Not exactly a glowing report.....but then Dr. Ware made a mistake too. Arentz does not work with the ZS, he uses the BTZS methodology.
I was not clear what was his rant about people calling palladium prints platinum printing. I was not clear if he meant pure palladium prints, or prints made with a mix of pt and pd.
Anyhow, since I decided the second edition did not have anything I needed I am not getting it.
He also has a somewhat deceptive description of print color. The example he shows from Dick's book has been either been scanned very badly or PS'd to make it look like an orotone. In fact, as anyone who has seen Dick's work can attest, his palladium prints are much closer to the neutral historical example Ware shows in the article than the ostensible reproduction from the book.
My question about Ware's method always boils down to this: With so many good platinum printers in the world, why do virtually none of them use the Ware method instead of the traditional DOP process? Something doesn't quite square up.
The purported more predictable ammonium iron (iii) oxalate coupled with the print out process by inspection without calibration... appeared particularly alluring... especially the 'without calibration' aspect... but then I too wondered why most printers appear to be using variations of Arentz's methods. Has anyone done comparison prints by the two methods... is there something on the internet that shows comparative examples?
I have not seen any comparisons. Although I have tried making ziatypes. Given my succesful failure with ziatypes I was not about to try the Ware-Malde process which seems to be even more dependent on the paper humidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie
IMO I think many of us doing pt/pd are a little bit more secure with a concrete methodology than with just trial an error. Not being able to control the paper's humidity would probably drive me crazy.
FWIW, Ware's description on his web page tells how to make humidification chambers of various humidity levels by using different saturated salt solutions. If you have the darkroom space for this, it probably would provide you with the control you need.
My own experience with Zia was that it was hard to get consistent results. It is so dependent on humidity that two prints made identically an hour apart would have different contrasts AND different image tonality. If I were going to do any of these ammonium POP processes seriously, I think a humidification chamber would be an absolute must.
I started platinum printing with ziatype and make great thing with this process but when I started to print for other I decide to switch to traditional as it is a real pain to make 10-30 similar ziatype. Really easier to do with traditional.
I really appreciate the result of platinum-palladimm gold zia.
By the way when I start to make few work for others , I also try Ware method and also adapt it to zia, by this I mean that I make An humidyfing box to get the similar RH before exposing my paper. This way give better result but I get some sticking problem with my vacuum printing frame. (and when you use zia and a vacuum printing frame the better is to put the sensitize humidify paper in a mylar sleeve ro avoid that it quickly loose humidity.
The Ware method sound good but you still need to use a developer , so if I need to use one I prefer to use an easier method, traditional.
I also make some pizzitype, which is the first printing out process. It is my favorite way to make pure platinum print.
I now mostly use traditional, and I am investigating the use of different noble salt as iridium, osmium and so on
Pratip Malde would be an artist successfully using Mike Ware's method. I am certain there are others, notably Ware himself.
I have done develop-out print-out pl/pd, a particular marketing name of the latter being the Ziatype (my very first alternative process, incidentally). I did never try out Ware's method, though I intended several times, for two reasons: 1) getting/cooking two particular substances, ammonium palladium chloride and ammonium platinum chloride
2) humidification. I have extensively practiced Mike Ware's New Chrysotype process which also crucially depends on humidification *after* coating, and made several humidification chambers (cat litter trays with a board as lid on them). This is quite space-andtime-consuming, and I find it difficult to control in detail without elaborate technology. For instance, I like to do double prints (the same motive extending over two negatives), and it is quite difficult to get exactly the same colour in both prints in the Chrysotype process.
It might be worth to try NaPt as a contrast agent in Mike Ware's chemistry, but as I said, I never tried.
As far as his critique of FO goes, I find it easy and convenient to make my own FO from Iron(II) Oxalate.
Btw, a *very* good wesite of Pt/Pd peinting is the one of Jeffrey Mathias
He lists up the different approaches of print-out and develop-out.
Sullivan and Weese also give a good overview.
I do have a much older instruction of Arentz here, and I think Ware's critique of him describing just one method is basically quite valid, as are at least some of Ware's reservations against LiPd (used in the "Ziatype").
If the goal is a platinum or palladium print, any opinions on Kallitypes toned in pt or pl? Sandy King has a good article at UnBlinkingEye on Kallitypes, and has asserted elsewhere that a platinum toned Kallitype is indistinguishable from a traditional platinum print.
I don't entirely agree. The objective of Dick Arentz was to provide a detailed and comprehensive description of the methods that he has chosen to make Pt./Pd. prints, not an account of all historical and contempoary methods that has been used to make prints of palladium and platinum metal . Many of us have experimentd with other methods, such as Malde-Ware and Ziatype POP, but eventually settled on the DOP method using ferric oxalate because overall it gives the most consistent results with the minimum of complications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Werth
One of the great strengths of Arentz's book is that it is based on a mastery of his own preferred working methods, and for the most part it does not make concessions to include procedures which he himself does not use. There would have been far more to criticize, in my opinion, if he had included sections on methods such as Malde-Ware or Zia when he himself does not advocate, teach or normally work with these methods.
Also, with reference to Mike Ware's comparison of the tone of Dick Arentz' prints with historical examples, the reproduction in his review is really way off. As Clay mentioned, the real tone of Arentz' work is much more neutral in tone, very much like the historical sample shown by Ware.