# Tintypes. Seriously guys. :)



## rexbobcat (Aug 11, 2012)

I'm not really sure where to put this to get more responses so I'm putting it here lol


Okay, so I've seriously become interested in tintypes. No, I'm not trying to be some indie, obscure artist, I just feel that of I could really love the whole process of it of I could ever get off the ground with it. I am willing to invest I this if possible.

Social have a few questions. What cameras are best? Since it's a direct positive process I would assume that a medium or late format camera would work best. But that doesn't narrow it down too much. 

Does it matter which format I use? What brand of camera is the best? Are these fixed focal length cameras? Do they function differently from normal SLR type cameras?

I know I sound like a clueless noob (which in this case I pretty much am) but I'm not completely stupid. I have a fairly broad knowledge of general technical photography concepts, but just not that much knowledge about how it pertains to medium and large format.


----------



## Atari1977 (Aug 11, 2012)

Skimming the wikipedia page on the exact process, it appears a tintype is pretty much just a reversal emulsion on a thin sheet of iron. I would assume large format cameras would be best as long as you could get the iron sheet into the film holder or make a holder. The emulsion is a collodion type and you'll have to make it yourself, here's a page describing the process Wetplate Collodion. So yes it is possible but it's going to take a bit of work and experimentation, not to mention investing in any gear you need.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 11, 2012)

Atari1977 said:
			
		

> Skimming the wikipedia page on the exact process, it appears a tintype is pretty much just a reversal emulsion on a thin sheet of iron. I would assume large format cameras would be best as long as you could get the iron sheet into the film holder or make a holder. The emulsion is a collodion type and you'll have to make it yourself, here's a page describing the process Wetplate Collodion. So yes it is possible but it's going to take a bit of work and experimentation, not to mention investing in any gear you need.



Yeah it's a pretty basic process opposed to 35mm film. Nice and straight forward. That doesn't make it easy though I suppose lol.

What is a good large format camera to have? Brand/make-wise.


----------



## Atari1977 (Aug 11, 2012)

Depends what you want with the camera. For instance, field and press camera's are more portable but monorail cameras have more movements. For your case though, a press camera should be adequate. Graflex is a well known brand.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm mostly going to be taking portraits.

Okay, so I've done some research, and I'm very overwhelmed lol.

If I get a 4x5 camera I'll need at least a lens of 210mm to be a normal focal length that I could use for portraits? What is a good portrait lens?

And then I would need to adapt the back of the camera to accept plates.

Also; on most older large format cameras do you have to manually open and close the shutter? Or is that a more antiquated feature than what is on most large format cameras?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 12, 2012)

Have you checked out apug.org yet? The community there is very helpful with information re: the analog processes.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 12, 2012)

You are planning on making internegs, and not the develop/bleach/develop direct positive route, right? If you have a darkroom, just get some lith film, x-ray film, or direct x-ray film and enlarge directly onto the film from a 35mm or medium format negative. I would suggest Industrex developed in rodinal 1:75-1:125, it's a very high contrast direct x-ray film with emulsion on both sides.

I would highly recommend not doing direct positives.

I think 135-150mm is closer to normal on 4x5. As for brands, Sinar prices are obscenely low these days.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SINAR-F1-wi...ilm_Cameras&hash=item2320ca8ac8#ht_500wt_1156


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 12, 2012)

Why not direct positives? Because of the the fact that they can't be reproduced?

The reason I was going to go the tintype route is because film makes my head explode with all the talk about chemicals, enlargers and whatnot. 

I know tintypes have their own process but it seems like a cake walk compared to film development. 

How much does X-ray film cost?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 12, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> The reason I was going to go the tintype route is because film makes my head explode with all the talk about chemicals, enlargers and whatnot.




Its really not all that hard. Any enlarger that works will do fine just starting out. Pour your chemicals into jugs according to directions, and follow the times suggested on the film box.

If you can't get film done, I don't know how you're going to do anything else....


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2012)

I dunno about tintypes but a friend of mine does ambrotypes which are a direct positive on glass.

You can use a cardboard box with an overhead projector lens. If you're on a budget but want quality, what I would do is:

- get a decent cheap lens in the 180-240 range off KEH.com (it need not have a working shutter, which will probably save you a BUNCH)
- calculate how far from the film plane it should be to focus on a portrait subject
- mount it in a box at that distance. You can't focus this thing, but you can move back and forth until the subject is IN focus.
- shoot (by removing the lens cap, counting, and putting it back on)

You will want some very bright lights.

Depending on what variations of the process you use, there is more or less toxicity and explosion potential. Collodion is slightly terrifying stuff to make, silver nitrate is moderately nasty (do not get it in your eyes, no, seriously, just don't) and some variants of the process use cyanides. Basically everything in play here is pretty dangerous, although the quantities involved are pretty small.

If you're using a kit based solution, there's probably a lot less danger involved, but still none of this stuff is gonna be soda pop!


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2012)

Film is probably easier 

But, more steps to get the image, and then you have a print. Ho hum. A tintype is a unique object, and there's real value in that.


----------



## terri (Aug 12, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Why not direct positives? Because of the the fact that they can't be reproduced?
> 
> *The reason I was going to go the tintype route is because film makes my head explode with all the talk about chemicals, enlargers and whatnot. *
> 
> ...


:scratch:   It's a 20 minute process (give or take 5 minutes or so) to develop film, and it can be done standing at your kitchen sink.   I'm talking 35mm or 120 of course, not large format, but either way, it's much less labor-intensive than taking on the tintype process.    Just know that, whether you ever want to try it or not.    Like anything else, there is a method and certain rules to follow, but the step by step is relatively easy - if you do it once, you start to wonder what all the angst is about.    

Anyway.     I agree with the suggestion to go over to the APUG forum and just search "tintype".    Lots of discussion, links, and I even saw a video clip.     You might want to dip a toe using something like one of these kits from Freestyle.    Outside of a camera, the kit will give you everything you need, including coated (pre-sensitized) plates.   Freestyle has a pretty nice staff who could help you get set up.    I really don't see the need for getting carried away with x-ray film until you know more about the process.     Oh, and try contacting the folks at Bostick & Sullivan too.    These folks seriously know their stuff and you'll get great info over the phone.    

My (rambling) point is, make it as easy as you can while you're learning, so you don't have to spend a lot on materials/chemicals, until you get a sense of how it all works.   You can join APUG in 5 minutes and start asking questions in their Alternative forum and get some specific questions answered there, too.    

Good luck!        Hope you find your way.   Talk to the folks at B&S and Freestyle.    I love the look of tintypes, too.  It's on my "try it" list!


----------



## unpopular (Aug 12, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Why not direct positives? Because of the the fact that they can't be reproduced?



It's kind of a pain, that's all. You have to make sure that you bleach entirely, then you have to re-expose, then you have to redevelop - unless you're talking about exposing directly onto tin? If that's the case, then you'll either need to fix the plate directly to the back of the camera or get plate holders. Typically today people use internegatives, either by contact or otherwise.

If you are going OLD school and exposing the plate directly you REALLY don't need a shutter. Exposure time will be long, and any old lens will be plenty suitable.

X-ray screen film runs about $30 on ebay for 8x10 for 100 sheets, you'd need to experiment with development. Industrex film, which is different, varies, it's no longer in production - but seriously that stuff kicks arse.

I am a little confused. What aspect of film you don't like - is it the gear or the chemistry? The chemistry isn't all that bad. I can understand not wanting to get into enlarging and printing. If you don't mind developing large format negatives (ortho films, like x-ray film and lith films are safe-lightable), look into gum printing - if you thought tin was easy, gum is a cakewalk.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 12, 2012)

Ok, reading back through it sounds like you're interested in direct to plate.

As far as I know, you will run into a few problems. Before the Graflok back was introduced in the mid-20th century, there were a few different standards for film holders, notably the Graflex-type and the International-type. However, all modern large format cameras have Graflok-type backs. You cannot use older film holders with modern backs, and as far as I know there is no plate holders made for modern graflok backs.

It's important to note that a lot of people on ebay think that film holders and plate holders are interchangeable. There may be some made that are - some maybe that even fit a graflok standard back - but I have seen a lot of plate holders that are actually film holders, and film holders that are actually plate holders.

You might be able to squeeze a thin metal plate into a modern film back, but I wouldn't recommend this route, especially since you don't already own a large format camera. You'll have much better luck with an antique plate camera with plate holders made to the accommodate thicker plates - this way you don't need to limit yourself to thin, flimsy plates careened into too-thin holders.

Unfortunately, plate cameras are pretty popular right now. However, you can still find some, especially in poor cosmetic condition, relatively inexpensively. If you can find one with a jammed shutter, then you could probably pick it up cheap and either replace it, or remove the iris and just use it as if in barrel.

Ihagee-Munchen Compur Folding Camera, Case w/3 Plate Holders, Film Pack, Instruc | eBay

Another option would be to simply tape a smaller plate onto a 4x5 or 8x10 holder. This would certainly work OK as well provided that there is enough clearance for the dark slide - but that shouldn't be a problem.

If 6x7 isn't too small, Mamiya did make a plate holder for their RB67, but finding it would be a challenge.

i think your best bet is to find a plate camera with holders.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 12, 2012)

Google is your friend.
The classic tintype process « Wetplate Collodions « Formulas And How-To « AlternativePhotography.com
The modern tintype process « Liquid Emulsion « Formulas And How-To « AlternativePhotography.com
Rockland Colloid: Photography Materials Products


----------



## oneworldsf (Jun 10, 2013)

I love tintypes.  They have a depth of detail that is hauntingly beautiful.  You should check out a place called Photobooth in the mission district of san francisco.  They specialize in tintypes and sell some vintage camera gear.  Here's a little clip of their studio and process:  Mission Branding Insight | OneWorld Communications, Inc. Portfolio


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 10, 2013)

I'd get a 4x5 speed graphic, the standard 135mm lens that come on the speed is just fine. The holders are easily modified to fit tin types.

Lighting is the next consideration, as tin types are about ISO 2.  So you'll need about 7 stops more light than standard 100iso film.  I'd suggest strobes over long exposures as they'll freeze the subject, making the most of the insane detail in a tin type.


----------

