Quote Originally Posted by Jerevan View Post
PE,

why the year 1865? Because the civil war ended? Seriously, do you mean washed emulsions and dry-plate technology harkens back that far?

EDIT: forgot about the dry collodion stuff - so nevermind.

I am of the mind that not everyone has the means to develop a fullblown lab, to make more modern film emulsions. I am with Ian that making modern emulsions seems to be a major undertaking. In this case I find it worthwhile to also have a different direction which is more basic and hobby-oriented, with all the trials and errors that entails.

The more people who are interesting in emulsion making, as a means of artistic expression, the better. Even if it starts out with store-bought liquid emulsion on a piece of paper or glass.

Both ends of the spectrum are needed, I think. Even if some of us are colorblind moles while others are panchromatic butterflies...
Well, my post should have said "1965" which is about the date range of the last of the emulsions in the book that woody Thomas edited. And that is about the time I was helping edit Grant's Book (1970 or thereabouts). Sorry for the type. My eyes are in very very bad condition after the last few weeks. I am also fighting a keyboard that likes to miss keystrokes and that doubles others.

Also, I forgot to add that the Formulary now sells glass plates in 4x5 and 8x10 and will custom cut as well. I have also found a source for old plate holders and for hand made new holders but the latter I dismiss due to the extreme in price.

In books of the sort that are referenced here, one must remember that both the editor and the author are given guidelines of what may or may not appear in a given work. In this case, that would cover a lot of people and a lot of information. When I published anything, my work was both edited and "vetted" by a group of people who could "veto" words, phrases, or even whole topics thus leading to a severe "emasculation" of the topic, and thus the emulsion published in Haist is actually nearly unusable due to omissions forced by the vetting process.

You may note that some of the formulas use Cadmium. At the time of writing, Cd was obsolete and too dangerous to use in a common lab and had been replaced by at least two organic chemicals. The wash is given in terms of conductivity, and the addition method of the first silver is given as what is essentially a "dump". Mixing speed is vague. The gelatin used is assumed as active. This all points to formulas from the 1945 era, as they read much like those of that time. Specific addenda for keeping and other photographic qualities are not mentioned.

That is the problem that I see. So, one can make a simple emulsion such as these, but there are about a dozen added sentences to each one that would significantly improve each and every one.

Here is an example. To every formula, one can add TAI (Tetra Aza Indene) as described by Jim Browning and available from the Formulary. Use of this chemical will just about double or triple the keeping of the coatings and will lower fog! Washing to a given vAg would also improve the emulsion, but even using conductivity, a concrete method of measuring conductivity would help and none is really given in the article!

So, that is my take with this and why I think that the work must be modernized. And, BTW, reading my book for the last time I find that I could have done a much better job. My problem is that I am just running out of time and patience.

PE

PE