Nope. Collodion which is far slower than gelatin emulsion. This method proceeds gelatin
emulsion in the history of photography. Dry plate negatives go back to 1865 and even
then they were used by a very small group of photographers before its demise.
Check out this movie made out of 800 tintypes: (amazing collodion visuals in stop motion)#
Ah, I'd never associated dry plates with collodion because I understood dry collodion was very slow and too slow for portraits. Shows my bias as an old portrait photographer.
This one a print in collodio chloride from a gelatin negative on glass from the 1800s. Hence I am not the photographer but the printer that brings this charming beauty back to life.
I struggle enough with digital where I've got an undo button ... I can't imagine using real chemistry ... remembering back to basic B&W class was enough for me. Although, I do have a much better understanding of principles of D&B, Zone, etc. thanks to PS.
If you know of a "family friendly" method, I might resurrect some film interest with an old Graflex, but ... "I'm too skeeeered" ... critical chemistry, etc. ... I"m sticking with dry (digital) darkroom for now.
I should mention, I was at a local historical museum over the weekend and marveled at the detail and rendering in some 100 year old school photos. I suppose that when you are using an 11x14 camera (also on display) it can do things that makes you begin to believe that for some things "size matters".
