From: Jack Fulton (jefulton1@attbi.com)
Date: 01/10/03-08:43:18 PM Z
The Ambrotype was invented in the 1850's . . . but, here is Robert Legget's
description from his History of Photography web site.
AMBROTYPE process, The
If a very thin under-exposed negative is placed in front of a dark
background, the image appears like a positive. This is because the silver
reflects some light whilst the areas with no silver at all will appear
black. This is the principle behind the Ambrotype process, the pictures
being more correctly known as Collodion positives.
Ambrotypes were made from the 1850s and up to the late eighties, the process
having been invented by Frederick Scott Archer in collaboration with Peter
Fry, a colleague. Ambrotypes were direct positives, made by under-exposing
collodion on glass negative, bleaching it, and then placing a black
background - usually black velvet, occasionally varnish - behind it. Though
Ambrotypes slightly resemble Daguerreotypes, the method of production was
very different, and Ambrotypes were much cheaper.
The Ambrotype process was yet another method of reducing the cost of
photography. It became popular for a number of reasons:
* less exposure time was needed
* production was cheaper and quicker, as no printing was required
* as the negative could be mounted the other way, by placing the
collodion side on top of the backing material, there was no lateral
reversal, as there was in most Daguerreotypes.
* unlike Daguerreotypes, they could be viewed from any angle
Ambrotypes became very popular, particularly in America. The process is also
called "Melainotype" in the European continent. Another variant of this was
the Tintype process.
Jack
> There are some very beautiful ambrotypes at the Photo-eye online gallery
> (www.photoeye.com). I'm not sure what an ambrotype is. The artist's
> statement says that it's a wet plate process. I saw an ambrotype once in a
> museum. I think it was an Edward Curtis photograph. What exactly is an
> ambrotype?
>
> Anyway these photographs by Raymond Meeks are portraits of athletes who came
> to the winter olympics in 2002 I think. They are interesting to look at in
> light of our discussion about portraiture in general and Disfarmer in
> particular.
>
> --shannon
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST