|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 20
There is, undoubtedly, a strong prejudice in the minds of most
photographers, both amateur and professional, against a negative in
which paper is used as a permanent support, on account of the
inseparable "grain" and lack of brilliancy in the resulting prints;
and the idea of the paper being used only as a temporary support does
not seem to convey to their mind a correct impression of the true
position of the matter.
It may be as well before entering into the technical details of the
manipulation to consider briefly the advantages to be derived--which
will be better appreciated after an actual trial.
My experience (which is at present limited) is that they are far
superior to glass for all purposes except portraiture of the human
form or instantaneous pictures where extreme rapidity is necessary,
but for all ordinary cases of rapid exposure they are sufficiently
quick. The first advantage, which I soon discovered, is their entire
freedom from halation. This, with glass plates, is inseparable, and
even when much labor has been bestowed on backing them, the halation
is painfully apparent.
These films never frill, being made of emulsion which has been made
insoluble. Compare the respective weights of the two substances--one
plate weighing more than a dozen films of the same size.
Again, on comparing a stripping film negative with one on glass of the
same exposure and subject, it will be found there is a greater
sharpness or clearness in the detail, owing, I am of opinion, to the
paper absorbing the light immediately it has penetrated the emulsion,
the result being a brilliant negative. Landscapes on stripped films
can be retouched or printed from on either side, and the advantage in
this respect for carbon or mechanical printing is enormous. Now,
imagine the tourist working with glass, and compare him to another
working with films. The one works in harness, tugging, probably, a
half hundredweight of glass with him from place to place, paying extra
carriage, extra tips, and in a continual state of anxiety as to
possible breakage, difficulty of packing, and having to be continually
on the lookout for a dark place to change the plates, and, perhaps, on
his return finds numbers of his plates damaged owing to friction on
the surface; while the disciple of _films_, lightly burdened with only
camera and slide, and his (say two hundred) films in his pockets, for
they lie so compact together. Then the advantages to the tourists
abroad, their name is "legion," not the least being the ease of
guarding your exposed pictures from the custom house officials, who
almost always seek to make matters disagreeable in this respect, and
lastly, though not least, the ease with which the negatives can be
stowed away in envelopes or albums, etc., when reference to them is
easy in the extreme.
Now, having come (rightly, I think, you will admit) to the conclusion
that films have these advantages, you naturally ask, What are their
disadvantages? Remembering, then, that I am only advocating stripping
films, I consider they have but two disadvantages: First, they entail
some additional outlay in the way of apparatus, etc. Second, they are
a little more trouble to finish than the glass negatives, which sink
into insignificance when the manifold advantages are considered.
In order to deal effectively with the second objection I mentioned,
viz., the extra trouble and perseverance, I propose, with your
permission, to carry a negative through the different stages from
exposure to completion, and in so doing I shall endeavor to make the
process clear to you, and hope to enlist your attention.
The developer I use is slightly different to that of the Eastman
company, and is as follows:
A.
Sulphite of soda. 4 ounces.
To be dissolved in 8 ounces of hot distilled water, then rendered
slightly acid with citric acid, then add--
Pyrogallic acid. 1 ounce.
Water to make up to 10 ounces.
B.
Pure carbonate of soda. 1 ounce.
Water to make up in all to 10 ounces.
C.
Pure carbonate of potash. 1 ounce.
Water to make up to 10 ounces.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|