How was it made? Calotypes | V&A

William Henry Fox Talbot patented the Calotype process in 1841. It is the direct ancestor of modern photography because it used a negative permitting multiple positive prints to be made from the negative and development of the latent image. Rob Douglas specialises in making calotypes and demonstrates the many stages incorporated in the process.
Discover more about Photographic Processes: www.vam.ac.uk/articles/photog...

[@JasonAndrescavage]

My favorite photographic process of all. The calotypes in the V&A photo room are incredible.

[@elietedarce1266]

Daguerreotype took minutes, in early versions, to just 2p seconds. The calotype was introduced after fast daguerreotypes but took more time of exposure and could create a negative to make prints. I want to know when wirers stands were introduced to help people stand still like a statue to allow sharp photographs portraits in these photos that took minutes of exposure, and when the fast exposure plates was introduced, allowing even outside picture of groop of people, like USA civil war photos.

[@Axel-qv4sr]

Why does the positive copy need no more chemicas to become visible on paper while the original negative needed one more step and gallic accid before being revealed?

[@jotaserna944]

Porque en la copia positiva nos tomamos el tiempo que la luz solar requiera para ennegrecer el papel, mientras que en la cámara, la acción de la luz debe ser muy breve para plantear tiempos de exposición razonables, generando una imagen latente que sólo se hará visible con el revelado: algo parecido al papel fotográfico.

[@Axel-qv4sr]

@@jotaserna944 Thank you :))

[@ingridrocha1938]

💜

[@lufertu]

What kind of paper is used?

[@L.Spencer]

I think I remember reading that it was regular paper, and the texture interfered with the sharpness of the picture, because the silver nitrate soaked down into the paper. Later they started putting something on first, maybe it was albumin? to prevent that and thus have sharper pictures. I'll check all this and edit if I'm wrong. (I'm taking a class but I'm a slow learner!)

[@lufertu]

​@@L.Spencer Hi Loraine. Thanks for your answer. I also read that they used regular paper but now that I'm trying to build my own camera and want to get negatives without the use of acetates from a printer and a computer, I wonder how that kind of paper works having into account it's not translucid. You need that property for obtaining a good positive, the more translucid the better. Recently I found that they used to wax or cover with oil the paper for making it more transparent but I still think it is not enough translucid for getting negatives that allow (By any technique) later to get the high quality pictures you see when reading about Calotypes and salt prints.

[@drewgehringer7813]

@@lufertu the negative is on a paper thin enough to be translucent, which is good enough for contact prints

[@TheStockwell]

@@lufertu Hello from Vermont! I work with another antique British photographic process; the cyanotype. My negatives are on regular paper which is made translucent with wax or oil. It worked in the 1840s and it still does, today. ☺

[@seropositif]

Why did WHFTs home have the most french name possible? Is the Talbot name of french origin as well?

[@valentinius62]

What is the difference between a calotype and an ambrotype?

[@garge7676]

an ambrotype uses glass instead of paper, and I /think/ it has a few different chemicals used, but I'm not sure

[@valentinius62]

@@garge7676 I did look it up since I posted that question, but I'm still not clear on the difference. Guess they're just a little bit different as what you pointed out. I believe that only daguerreotypes used the glass and that ambrotypes were done on tin or copper plates? I've read that the details of images on daguerreotypes are absolutely stunning to see in person because they were done on glass which means very little scattering of light...though I imagine polished copper and tin would be comparable. I also was able to find that daguerreotype images could be mass produced only by photographing the daguerreotype image as an ambrotype image and going from there. For years how they mass produced images from the Brady, O'Sullivan, etc. Civil War daguerreotypes that they took on the battlefields using glass plates could end up on paper and sold to the public, including stereoviews. Of course, that would mean degradation of the image as the product you could buy was a second generation version of the original image, unlike mass production of images from a single original negative as developed later.

[@garge7676]

Daguerreotypes were made on a piece of copper coated with silver, or on an actual piece of silver. Tin/Copper plates were Tintypes, also known as Ferrotypes. As for duplication, I'm not at all sure.

[@valentinius62]

@@garge7676 Well, I know for a fact that Daguerreotypes were originally produced mostly on glass plates. I've seen them myself and there are many examples of Daguerreotypes to view which show the cracked glass. Now, I wonder to what extent Daguerreotypes were produced on media other than glass, and whether using metal plates paralleled the production of Daguerreotypes? Can't really seem to find information on that. I'd also like to know that since the Daguerreotype is essentially the negative, if the original glass plate can be put into an enlarger and developed from there? I would suppose it could.

[@garge7676]

I am quite sure that Daguerreotypes were NEVER printed on glass. Daguerreotypes - Silver Plates Ambrotypes - Glass Plates Tintypes/Ferrotypes - Iron Plates I've heard of people making larger prints of glass negatives onto paper but I don't know how it works.

[@otherguy9364]

O DISLIKES WOW