mrcallow said:Thank you David, smieglitz. You are free to elaborate...
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.
mrcallow said:This would be very acceptable and I would like to know more.
Mr C, There are several ways of doing this, Colldion plates are an example.
The most common way is by using a silver nitrate solution such as Liquid Light to coat a surface and then expose on to it. Have seen this done with many types of surface, inculdeing rocks. Another way, such as with fabric is to treat it like watercolour paper and sensitise it as you would that. There are some good books around about it, whose names escape me, except for "Coming into Focus".
livemoa said:mrcallow said:This would be very acceptable and I would like to know more.
Mr C, There are several ways of doing this, Colldion plates are an example.
The most common way is by using a silver nitrate solution such as Liquid Light to coat a surface and then expose on to it. Have seen this done with many types of surface, inculdeing rocks. Another way, such as with fabric is to treat it like watercolour paper and sensitise it as you would that. There are some good books around about it, whose names escape me, except for "Coming into Focus".
there is also the book Silver Gelatin which is the bible on using liquid silver emulsions coated on virtually any surface.
i've a question for you mrcallow ...
i make negatives on glass without a camera -
(coat the glass with materials etch it, coat some more &C ) and then enlarge onto photo paper. some might call it an enlarged photogram, i don't really know what to call it. would that fit into your alt process area ?
- john
jnanian said:livemoa said:there is also the book Silver Gelatin which is the bible on using liquid silver emulsions coated on virtually any surface.
i've a question for you mrcallow ...
i make negatives on glass without a camera -
(coat the glass with materials etch it, coat some more &C ) and then enlarge onto photo paper. some might call it an enlarged photogram, i don't really know what to call it. would that fit into your alt process area ?
- john
It would fit Alt far better than the general categories of Novice or Veteran. It sounds very interesting.
Analog = analogue = not digital. Yes.lofty said:what is an analog print please? is this an American term?
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...lofty said:what is an analog print please? is this an American term?
Bob F. said: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.
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...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.
Alex Hawley said:One analog method that gets into digital trouble is the three Polaroid manipulations; SX-70 manipulation, emulsion transfer, and emulsion lift.
The three processes by themselves are all analog. Problem is, they yield a one-of-a-kind result. They could be copied with film and a copy camera, but this negates printing the dupes on watercolor paper.
One has to resort to scanning the original, then printing it with an inkjet. So I suppose this falls into the same realm as an enlarged digital negative. The originals could be entered in the contest but they tend to be kind of small (unless you're lucky, or wealthy, enough, to have an 8x10 polaroid processor). But I feel like parting with the originals is like parting with a good negative - it might not come back in good shape.
smieglitz said: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'm interested in the resinopigmentype, does the link still exist?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
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?