Wet Collodion vs. Emulsion making & the difficulties involved

schrochem · Nov 13, 2007

PE,
I find it fascinating to be able to make your own film. However, I'll admit to not knowing the deep dark secrets to what does what. Are there halides that will make collodion higher in speed and spectrally sensitive? Or is that more do with the gelatin?
Thanks

Photo Engineer · Nov 13, 2007

You cannot make collodion systems better than they already are. They have reached their plateau. That is pretty much why they were abandoned.

Silver halide crystals in gelatin still have some latitude for improvement. And, they are safer, in general, to use.

PE

htmlguru4242 · Nov 13, 2007

There is lots of old literature around about spectrally sensitizing collodion, and making collodion emulsions, which could be interesting.

Photo Engineer · Nov 13, 2007

Oh, of course, but it never worked out as well as with silver halide crystals in gelatin made from an aqueous medium. That is why collodion gradually vanished from the mainstream. Same with a number of alternate systems.

So, where I can make a green sensitive emulsion with speeds of 40 or greater, you cannot go much higher than maybe 1 with wet plate. And, my sheet or plate will last months whereas you have to make yours essentially on-site.

OTOH, wet plate has a certain 'elan' to the final product if done right that silver in gelatin does not.

As I said, it depends on what you want. I doubt if you would want to lug the wet plate equipment into the mountains, but you might take several packs of regular film or even plates.

PE

htmlguru4242 · Nov 13, 2007

I wasn't arguing the point; I completely agree.

Wet plate has a look and quality to it that I don't think anything else can replicate. At the same time, silver gelatin, as you say, can do things that wet plate could never do.

I'd eventually like to experiment with both; it'd be great to carry a pack of film or a roll of film with me with homemade emulsion. But, wet plate seems like its alot of fun, and that is easier to experiment with, as you can do it with a few plates, rather than a whole emulsion batch.

Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever tried dry-plate collodion?

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

If it is inconvenient to fix and wash your wet plate collodion plate in the field it can be flowed with glycerin ( 2 parts glycerin 1 part water) on the surface of the plate. This all can be done under white light. The plate will last for years or until you rinse it off and then fix it. So actually you don't have to complete the process on site. The glycerin acts as a protective and preservative coating until your ready to fix and wash. Robert

htmlguru4242 · Nov 14, 2007

Interesting ... and I could see that being useful. Can that be done before exposure to prolong the life of the plate after it is coated?

Bruce Schultz · Nov 14, 2007

John Coffer said he had heard that using glycerin for pre-exposure was possible, allowing a 45-minute window for exposure, and he was trying to get more info from someone about that. I think it might have been John Hurlock.

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

No this is for after exposure and development and it must be stored in the horizontal position. I can see it as useful when you're in the field without access to a water supply for washing and fixing. You would still need enough water to stop development. But that amount can be carried.

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

Bruce, John Coffer said he learned this from Mark Osterman who dug it up from the archives at The Eastman House. As for pre-exposure glycerinizing he made no mention of it last July when I saw him. So this must be something new he is working on. I can see where it may just be possible though. My question would be how would you stop development? But I can see where you wouldn't need to develop if it was glycerinized. Right from the camera into the storage box. Robert

htmlguru4242 · Nov 14, 2007

Hmm. It is interesting, though, to see all of the dry processes outlined in Towler's manual (Silver Sunbeam) and various old books (on Google Books and such). It seems like they tried [pretty much] everything. There's stuff on using tannin, coffee, beer, albumen, gelatine, honey, and all kinds of wachy combinations thereof. All of these seem pretty impractical though; everything says that the plates were really slow.

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

But compared to a Daguerrotype they were/are lightning fast. It is very possible in bright sunshine to get 1 sec. exposures. Imagine a photographer in the 1850's that just discovered this process. He probably thought- wow- now that's fast! and much easier than doing Dag's. Plus there's no mercury fumes or expensive silver plates to polish. Plus now I can make a glass negative and produce hundreds of prints from one plate on beautiful albumen paper. I bet there were a lot of mercury fume boxes going up for sale.

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

Interestingly enough, mercury metal was not considered a poison back then. The salts were known as poisons, but not the metal. Even the salts were considered minor poisons as they were used in cosmetics and salves often contributing to the seriousness of a facial or skin condition.

In addition, it was fashionable to drink mercury metal. (don't ask) Many people enjoyed the sensation of a heavy material rolling around inside them I guess.

Tomatoes were considered a poison.

Times change.

PE

htmlguru4242 · Nov 14, 2007

True - a second in bright sun is unbelievably slow by today's standards, but, in the grand scheme of things, its really not that bad.

Exposure is pretty much determined by experience, yes? It really doesn't seem like there'd be a way to calculate it.

I know lots of people do albumen prints, but are collodion negs. the correct density for cyanotypes or salt prints?

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

The thing about a collodion negative is that it can be intensified after exposure and fixing to meet the density desired. Whether it is a DR of 2.2 for albumen or 1.6 for Pd/Pt or what ever medium you plan on working in. This is covered in Coffer's manual. And it is just a matter of getting a feel for what the density looks like during intensification.With experience you will start getting the densities close in-camera. This is also covered in Quinn's manual. Once you obtain these manuals they will answer a lot of your questions complete with the formulas and step by step procedures. As far as exposure time goes, it is like you say a matter of knowing your lens and camera. Robert

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

You should take a private workshop from Mark Osterman or his wife. I believe that both do them at home.

PE

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

PE, Drinking mercury? They use to do some strange things back then. Such as putting silver nitrate in a babies eyes. Someone explained to me that it had something to do with it being a preventive measure because of so much syphillis in mothers. I have no idea if this is true or not. If so it is pretty surprising to me. Robert

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

PE, I think France is doing most of the tutorials now. As I understand it Mark is just so busy with other projects. But France does some great work and she's much better looking than Mark.

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

RobertP said:
PE, Drinking mercury? They use to do some strange things back then. Such as putting silver nitrate in a babies eyes. Someone explained to me that it had something to do with it being a preventive measure because of so much syphillis in mothers. I have no idea if this is true or not. If so it is pretty surprising to me. Robert

Well, it is all true. Silver Nitrate was used up to the 50s, and merthiolate was used until recently as an antisceptic. Kodak employees were prohibited from using merthiolate.

I think we are all mad as hatters. (Do you know where that came from? The felting process required mercury salts, and the hatters chewed the felt to get the right texture. They gradually went insane from the effects of mercury on the brain and no one really knew the reason in the early days.)

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

RobertP said:
PE, I think France is doing most of the tutorials now. As I understand it Mark is just so busy with other projects. But France does some great work and she's much better looking than Mark.

France is doing them at home, and Mark is doing them at GEH. He has about 8 students at present, but they are on a grant and work with him and also on a program at RIT, so IDK how open it is to outside students.

They just got back from a joint presentation in the midwest. I hope to have lunch with Mark before Thanksgiving. I'll ask him.

PE

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

Yes, I had heard that it was the mercury used in the process. But I didn't know it was from them chewing the felt. Thanks for that tid bit. I still think there may still be a bottle of merthiolate around here some where. I can remember my mother using it on every little scratch we got as kids. Stung like hell. Robert

RobertP · Nov 14, 2007

Yes, They were here in Ohio and I missed them. I was off on a shoot somewhere when the show opened. Mark was one of the main speakers.

dslater · Nov 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Well, it is all true. Silver Nitrate was used up to the 50s, and merthiolate was used until recently as an antisceptic. Kodak employees were prohibited from using merthiolate.

I think we are all mad as hatters. (Do you know where that came from? The felting process required mercury salts, and the hatters chewed the felt to get the right texture. They gradually went insane from the effects of mercury on the brain and no one really knew the reason in the early days.)

PE

Hi Ron,
Just curious - why were Kodak employees prohibited from using merthiolate? is it because Kodak knew it was toxic or was there some interaction with the photo-chemicals? Also, how was it enforced? was the restriction only at the plant, or were employees expected to not use it at home?

Thanks,

Dan

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

Dan;

Mercury and mercury salts cause severe fog in photo materials when not used in the correct manner. Merthiolate is one of them.

We had a case of severe fog on a product line that was traced to mercury and it was found that one of the line workers had visited a relative and slept in a bed used by another individual who had had a cut treated with merthiolate.

The transfer of the merthiolate onto the sheets from one person and then to the other person and then to the film was enough to cause serious defects.

This was one of our courses at EK. Things to avoid.

So, we had special pens, as the ink in most pens and markers can cause fog in films. We have special insect spray, as most sprays can cause fog. The list goes on and on and we had to take classes in all of this.

BTW, Dye Transfer paper used a Thorium salt and was mildly radioactive. They used special equipment and a special machine to make it. If they had not, the accumulated radioactivity would have affected other products on the same machine. And, all Kodak buildings in which film is made have footbaths to remove any outside dust. We have a special laundry and labware cleaning facility and wear specical outfits to prevent contamination.

I would guess this adds to the Kodak quality and also the cost.

PE

htmlguru4242 · Nov 14, 2007

Thank you all, once again, for answering all of my questions. This thread seems to also be going into the off-topic but nonetheless interesting territory, which is great.

Unfortunately, my collodion experiments don't look like they'll be starting anytime soon. It seems that a car problem that I thought was a faulty oxygen sensor is the catalytic converter and one of the pipes leading to it from the engine. It needs to be fixed [soon-ish] to the tune of !$900!, so there goes my budget for this (and a little more). :-/

For now I'll make do with buying the books and reading them through.

Would people recommend the John Coffer set or Quinn Jacobson's book?

Wet Collodion vs. Emulsion making & the difficulties involved

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency