Platinum Palladium Printing

Mastering the process is, like so many things, a rabbit hole you can take as far as you wish. Bostick and Sullivan were making pre-prepared papers which made it pretty easy as long as your negatives were dense enough. Or you could develop your own formula for emulsion/coatings, methods for coating (glass rod, brush, etc.) - build light sources, vacuum pumps, etc.

It's easy to get good looking prints. But mastery? Harder to say.
 
Something about hand made prints is a great attraction.

Be careful of not poisoning yourself with heavy metals. A friend on this forum actually got very sick from printing alternative processes.

If you intend on contact printing your images I suggest checking out Jon Cone's Piezography and the Digital Negative process for Alternative Processes that seems kinda turnkey. It is a bit of information overload, but lots of understanding.

If you decide to print 8x10 or smaller you can get away without needing a vacuum frame.

Cal
 
I also do pure platinum prints from time to time (from in-camera negatives which seem to prefer platinum over ziatype which is more usual for me). It's not difficult process, but like everything, there's a learning curve and with precious metals, it doesn't come cheap. Price per print after you know what your doing ain't all that bad. But your first dozens - hundreds prints are going to be done while learning and getting one that's truly better then you could get from simple printing from digital / traditional silver gelatin is not easy. So prepare to pay dearly at start, after that you can make decision if it's a process you enjoy practising or not. For me it's worth it for some pictures.

I would recommend starting from either ziatype or pure palladium prints, they come cheaper. Or if you're just not sure if the look is what you enjoy, then start with kallitypes and tone them with palladium/platinum, it's close to real deal but much much cheaper.
 
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/home.php?cat=56

Never did platinum though...
But the best prints I ever made were on 5x7 Azo...little glowers in the frame...just beautiful stuff..and pretty easy too..
Even my wife said...those are the best prints you ever made..and I told her it was just Azo..she said wow..thats all it took ..just a switch in paper..
I have an 8x10 Ebony laying fallow...I need to use it soon..maybe platinum or such...maybe..
 
Emile de Leon said:
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/home.php?cat=56

Never did platinum though...
But the best prints I ever made were on 5x7 Azo...little glowers in the frame...just beautiful stuff..and pretty easy too..
Even my wife said...those are the best prints you ever made..and I told her it was just Azo..she said wow..thats all it took ..just a switch in paper..
I have an 8x10 Ebony laying fallow...I need to use it soon..maybe platinum or such...maybe..
Click to expand...

Emile,

Contact printing 8x10 on Azo should be amazing.

Kodak discontinued Azo, but a husband and wife couple who are both fine art printers have developed continued limited production.

One day when I make the jump to large format I want an Ebony and likely 8x10 for contact printing.

Cal

POSTSCRIPT: Michael A.Smith and Paula Chamlee at Michael and Paula.com has a distributorship of the original Kodak AZO. 8x10, 100 sheets $84.95 Grade 2; $101.95 Grade 3; and 500 sheets 8x18 for $322.95.
 
Calzone,
Azo was/is...amazing...I still have a bunch in 20x24 that needs to be cut down..
Michael & Paula's prints need to be seen in person.. they print up to 18x22 with a huge camera..
And they are the only suppliers left for Chloride printing paper..Lodima..
I have some I ordered about 5 years ago but never got around to using it..
I have to see what developers are still available for it soon..I got excellent results with Agfa Neutol WA.. I'm pretty sure its been discontinued but a substitute may be available at Freestyle..
You might luv it..!
 
Emile de Leon said:
. . . I still have a bunch in 20x24 that needs to be cut down.. .!
Click to expand...
Nah. Stop piddling around and buy a decent sized camera...

Seriously, processing any film much over 10x8 inch is a bit like wrestling live, wet fish. But arguably it's worth it.

(I have to admit to wimping out at 12x15 inch, but this is over twice the area of 10x8).

Cheers,

R.
 
Hey Roger..
I actually have a 7x17 and a 12x20..and a 16x20 view camera..I never got around to using the 16x20 much..
I really like the 7x17 format...the camera is only 13lbs..
The 12x20 has an extra 11x14 back too..
I'm all lens-ed up..and nowhere to go...hahaha!
Bought the 210 xl too for kicks...but have yet to use it..what a great lens..
One day soon I'll take this seriously again...and take the big boys out..for a ..stroll...
Just looked up the Agfa..
Its still here!
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9421-...WA-Paper-Developer-Agfa-Neutol-WA-Formula-1.2
 
Emile de Leon said:
Hey Roger..
I actually have a 7x17 and a 12x20..and a 16x20 view camera..I never got around to using the 16x20 much..
I really like the 7x17 format...the camera is only 13lbs..
The 12x20 has an extra 11x14 back too..
I'm all lens-ed up..and nowhere to go...hahaha!
Bought the 210 xl too for kicks...but have yet to use it..what a great lens..
One day soon I'll take this seriously again...and take the big boys out..for a ..stroll...
Just looked up the Agfa..
Its still here!
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9421-...WA-Paper-Developer-Agfa-Neutol-WA-Formula-1.2
Click to expand...
Sorry! I'd have kept quiet if I'd known you were a greater expert in wrestling live wet fish than I. But then again, from what you say ("soon I'll take this seriously again"), you've wimped out too, at least temporarily.

Cheers,

R.
 
I absolutely love Pt/Pd prints. To me, they are "the ultimate". I would definitely be willing to try it out, but the expense is...well....expensive.

I've done cyanotype printing and a lot of the same gear is required. So, I could probably pull it off with Pt/Pd if I ever felt flush enough to try.

A requirement is, of course, a big negative. My largest film cameras are 4x5, and I have used those negs for cyanotype printing. But, I'd like to make prints 8x10 or larger. So, I've looked a little into "digital negatives". There was an article in Camera Arts, or Lenswork, or ?? some time ago by an author who shoots exclusively with an M8 and then makes digital negatives (actually they're physical negatives from digital files) for Pt/Pd printing. That was a while ago; I wonder how feasible it is for someone like me to produce suitable negatives today?

Ahhh. What am I thinking? I don't have time to pursue another photographic niche. Best of luck to those who do Pt/Pd. If you ever want to donate a print to a true appreciator....... :)
 
Sorry! I'd have kept quiet if I'd known you were a greater expert in wrestling live wet fish than I. But then again, from what you say ("soon I'll take this seriously again"), you've wimped out too, at least temporarily.
Click to expand...
I don't even shoot film anymore or make prints..just digital...for web work..or for myself..
But..when I want to make actual prints again..I think I'm back in the saddle..
I like to see the negs in the washer...just like a fish tank...just watchin the bubbles rise..wet fish..
 
Roger Hicks said:
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, that's complete nonsense. See http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/10000-hour-rule-not-real-180952410/?no-ist
Click to expand...

I would hazard that there is a difference between did not find a strong correlation and "complete nonsense", but okay. I'm not really interested in debating the minutiae of the meta-analysis of the research referred to in the short blurb in Smithsonian. Perhaps I am just a slow learner, but there are few things of any substance that I can think of offhand that I would claim mastery of without five years experience under my belt. Who knows, maybe the OP could master platinum palladium printing in a week or a month or a year. Bonne chance mon ami.
 
rfaspen said:
A requirement is, of course, a big negative. My largest film cameras are 4x5, and I have used those negs for cyanotype printing. But, I'd like to make prints 8x10 or larger. So, I've looked a little into "digital negatives". There was an article in Camera Arts, or Lenswork, or ?? some time ago by an author who shoots exclusively with an M8 and then makes digital negatives (actually they're physical negatives from digital files) for Pt/Pd printing. That was a while ago; I wonder how feasible it is for someone like me to produce suitable negatives today?
Click to expand...

Above I mentioned Jon Cone's Digital Negative system which is kinda turnkey printing on overhead projection film. Negatives over 8x10 require a vacuum frame for best results.

Kinda crazy how these abilities are now available at a consumer level.

Cal
 
Look at the video that I have posted at the start. He also uses a digital Leica M and simply prints out the negatives on a printer using slides.
 
faberryman said:
I would hazard that there is a difference between did not find a strong correlation and "complete nonsense", but okay. I'm not really interested in debating the minutiae of the meta-analysis of the research referred to in the short blurb in Smithsonian. Perhaps I am just a slow learner, but there are few things of any substance that I can think of offhand that I would claim mastery of without five years experience under my belt. Who knows, maybe the OP could master platinum palladium printing in a week or a month or a year. Bonne chance mon ami.
Click to expand...
Big difference between 10,000 hours and 5 years.

Too much depends on motivation, talent, intelligence, application and ability to learn, among other things.

Sure, it takes most people a long time to get good at anything. Attempting to quantify exactly how long is nonsensical.

But then, distressingly many photographers are suckers for attempting to quantify the unquantifiable. Sturgeon's Law suggests that 90% of anything is crud. When it comes to the average Zonie's understanding of sensitometry, this may be generous. Likewise the 10,000 hour "rule". Even the originator has disavowed it.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom