so what does anyone here have too say about printing with palladium?? I'm quite experienced with the NA2 process for platinum but have never done palladium...pitfalls/shortcomings tricks/info;printing times vs. plat??; any and all comers welcome.....
Peter, as you know I'm quite a novice; and have only done the NA2 process. However, because the majority of my negs are in 1.8 DR range, I'm using straight Palladium for most of my prints. They do seem harder to clear often requiring 3+ baths, especially with COT 320.
Very interested in the comments of other more experienced printers.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
First off, using NA2 with platinum is wasting your NA2. All you're doing is pushing out your highlights, not actually changing contrast. NA2 is meant for use with palladium. If you need contrast control with platinum, then your best bet is using dichromate in your developer. Ian Leake has just published a very nice book describing this process if you need assistance with this.
The biggest difference between platinum and palladium, other than cost, is that palladium is warmer brown in color, and lower in native contrast. It will probably have a slightly longer printing time, but your mileage may vary, depending on paper, age of your Ferric Oxalate, developer, etc. Overall, the two materials (platinum and palladium) are interchangeable, and can be used blended or separately.
When I took Tillman's workshop, he told us to never use Na2 with Platinum - only with Palladium. I interpreted his comment at the time to mean that there was some dire outcome.
I have to admit that I have experimented with Platinum and Na2, and while the world didn't come to an end, the results didn't justify the cost of using Platinum.
no; I never wanted anyone to assume that I was going to use na2 with the palladium process....sorry for that...bought the palladium kit from B+S and am ready to start in a few days....just waiting for my stash of Artistico to be cut down to size....I guess this is going to be learn by the seat of your pants but assuming that I have done platinum I'm planning on too many pitfalls
will report back shortly for an update
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
you guys actually have me going all over the place here with these comments...
I did the workshop with Tillman and the process we used IS NA2 for plat/palladium....now I'm trying just palladium or at least that is what I tired to infer from my original post...haven't really looked at the bottles but was assuming it might be different....is it or not?? is there NA2 in the straight palladium kit that B+S sells...I guess that is the question to be raised here...don't care one way or the other but might as well be prepared...I'm calling B+S myself on monday to find out what the kit is as I'm out here on the road...
You are doing fine -- it is just a bit of confusion about how label a process.
It sounds like you are using B&S "NA2 Platinum and palladium Kit". It has three solutions -- Ferric oxalate, the palladium salt, and the NA2 (which is a platinum salt). So the contrast agent is actually some platinum salts you are adding to the palladium to increase contrast -- If you use the NA2, then the prints can really be called platinum/palladium prints, but I do not think anyone would dispute just calling them Palladium prints..
Pure platinum prints, and the 75% Palladium and 25% Platinum prints I make, would not benefit from the NA2 (but I believe not hurt, either.)
If you wanted to go with pure palladium prints, then you would probably go with the classic Palladium kit that uses a second solution of Ferric oxalate (with a little Potassium chlorate added) for contrast control. Works fine -- it just has limits on how much contrast it can raise before yielding grainy images. For my work, I aim for negatives that require no contrast agent at all -- easier that way.
PS...I made some small palladium prints, using NA2. A little NA2 goes a long way!
First two -- Lake Powel. Next -- Shadow Brothers, Luffenholtz Beach. Far right -- Wheeler Peak, Great Basin NP, Nevada (All w/ Rolleiflex TLR)
Last edited by Vaughn; 01-16-2010 at 02:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
I've done Pd with the #1, #2/chlorate, poopy images - then Pt/Pd with just #1 after I got my negs to behave, I guess using the Pt as contrast control - then tried POP Pd Ziatypes with some success but only a paper I don't particularly like - then finally forked out for some NA2 and pyro and: Bang! thats the print I'm looking for I said - now using less and less NA2 as I learn how to get the lighting (portraits) and pyro processing optimized so much so I have had success in a couple of pure palladiotypes with zero contrast fiddling, once even going too far and searching for instructions on how reduce contrast in pure Pd.
In my mind that is really where the 'money' is - getting the neg appropriate for your vision in the first instance and pure Palladiotypes don't loose any prestige with me, actually upon thinking about it I wonder if any of the old Pt in the PotOx developer lodges itself in there - anyone ?
But yes, there is a part of me keen to play around so I'm keen to try out the dichromate developer system that Ian has had such success with.
As for the NA2 with Pt - there are a few threads about it here, all coming to a consensus (eventually) that its a wasteful procedure compared to other systems...
Cleared the bowel problem, working on the consonants...
Peter, at this point I would suggest the following - Do call B&&S, they are a great help and second pick up a copy of Arentz book. There are several variations of the different platinum and palladium process, as you can tell from the response you have had so far.
There is the straight platinum print (quite nice, but these can be somewhat difficult sometimes), then there is platinum and palladium, palladium (by iteself), palladium with ferric oxalate that Vaughn refers to, palladium using Na2, then there are the Ziatype/Ware-Meade and on and on - such as Gum over Palladium.
Each one has it's own plus and minus and the reason each of use a given method is because it produces a print that we prefer. While the process itself is not difficult, it can take some time to understand all of the different reasons for using a given method. Most of my prints are straight palladium - but I vary mine by using Lithum palladium or Cesium palladium to obtain a slight color shift.
First look at the bottles you have, see if it really is Na2 or the platinum and palladium kit. Na2 has very little platinum in it compared to the platinm/palladium kit. Plus, most that practice the Na2 method will dilute that bottle into several bottles so that you are working with 10%,5%,2.5%, 1.25% solutions. Using one or two drops of these to control contrast...if this is the method you learned from Tillman then you are already using the Na2 process. Send Tillman an email, he is a great guy and responds to questions and is very easy to talk to - I really think you have just gotten the names of the process mixed up and that is what is leading to the reply's you have gotten.
I'll only add that you will get around to consider which developer you'll prefer ... I think most use Pot. oxalate either room temp or heated. I also like ammonium citrate and sometimes ammonium citrate / na-citrate mixed when going after a cooler sort of split toned look with palladium printing. Since the process is so expensive, do yourself a favor and read Dick Arentz's book. It is a great reference and will save you lots of money up front ...