New to Kallitypes but want to try

Hi everyone! I am hopeful that some of you veterans can help me as I am about to embark on a Kallitype adventure!

Naturally, I have questions:
I read in the "Coming Into Focus" book that brushes should not have any metal on them as the metal will react badly with some chemicals. Is this true? If so, then where do I get suitable brushes?? I also read that up to nine trays would be needed - I think instead of following the book's procedure, I will use the one so kindly written by Sandy King. But as I want to try other processes as well, I'm wondering if any of them share some of the same chemicals? Or should I just buy a Kallitype kit?
One last question - I read in the Sandy King's article that the negative (original or digital) should have a density range of about log 1.8. What does that mean? Is there any way someone can post visual examples of this? As I'm just beginning, I don't want to buy any fancy measuring devices; specialty stuff will come later once I've had more time to experiment.

Of course, if there are any tips you might want to share, I will certainly welcome them.

Thanks!!

Uh oh... did I ask to many questions?

I haven't done Kallitypes, but I have done quite a few van Dyke prints.

I use a very cheap brush - a pack of ten cost the equivalent of $1.80 in the supermarket. So I got brushes for salt prints, cyanotypes and van Dykes at the same time - and when they get too grubby, I throw them away. There's metal on them - that doesn't matter. It's only a potential problem if the metal is rusted.

I use one single tray. Wash, dump, wash, dump, fix, dump, wash. Kallitypes must be developed and cleared too, AFAIK. Still doable in a single tray.

A density range of log 1.8 is a lot of contrast. A "normal" negative for enlarging has something like log 0.6! I don't use a densitometer, so I can't really help you there. But in my experience van Dykes need a lot less contrast than that, log 1.8 is far up in POP/albumen territory!

Kallitype can be considered as the silver version of platinum/palladium, and similar contrast controls are available. Someone else will surely come along soon with a proper explanation.

To make things easy on yourself, why not start out with van Dyke? Much simpler, very similar result, and then you'll learn a lot of the basics before moving on to more complex processes like Kallitype and Pd/Pt.

Ole said:

Kallitype can be considered as the silver version of platinum/palladium, and similar contrast controls are available. Someone else will surely come along soon with a proper explanation.

Click to expand...

Ole, can you exercise control over the contrast to the same degree with Van Dyke printing ? I am hoping to start some printing soon and this might be a good way of an introduction before I decide what process I an going to get involved in.

I like Satista better, and found ti easier than Kallitype. If you want to check it out the process is described in alternativephotography.com

Hey guys, I'm certainly not trying to be rude so please don't take offense. But could we possibly keep this thread on the topic of Kallitypes? Ole, I understand that the Van Dyke process might be easier but it doesn't trip my trigger as much. Thanks all!

Now you Kallitype veterans, lets talk!

Satista is another type of silver printing similar to Kallitype, this is why I mentioned it, since I tried both and found satista easier and able to produce nicer results, at least my case....sorry, I wont do it again..

Jorge, please don't be offended I just didn't want this thread to become a discussion of the VanDyke process and I did ask some pretty specific questions. Anybody?

(Thanks again)