yes, although I did profile the output using the easy digital negatives system

@@marshmonkey Thx brother.

The “press” is just something I made with a piece of glass and flat surface and a hinge so that it’s easy to register the negative with the paper. By flexible material you might be referring to the film I printed on which is made by Fixxons

⁠thanks a lot for answering. The “press” is the hot press you use to flat the print. Which model is it?

@@massaomascaro the flexible material is a silicone mat, and the press is a heat press made for doing heat transfer prints on shirts and such

Yes, VFA

I have a hard time believing any type of acrylic will survive uv for extended periods of time

Where I can get a pane of Quartz or fused silica of that size? I think normal window glass or borosilicate glass are the best options, both have acceptable UV transmission above 365nm.

so far I have not noticed any fogging, the biggest problem I have encountered is that it scratches very easily

It usually cools as it dries but it varies a lot depending on the amount of time in the toner and how exhausted the toner is

Something which I have been trying with silver gelatin prints is prolonged soaking in a single tray of water for at least 90 minutes (or longer, it won't hurt). This seems to dissolve most of the fixer and then you can do another 5 minute wash just to make sure you got everything. I started doing this after watching this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f4eamWBojKprsKs

@@marshmonkey Thank you! I will give that a try.

Glad it was helpful!

Thanks! Yup it should work with fabric, not sure about clay. As long as there is something for the chemistry to permeate the surface of, you should get some sort of result.

@@marshmonkey Thank you David, I am in the process of making the UV room and ordering the products. I can't wait to start. Thank you very much for sharing your experience. I feel like after a visit at the museum, really inspired. Your pictures are really beautiful. Where did you take he picture from your "about" page. Is it near San Diego?

Please disregard my request for a link... Just saw all the additional notes in the video description. This is really helpful, thank you so much! Sally

sure, it's this stuff: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B083GCM5LP/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

any type of normal fixer should be effective, I use whatever non-hardening rapid fixer (base or neutral) that I can find I think when I filmed this it was TF-4. The hypo clear is just a standard clearing agent, I believe I used photographer's formulary powdered concentrate.

the two baths are from two different bottles of fixer. I think the idea is that the first fix gets a bit exhausted during the first batch and the second bath can fix better than just using this same amount of fixer for twice the time.

@@marshmonkey Thanks! I thought it might be something like that.

Thank you! Cheers!

Any dim non-uv light (be careful some normal lights also emit some UV light) is ok throughout the process, although I let the final coating dry in the dark just to be safe. I have some of those led strips as under cabinet lighting that I have taped UV blocking film over and keep those on during the entire process and have never encountered any fogging. An easy test is to coat a small scrap of paper and let it sit out for an hour with the working lights on to see if it exposes at all.

@@marshmonkey thank you so much! I love all your work and really appreciate the walkthrough!

I have stopped using citric acid in the first bath, although I could see it being useful if you are trying to acidify the print before going into a toner that is acid. According to Christina Z. Anderson (if I am remembering the book correctly) the purpose of the initial salt washes is to neutralize most of the light sensitivity of the silver, not necessarily to speed any clearing of it. It would be interesting to do a test replacing with normal tap water to see if there are any difference in the result.

@@marshmonkey I usually only use tap water as recommended by classic texts such as James M. Reilly's or as Mark Osterman always advises and I have no problem. On the contrary, I have a lower density loss. Of course, you should always do a test based on the tap water you have, to verify if the chlorine inside is enough. In my opinion, Christina Z. Anderson's method is not wrong, but excessive and causes a loss of density that could be avoided.

@@stefanob1 sounds like I will need to do a test then!

I went back and looked at my book and I was using much more than the amount specified, so I will definitely try much less or none at all.

@@marshmonkey well done! maybe first try without salt! ;)

This is the only process I have experience with, so I really can only go by what the literature I've read mentions. According to the books I've read it is as archival as pt/pl when properly processed and toned. I have read that salt printing has the most tonal range of any alt process, but I have no idea if that is accurate or not. It should be cheaper than pt/pd in terms of chemicals, silver is less expensive than pt/pl - as for the ease of process again I have not had the experience to compare but salt has a reputation for being more finicky and more steps.

@@marshmonkey thank you David for taking your valuable time to answer my question in detail. I appreciate your kindness!

@@jerryeisner1 There are so many variables-paper can be a real pain when it misbehaves, But if you wash carefully and make sure all the silver is removed, the prints will be quite archival. I have many that are ten years old now and still in excellent condition and that's without toning in gold. When I start them again, though, I will do the gold toning-it's not expensive and very worth while. Salt f[prints made n the 19th Century are still in amazing condition. 🙂

Thanks so much!

I use this stuff from Bostick & Sullivan: www.bostick-sullivan.com/product/gold-toning-kit-for-salted-paper-vandyke-kallitype-and-albumen/

I'm not currently doing any commissions, sorry!