An interesting video on palladium printing from the Monochrom's output.

[DominikDUK]

If you watch when he is shooting the scene, he takes multiple shots while positioning. I suspect that he is stitching them together for an ultra-high-resolution image. In the "best of Monochrom" thread on this site, there are some fantastic stitched images made with longer lenses (90 'cron APO?) that have the shallow depth of field of long glass, but the wide field of view of a 35 or 24mm lens.

I don't believe he did any stitching, I doubt he would have to. Platinum Prints do especially on Watercolour paper do not need the highest resolution images a lot of details are getting lost in the paper fibres furthermore the print doesn't look much bigger than 8x10 inch a size the monochrom non stitched files should be able to handle with plenty of details.

I personaly just thought that it was funny that he worked in a lf way with a modern interpretation of a 35mm RF camera only shows how versatile this camera is.

 

[helvetica]

I personaly just thought that it was funny that he worked in a lf way with a modern interpretation of a 35mm RF camera only shows how versatile this camera is.

For sure! Even "humble" APS-C cameras can turn out images with high levels of technical detail. With something like a Monochrom that is tuned to be a "technical" camera, I could only imagine the detail!

 

[Keith]

Actually, just noticed this particular kit on Bostick and Sullivan's site: http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/product.php?productid=1117&cat=49&page=1

That's not unreasonably priced!

Fascinating process ... Ron Reeder's site caught my attention ages ago when I discovered that making a digital negative is not outrageously difficult and I like the idea of contact printing. No to mention the detail and resolution I'm seeing in the files from my DPMs.

 

[Vince Lupo]

That's not unreasonably priced!

Guess it depends upon how many prints one can expect to get out of that kit.

 

[Keith]

Guess it depends upon how many prints one can expect to get out of that kit.

They quote thirty five 8 x10 which seems OK ... I'd imagine you'd burn up a fair amount coming to grips with the process.

Whatever happens I think I need to make myself a contact printer of some type!

 

[shadowfox]

The UV light box is the most expensive tool with these alternative processes.
It amazes me that it would cost $699 and up to purchase a box with UV light. I kept waiting for someone to sell one for $100, never happened.

If anyone here is an electrician, maybe you can tell us why does it cost so much.

Argyrotype and Kallitype are two cheaper alternative to Pt/Pd and is good to get your feet wet for those who never done any of these.

 

[Vince Lupo]

You can honestly make one yourself, as I did several years ago. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you can simply get some fluorescent light fixtures from Home Depot or the equivalent (probably about $20 each), a powerstrip, find the unfiltered blacklight bulbs in the proper length (about $20 each), a piece of plywood and you're in business. I'm pretty sure that would cost you less than $250. And no special electrical skills required -- just plug 'em all in, away you go. The only technical skills required are the ability to use a drill and a screwdriver, maybe a saw if you needed to cut the plywood. Oh, and you'll also need some white paint for the side of plywood that's facing the image.

And it doesn't even need to be a 'box'.

 

[Calzone]

BTW if you want to read 'the Bible' on alternative processes, try to find a copy of 'The Keepers of Light' by William Crawford.

Vince,

Thanks. This is very helpful.

Cal

 

[perudo]

well, for myself, I did some screenprinting some months ago.

I think you also need a uv lightbox for it.
But there are some very cheap alternatives like using a cheap halogene lamp without the uv filter etc...

Might this also work for palladium?

 

[shadowfox]

Vince, what do you mean by unfiltered black light?
Doesn't the light has to be in a certain wavelength to work?

 

[Vince Lupo]

Yup, about 350 nanometers is where it needs to be, and the BL (blacklight) fluorescents are right in there. You could also use bright sunlight, but since there's less control with natural light, I preferred to use the fluorescents. Plus I could print at night!

And as I say, these aren't the blacklights that you'd normally be thinking of (those dark purple ones that people used to use on psychedelic posters etc). These are unfiltered (BL, not BLB), so they look like normal fluorescents.

BTW if you have a copy of The Keepers of Light, pages 147-148 talk about different light sources.

 

[shadowfox]

Yes, I tried sunlight. Unless you wait for a cloudless bright sunny day, it's hard to get anything consistent enough.

 

[Tom Niblick]

I've always loved printing in platinum-palladium, though of course those materials aren't the cheapest (well, the platinum anyways). Would love to start doing it again, though I'd have to make an exposure bed again (it is possible to simply use the sun to expose the print, but it's a bit less predictable than a UV exposure bed).

Is he just printing the neg on regular acetate or something more specialized?

That all depends on where you live. A friend of mine and I once did a lot of platinum/palladium printing back in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I picked up an old spring pressure platemakers "vacuum" table that flipped from a vertical to horizontal position. We'd load it up and wheel it into our F22 sun for a 2 hour exposure. Now I live in Hawaii and it always seems to rain at least once every 2 hours making the sun an unreliable light source.

The neg is probably made on Pictrico film though I have had mixed results with some of the Lexjet films. Standard Epson inks may be the problem. Some printmakers use a green/black combo. I think if I were to pick this process up again, I'd go with the Cone inks for film on Pictorico.

I once kept a Crossfield 540 Scanner which I could load with Agfa continuous tone gravure film just to make negatives for alternative processes. While you can pick one of these beasts up for a song, you might have a problem finding the film to feed it.

Today, it is far easier and less expensive to use a 7 shade of black ink system like Cone's Carbon inks and print on a paper like Canson's Platine. The results are just as beautiful but won't break the bank.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Interesting info. The one thing I personally wouldn't be crazy about is the 'two hour exposures in the F22 sun' -- don't know if I'd want to wait that long for a test exposure, only to find out that I should have added two more drops of the 'A' solution, and then start all over again with another two hour test exposure (though I am slightly jealous that you lived in Santa Fe!). With my fluorescent light setup, my exposures were usually about 20 minutes. Plus I could print at night.

 

[semrich]

Thanks for posting that link Keith. How could not want to do platinum-palladium printing after watching the video, it was so well done. It captures the feeling many mention about the serenity found in the darkroom around creative work.

 

[Calzone]

BTW if you want to read 'the Bible' on alternative processes, try to find a copy of 'The Keepers of Light' by William Crawford.

Vince,

I bought a hard cover copy in great condition for $27.50. Here in New York City we have "The Strand" where they sell used books. They say they have 18 miles of books on their shelves. I got a better deal than buying on Amazon.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Today, it is far easier and less expensive to use a 7 shade of black ink system like Cone's Carbon inks and print on a paper like Canson's Platine. The results are just as beautiful but won't break the bank.

Tom,

I'm exploring Piezography. Bought an Epson 3880 taking advantage of a $250.00 rebate. I'll be getting a 13x19 inch portfolio later this week to view ink and paper combinations. Included with the portfolio will be a digital negative sample.

Cal

 

[icebear]

The UV light box is the most expensive tool with these alternative processes.
It amazes me that it would cost $699 and up to purchase a box with UV light. I kept waiting for someone to sell one for $100, never happened....

You can honestly make one yourself, as I did several years ago. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you can simply get some fluorescent light fixtures from Home Depot or the equivalent (probably about $20 each), a powerstrip, find the unfiltered blacklight bulbs in the proper length (about $20 each), a piece of plywood and you're in business. I'm pretty sure that would cost you less than $250....

I have no experience for building a light box but I assume the tricky part is to get the light intensity all even across the entire surface to be exposed.
So behind/above the bulbs there might be some special shaped reflector to distribute the light over a larger area than the directly emitted light from the bulb only, just my $0.02

But definitely worth a DIY trial.

 

[1joel1]

I have a professional unit that I bought about 10 years ago. Haven't used it in years. It is rather rough looking, but it works. Was about $600. There are many other types of lights to use like a mercury vapor lamp or even the sun. The nice thing about the pro boxes is that they do exactly what you need and keep the distance constant and the light is spread out evenly using many thin bulbs.

Joel

 

[sepiareverb]

Vince,

I bought a hard cover copy in great condition for $27.50. Here in New York City we have "The Strand" where they sell used books. They say they have 18 miles of books on their shelves. I got a better deal than buying on Amazon.

Cal

Great deal. I wish I had a hardcover. My paperback is in many pieces and has one of those 4-way rubberbands around it. The Strand is such a great place, but not a complete replacement I'd reckon for A Photographer's Place. That's where I got my "Keepers".