Is daguerreotype or tintype process easier?

Is daguerreotype or tintype process easier?

  • Total voters
    12

IlfordFan

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
37
Location
US
Format
DSLR
Is daguerreotype or tintype process easier? I only have a makeshift darkroom. Daguerreotype seems easier since it is not so wet in the camera, though the fume hood sounds downright overwhelming. I would really like to get into alternative process photography, so I want sorting easy to start with. Thank you for your advice.
 

Arklatexian

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
1,777
Location
Shreveport,
Format
Multi Format
The classic methods of both require very dangerous chemicals that I would not want in my darkroom. But then I am "chicken" about things like that. Hopefully the modern kits for tintypes have found a substitute........Rergards!
 

J 3

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
147
Format
Medium Format
Easily tintype just in terms of the much greater work you have to go through to produce a dag. That said there is a lot of finesse in getting a perfect tintype. With the correct equipment on hand you can go from a few bottles and raw plates to a finished tintype waiting to be varnished . You'll still be polishing a dag plate long after the tin-typer has gone home.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Dags are far more labor intensive, and far more expensive to produce (think $50/ea for a 4x5 daguerreotype vs $3 for a 4x5 tintype, just in materials costs!). They're also far more hazardous - if you do mercury-developed daguerreotypes, you're dealing with vapors of iodine and bromine (both very caustic to the lungs if inhaled) and vapors of mercury to develop (long-term heavy metal poisoning, liver/kidney damage, brain damage) if not handled properly. With tintypes, there are alternatives to using some of the nastiest stuff (cadmium bromide in the emulsion, cyanide in the fixer). And cyanide, well... unless ingested in sufficient quantity, it is not lethal, and it is much easier to protect yourself from in liquid form than vapors from boiling mercury pots.

There is the Becquerel-developed daguerreotype that eliminates the mercury development, but they lack the contrast and sharpness of a mercury-developed plate. They're also very time-consuming to produce. If you think you might ever want to do daguerreotypes, I would first learn tintypes, as some of the skills transfer. But you'll be on the hook for a lot less money should you decide tintypes and daguerreotypes aren't for you if you start with wet collodion (initial investment of say $1000 between chemistry and hardware vs $5000-ish for dags, even without a fume hood).
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid

cyanotypes are the eziest thing going for alt process work... $40 upfront will be like 2years worth of chemistry making 10 a day ...
and you don't need a darkroom, and non worries about hazardous waste to clean up ... and you can get precoated paper to try it ...
and if you have a zerox machine or copy shop 8x10 negatives are either 10¢ each ( if you want to wax the paper ) or 75¢ if you go for film...
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,934
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
You have received good answers already but it might be helpful if you describe what kind of a makeshift darkroom you have so we may advise you as to what you may need. It may help if you tell us the extent of your darkroom experience as well.

pentaxuser
 

J 3

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
147
Format
Medium Format
Both dag and tintype are ISO 1-ish (if you use bromine with the dag) blue/uv sensitive processes and require a proper red light darkroom. The dag has to be processed with a few hours of being sensitized. The tintype within a few min. A cyanotype is a dim room process a few orders of magnitude less sensitive and the sensitized paper can be stored for long periods if kept dark. Its normally not a camera media though but in camera variations do exist on the fringes of what's practical.
 
OP
OP

IlfordFan

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
37
Location
US
Format
DSLR
TheFlyingCamera said:
ags are far more labor intensive, and far more expensive to produce (think $50/ea for a 4x5 daguerreotype vs $3 for a 4x5 tintype, just in materials costs!).
Click to expand...
I can't afford $50 a photo! I can barley afford 35mm!
I have already done those.
pentaxuser said:
You have received good answers already but it might be helpful if you describe what kind of a makeshift darkroom you have so we may advise you as to what you may need. It may help if you tell us the extent of your darkroom experience as well.
Click to expand...
My darkroom is just a bedroom with a light-blocking fabric over the window and some clothing in the door crack.
 

J 3

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
147
Format
Medium Format
IlfordFan said:
My darkroom is just a bedroom with a light-blocking fabric over the window and some clothing in the door crack.
Click to expand...

There is a thread on Photrio on producing low(er) cost Dags using mirror glass and some cleverness. You'd need a large format camera but that can literally be a cardboard box with a magnifying lens spray painted black on the inside at the very cheapest end of things. Regardless dags or historical tintype are a couple levels up in terms of inconvienence getting set up. If you're ready to got there go there then awesome, that's what these forums are here for but there are other potential next steps.

Platinum printing - Very bueatiful images quite unlike glossy inkjet prints. Usable with digital negatives or camera negs. Only slightly harder than cyanotype and much more control. About $300 in initial investment (chemistry and compatable paper. A little more if you don't improvise a contact printer). About $5-15 per print and the chemistry keeps.

Rockland dry tintype kit - I'm not a huge fan but a lot less messy than historical tintype. Watch out for stale developer. Requires a large format camera. Requires the emulsion to be heated to put it on the plates.

Liquid emulsion - lots of opportunities. It's basically b&w paper chemestry in a bottle.

Harmon direct positive paper - load it up in a large format camera, shoot it at is 1 and get positive prints in normal b&w chemistry.

Gum bichromate or gum azo(less toxic) - easy to start, hard to master. Does color with seperation negatives.

Etc...
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,938
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
If you think 35mm is too expensive, forget about either of those processes. Especially if you don't want to poison yourself or others who live in close proximity to where the chemicals are being used. As has been said upthread, they both (and daguerreotype especially) need a major step up in ventilation & personal protective equipment if they are to be used safely. Anything involving bichromate/ dichromate is also potentially hazardous if not handled (and disposed of) appropriately. Liquid emulsion etc is massively less dangerous by comparison.
 

ThePhotoChemist

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
185
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Format
Large Format
Here's a little reminder that Daguerreotypes don't necessarily have to expensive plates or dangerous chemicals! Before I got my big boy Dag setup, I was able to make them using the silver from mirrored glass (significantly cheaper than silver plates) and common iodine tincture (removing the need for specialized fuming box, ventilation, etc). I only use the Becquerel method, so no mercury is required for development (though this also reduces the dynamic range of the plate, as well as an exposure roughly 60x slower)

The silver layer is much thinner than traditional clad or electroplate silver plates, so you only get one shot (normally you can polish the image off and try again if you don't like it), but you're looking at $1 - $3 for a 4x5 sized plate.

Here's an article I wrote on it, if anyone is interested.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
J 3 said:
Rockland dry tintype kit - I'm not a huge fan but a lot less messy than historical tintype. Watch out for stale developer. Requires a large format camera. Requires the emulsion to be heated to put it on the plates.
Click to expand...

you don't need a LF camera at all. i make them with 35mm and mf cameras .. you don't even need a camera..
 

J 3

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
147
Format
Medium Format
jnanian said:
you don't need a LF camera at all. i make them with 35mm and mf cameras .. you don't even need a camera..
Click to expand...
True enough, and miniatures/small plates can be fun too. Holga tintypes seem popular.

The media can take a shadowgram or a contact print image which is what I think you refer to by not needing a camera? Regardless there are lots of options.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
J 3 said:
True enough, and miniatures/small plates can be fun too. Holga tintypes seem popular.

The media can take a shadowgram or a contact print image which is what I think you refer to by not needing a camera? Regardless there are lots of options.
Click to expand...

anything you can do with film or paper you can do with that process. contact prints, sun prints photograms enlargements in camera images chemgrams glass prints metal prints ..
silver gelatin photographic emulsion is extremely versatile and benign by comparison to its collodion or daguerrian cousin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…