver emulsion on the glass or aluminum.. But as mentioned, I'd probably go hybrid and scan it and have it printed on metal. It wouldn't have the 3d of the actual silver on glass or aluminum and bad pour, but it would look pretty good.

 

[removedacct1]

Nothing is quite like the look of seeing the actual silver emulsion on the glass or aluminum.

If its the unique "sparkling silver on black" look of an authentic tintype you want to preserve when making a duplicate, then you have little choice but to make multiples of that image in-camera. Nothing else is going to replicate the look (which is why many wet plate artists say their work is "one of a kind", which in that sense, it is: nothing disingenuous or misleading in that statement). I'm sure there may be ways to make copies that have some of the same characteristics, but you'll be faced with enormous technical challenges (involving contrast management, etc) and you may find it self-limiting. But hey, by all means find out for yourself. Its only money, after all!

Just personal opinion here: trophy plate is great for beginners, but its actually a very poor medium to work on: its simply not BLACK, compared to Japan black varnish. Ambrotypes will also yield far better results.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@paulbarden For ambrotypes, however, I'm back to finding glass that will fit in my plate holders, or buying or altering more hardware. I may well finish in that region, but to start, I very much like the idea of the plates coming pre-cut, pre-painted, right thickness, ready to clip into my 1920s vintage camera. Once I can reliably make a good tintype on 9x12 trophy plate, I'll consider moving up to 4x5 (about 25% more per plate, just for the trophy plate), and glass or lacquered "tin". I got the idea for that, however, from a video by a professional who apparently keeps a shop open in San Francisco making "instant" portraits on trophy plate.

Thinnest glass I've seen that's readily obtained is 1/16 storm window glass (soda-lime float glass, smooth and cheap), and as noted far back up the thread, that may be too thick for common plate holders (glass plates used to be 1mm, as I recall -- though I can easily check one of my film sheaths). Acrylic is cheaper and lighter than glass, not to mention less prone to shattering -- but I don't think it would stand up to the collodion without crazing or softening, and polycarbonate is more expensive than soda-lime float glass.

 

[removedacct1]

@paulbarden For ambrotypes, however, I'm back to finding glass that will fit in my plate holders, or buying or altering more hardware. I may well finish in that region, but to start, I very much like the idea of the plates coming pre-cut, pre-painted, right thickness, ready to clip into my 1920s vintage camera. Once I can reliably make a good tintype on 9x12 trophy plate, I'll consider moving up to 4x5 (about 25% more per plate, just for the trophy plate), and glass or lacquered "tin". I got the idea for that, however, from a video by a professional who apparently keeps a shop open in San Francisco making "instant" portraits on trophy plate.

Thinnest glass I've seen that's readily obtained is 1/16 storm window glass (soda-lime float glass, smooth and cheap), and as noted far back up the thread, that may be too thick for common plate holders (glass plates used to be 1mm, as I recall -- though I can easily check one of my film sheaths). Acrylic is cheaper and lighter than glass, not to mention less prone to shattering -- but I don't think it would stand up to the collodion without crazing or softening, and polycarbonate is more expensive than soda-lime float glass.

Trophy plate is great for beginners to learn the process. Beyond that.....its inferior material.

About glass: I buy 8X10 inch $1.00 picture frames from the local Dollar Tree store: they have 1.3 mm glass in them. One piece of glass that cost me $1 makes four 4x5 negatives or ambrotypes. All of my glass negatives from the past 2 years have been made on this glass. I've even used it in my Box Brownie 3b and my Holga to make negatives. Its easy to cut to specific dimensions.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Trophy plate is great for beginners to learn the process. Beyond that.....its inferior material.

About glass: I buy 8X10 inch $1.00 picture frames from the local Dollar Tree store: they have 1.3 mm glass in them. One piece of glass that cost me $1 makes four 4x5 negatives or ambrotypes. All of my glass negatives from the past 2 years have been made on this glass. I've even used it in my Box Brownie 3b and my Holga to make negatives. Its easy to cut to specific dimensions.

Well, that's just about like film beginners learning on Kodak 200 or Fomapan, then deciding if they need "better" film. Some do, some (like me) never find HP5+ or Tri-X enough better than Fomapan to both spending the extra money.

Dollar Tree picture frames -- just for the glass. I like it! I'll need a glass cutter, should be six or seven bucks at Lowe's, maybe two or three at Harbor Freight. I learned to cut glass in about 1972, it should come back to me. I'll get four 9x12 out of those, too, with a a few narrow strips of waste (that I might be able to use to practice flowing collodion). A scythe stone from Harbor Freight, too (used to use those to take the snags off stained glass before wrapping the copper foil on), or a little round diamond hone. I can make up the pusher tool for seating the plates from brass tube I already have on hand.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hmm. i just looked for picture frames at Dollar General (I was there anyway for something else), and all the 4x6 and 8x10 frames they had appeared to be acrylic or (unlikely, due to higher cost) polycarbonate rather than glass, and they're $5 for an 8x10 anyway (decorative, not plain frames). I drive past a Dollar Tree on my way to and from work, I'll have to drop in and check there.

 

[Coldstored]

Trophy plate is great for beginners to learn the process. Beyond that.....its inferior material.

Why is trophy plates inferior in terms of material?

 

[removedacct1]

Why is trophy plates inferior in terms of material?

Because compared to a properly japanned metal plate, its not black, its just dark grey. Also, we do not know the long term archival properties of collodion on trophy plate, because its only been used in practice for a few years.

 

[AgX]

It seems to me an opaque projector, built as an enlarger, would hold the answer for this.

Basically this existed, to make enlargements of cardboard negatives in postwar years.


But of course one could use an episcope too.