• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Needed: The Many Forms of Analog

mrcallow said:
Thank you David, smieglitz. You are free to elaborate...
Click to expand...

Never done these but my understanding is:

Tintypes/Ferrotypes and Melainotypes (all the same thing) are direct positive wetplate collodion images made on a sheet of japanned (blackened) iron plate...contemporary workers use anodized aluminum plates as well. As with daguerreotypes and ambrotypes, tintypes are direct positive images and unique physical objects which must be copied optically in the camera for any duplicates to be made. All of these images are also reversed optically as mirror images of the subject;

A Chrysotype is a print made using light-sensitve gold salts (google Mike Ware or Terry King for more information);

An Anthotype is a print made with the juices of certain flowers (I believe the process was invented by Sir John Herschel the astronomer, inventor of the cyanotype process, the person that coined the word "photography" and a friend and portrait sitter for Julia Margaret Cameron);

The obscure dusting-on process involves the application of a powdered pigment to a wet/sticky photographic matrix. I believe honey is used and the matrix behaves something like a lithographic plate might repelling the pigment in proportion to moisture content (but don't quote me that...IIRC, I think the Fresson family also had something to do with the origin of this process but again...);

I also just remembered the contemporary gumoil process of Karl Koenig. It is like a cross between gum bichromate and an oil print. IIRC, a dichromate print is made from a contact positive. This image is essentially invisible (but negative) consisting only of an unpigmented gum arabic + dichromate emulsion which hardens in proportion to exposure of the dichromate sensitizer. Water washes away areas of gum that have not received sufficient exposure (just as in the normal gum bichromate proces). Once dry, these cleared areas leave the paper substrate exposed. Oil paints are then rubbed onto the paper surface coloring it in part and then the excess oils are rubbed off. The remaining gum image is then etched back a bit chemically, washed again and dried. This leaves new areas of paper revealed. More oil paint is rubbed on to color these new areas and blend with earlier colors. The process is repeated until the print looks satisfactory.

Joe
 
mrcallow said:
Mordancages, from what i know is an altered neg (yes?) and then an enlargement or contact. In my mind it would depend upon the degree of alteration and how I felt about the work in relation to (really) traditional prints.
Click to expand...

Both yes and no, I use the process on both negs and prints. Actually, it´s a way to rearrange the silveremulsion on the film or paper. Unless you wipe of the emulsion, the pictures are still there. Some parts solarize and some parts don´t.

What confuses me is that Polariod transfers/lifts are considered an Alt tec. There are no large negs done, no Uv light, not any lightsensitive emulsion applicated just water and then over to a different paper.
This makes me wonder if Alt tecs are defined by use of nonphotographic papers only.
So basicly - if I use Liquid Light or homemade silveremulsion on a paper, contactcopy a large neg, Mordancage it - it will be an Alt tec?

Please, please give me a lot of opinions I need to know once and for all.
 
I am reading this thread with a little bit of amusement actually. I can't believe people don't understand the concept of 'no digital' or 'analog'. I thought it was obvious, but I guess people are looking for loop holes.

And I thought Aggie had it bad, MrCallow will be in for worse, I suspect. No good deed will go unpunished....

Art. (Coming to the realization that many photographers are prima donnas...)
 
Art I think the thread has taken a turn for the better and is now on track.


Eva,
The alt part could apply to taking, developing (altering) the neg or how the print is made or any out of common combination of the three.

Would it be helpful if we made the decision?

Joe,
Thanks a bunch. That was a helpful post. As an aside, my wife is doing an honours paper on Julia Margaret Cameron over the summer. She has an appointment at the University library to spend a day looking at original books illustrated by or done during Ms Cameron's time. It is rather cool.
 
I usually think of "alt" as something involving a handcoated print medium, rather than a manipulated conventional or Polaroid print, but I can see how for the purposes of a contest you might group things one way or the other.

My own inclination would be to have one category for handcoated materials and another for manufactured materials ("alt" being a bit vague), and prints in either category might be manipulated in any non-digital way the printer is inclined (and if someone is doing something like gum over Azo, ask the handcoaters whether they would accept that as a "handcoated" print or would kick it over to the "manufactured" category).
 
 
 
 
Couple of other process have not seen mentioned are - Mike Ware's argyrotype, which is like the earlier argentotype. Anyway it is an iron based process, and I have NO experience with it.

The other is the Orotone (one of my favorite images is an Orotone) - this appears to be a ambryotype in which the back has been coated with gold, giving a very 3-D look. These were made some what popular by Edward Curtis and many of the examples are of his work.

BTW-Nice list David
 
photopolymergravure?
half photo - half grafic printing...
 
lofty said:
what is an analog print please? is this an American term?
Click to expand...
No, but it is US English spelling. For "analog(ue) photography" read "traditional" or "wet chemical" photography - "analogue" being used as an "opposite" to "digital"... Personally, I usually say "traditional" rather than "analogue" but that's more a matter of style than substance (much as a US writer might write all those double-quotes as single ones... ).

Cheers, Bob.
 

We once had a chatroom discussion about using Traditional Photography as the name for the magazine. The initials would havwe been TP or what we over here call toilet paper. That Idea got flushed real fast.
 
Aggie said:
We once had a chatroom discussion about using Traditional Photography as the name for the magazine. The initials would havwe been TP or what we over here call toilet paper. That Idea got flushed real fast.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see that idea had to be headed off and canned before anyone could be torn off a strip for allowing the name to be used...
 

I do all of these manipulations you mention, and a few others using Polaroid (or Fuji Instant) films. However, I never enlarge, nor copy photograph, any of those. There is a power in a small image, when it is done well. The only Polaroid manipulations I have ever exhibited have been the originals, and those that sold were the only edition.

To me, using Polaroid materials in this way sort of bridges painting and photography. Probably many people don't accept it as an art form, but that is a personal preference.

When I have sent off Polaroid work for consideration in judging, it has been sometimes advantageous to not send an original. In such a situation, a transparency (copy) of the original is sent. Then if an image was accepted for display, the original work would be sent as a matted and framed piece.

Funny this comes up in a discussion. I just sent off an original Polaroid 690 Transfer to my mom for Mother's Day. It was shot using my view camera to directly make a Polaroid capture, which was then immediately transferred onto Fabriano paper. The only electricity part of the entire process was the reading on my Sekonic L-358 light meter.

Ciao!

Gordon
 
Just an added note, I know the conference is over, but I find few Polaroid discussions here . . . or for that matter very few anywhere on the internet.

Since I don't have many posts here, I thought it better to reply to an existing thread. Of course, I would be happy to participate on a new thread. I don't think I have enough posts to start a thread on my own.

Thanks everyone,

Ciao!

Gordon
 

RESINOPIGMENTYPE, THE POWDER PROCESS, DUSTING-ON PROCESS, NEGROGRAPHIC PROCESS, ANTHRACOTYPE, THE ANILINE PROCESS and VANADIUM PRINTING defined in the following post (sorry for the caps; it was in the post that way and I am too lazy to retype it).

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
 
I'm interested in the resinopigmentype, does the link still exist?

Thanks
 
carioca said:
I'm interested in the resinopigmentype, does the link still exist?

Thanks
Click to expand...

2006? I don't remember even responding, but here is a hint for everyone; GOOGLE (or your favorite search engine).

A couple of possibilities:

http://gluedideas.com/content-colle...ory-practice/Dusting-On-Processes-677_P1.html

Which references the following...

Photography: Theory and Practice by George E. Brown (1937), PDF, free to download...
https://archive.org/details/PhotographyTheoryAndPractice/page/n11

And also try...

E. J. Wall - "Photographic Facts and Formulas" (1924) 414 pages, PDF, free to download...
https://archive.org/details/photographicfact00wall/page/356

Check out Page 314 "Miscellaneous Printing Processes"; it should be in this section.

There are a TON of free, scanned Public Domain books on photographic processes in the Internet Archive (archive.org) and The Digital Media Project (https://archive.org/details/mediahistory).
 
Thanks!

Of course I have googled the topic, but this particular process only gives a small handful of results, it was a very uncommon and short living technique.

Sidney
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register