Easy intro to alternative processes

[ken_gewant]

I have recently become intrigued with the concept of exploring traditional or "alternative" photographic processes. Can anyone recommend one or two fairly simple processes? My research seems to point toward cyanotype and kallitype as good starting processes. POP, or printing-out-paper, also seems like a simple, fun way to start. I will be using 4 x 5 for now, and will likely move up to 8 X 10 or even larger if my early efforts pan out. Also, toxicity to myself and family are, of course, a concern, so a fairly non-lethal process would be nice. I plan on using Ilford FP4+ film. Thanks for your suggestions everybody!

[dan_smith]

Take a serious look at the Ziatype process. Bostick & Sullivan in New

Mexico make it and it is very easy to do and the image color can vary

tremendously. It comes in a kit form, be sure to order some of the

paper for coating as well.

[ed b.]

You might consider Vandyke Brown. There is an article about it by

Wynn White on my web site at <a

href=http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Vandyke/vandyke.html>

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Vandyke/vandyke.html</a>. Salted

paper is easy too.

[richard_boulware]

Ken: With all due respect, Sir, you mentioned a non-lethal process.

That being said...may I inquire as to what you consider a lethal

process...in photographic chemistry> Aside from glacial acetic acid

which is not in common usage...at least in my area..what might lethal

chemistry be? Just curious. Thanks.

[jonathan brewer]

I just made the jump to LF to contact print and the book that got

me thinking about the alternative process is called 'THE KEEPERS OF

LIGHT-A History & Working Guide To Early Photographic Processes by

William Crawford. I ordered it from Photographers formulary many

years ago if memory serves me right.

 

<p>

 

A very involved history book, also a comprehensive 'how to'

instruction manual on the alternative processes, the book is simple

and enjoyable with plenty of images.

 

<p>

 

A treasure of information, at least for me.

 

<p>

 

Ciao

[kcrisp]

Richard: There is a very interesting book called "Overexposure"

which is a guide to the toxicity of common darkroom materials. There

are many, many photographic agents which can be highly toxic. Enough

of something highly toxic can be "lethal," though how much and how

often it will take will vary. From what I've read, mishandled Pyro

can be very bad news, just to choose one example. There are older

photographic processes which use mercury fumes to sensitize plates to

pick another. My 1940's Kodak book on photographic formulas lists a

formula for Uranium Toner. A concern about toxicity is not

unreasonable with respect to processes which started back when much

less was known about the health effects of some chemicals. As to

glacial acetic acid, I thought that was the core ingredient of most

stop baths and hardly rare, it is an off the shelf Kodak item. I

imagine if you drank it straight you could get pretty sick and/or die

from it. Some ingredients, like Pyro, require care which goes beyond

the obvioius "don't drink this" sort of caution.

[jonathan_brewer2]

I have always used a respirator during my woodworking days. Lungs

underwent 20 years of abuse during my smoking period and I didn't want

to fill them with dust, so without fail I used my respirator even

though some of my brother woodworkers would laugh.

 

<p>

 

I want to see my kids grow up so I will research what cartridges

I'll need that'll protect while I'm contact printing in my garage(no

way I'll take a chance on tracking any of this into the house to come

into contact w/my kids).

 

<p>

 

A lot of woodworkers I know who scowled at dust masks and

respirators for years are suffering terribly from the cumulative

effects of fine dust in their lungs. Exposure to chemicals are

probably just as bad because like breathing in cigarette smoke, or

inhaling fine dust while you're woodworking you don't get sick right

away. You'll pay later, and you fool yourself into thinking later

will never come.

 

<p>

 

It's a pain in the ass to wear a respirator, but wear one for you

and your family.

 

<p>

 

Ciao

[dave_willison]

Ken:

 

<p>

 

Cyanotype and Van Dyke Brown are probably the most basic alternative

processes. Of the two, Van Dyke Brown is slightly more involved since

the prints have to be fixed. Cyanotypes are simply exposed then

washed. POP is another possibility given the relative availability of

pre-coated paper. The downside is that POP requires gold toning and

your negatives have to be more closely matched to the density

requirements of the process. Most of the alternative processes require

negatives of a specific density range, but cyanotype seems to be more

flexible and forgiving.

 

<p>

 

If you opt for cyanotype, here are a few suggestions. First, use the

pre-mixed, two bottle solution sold by Photgrapher's Formulary. The

pre-mixed solutions will cut down the amount of chemical preparation

and help improve safe handling. Second, Find a printmaking/watercolor

paper that has a proven track record. Not all papers work the same

with cyanotype and you may be disappointed with the process due to

paper-related issues. I would suggest Arches 140lb hot press since the

paper is heavily sized and will prevent the coating solution from

bleeding too deeply into the paper surface. Many printmaking papers

are moderately or lightly sized and these papers perform differently.

Third, avoid exposure systems that produce intense heat, especially if

you are using original negatives. There are many choices in this area

including the sun. I would suggest a set-up made from a standard

flourescent fixture with four black light bulbs. If you use this type

of unit (mounted about 12 inches from your paper) exposure times will

vary from 20-30 minutes.

 

<p>

 

I hope this helps. Good luck.

 

<p>

 

..............................

[chad_jarvis1]

Most of the stuff I shoot is intended for POP as the final product.

Try Chicago Albumen Works' Centennial POP toned in gold borax. It's

easy to use and has an unbelievable tonal range. If you really want

to get into making your own papers, try albumen, cyanotype, van dyke

brown or kallitypes, as others have already mentioned. You might

also want to review some of the publications out there, such

as:<br><br>

 

<a href

=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1880559935/qid=998915487/sr=1-

9/ref=sc_b_9/102-0345796-5879368>Historic Photographic Processes</a>

by Richard Farber (a good beginner's guide)<br><br>

or<br><br>

<a href=http://www.redhillphoto.com/Reilly.pdf>The Albumen & Salted

Paper Book</a> by James Reilly (out of print but available in PDF on

my web site).

[chad_jarvis1]

Sorry about that link to the Farber book. Cutting and pasting that

huge address from Amazon's site just didn't produce the results I

wanted.

[stuart_whatling1]

In London, Silverprint are especially useful for supplies - their web-

site has some good intros to various technbiques, including my

personal favourite, Gum Bichromate.

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/index1.html

Scroll down to "Alternative Processes"

[steve_clark1]

Bea Nettles is a big fan of Kwik Print, and for something really

simple, paper negs., can produce some quite pleasing results...