Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,502   Posts: 1,543,392   Online: 792
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    I too have recently started palladium printing with the B&S kit. It's a good place to start.
    Diane

    Halak 41

  2. #12
    Kerik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,466
    Images
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Hogan
    Tom, remember that the prices quoted are for guys that have the process nailed. With everything new, there is a learning curve....remember how much paper you got through when you were learning to print silver? You'll get through a lot of pt/pd before you're happy.....
    True, but you can greatly reduce the learning curve by attending a workshop. If you can swing it, the best way to learn this type of hands-on process is with someone knowledgable looking over your shoulder. And I'm not just plugging my own workshops - there are many good platinum printers out there you can learn from. Here's a few with general geographic locations off the top of my head:

    Keith Schreiber (arizona)
    Dick Arentz (arizona)
    Clay Harmon (houston)
    Kevin O'Connell (denver)
    Sal Lopes (east coast)
    Eric Neilsen (dallas)
    Nze Christian (belgium?)

    and more I can't think of right now...

    A little googling will turn up more info on all these and other skilled platinologists.

    I teach mostly in California (Yosemite and Placerville), but have plans to teach in Montana and Washington state next year. Possible even the Philippines...

    Kerik Kouklis
    www.kerik.com

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    I have the contrast controls for the two processes adjusted so that I can use kallitype to proof for Pt./Pd. so that all I have to do is make the best kallitype possible, then change the exposure to reflect the fact tht Pt./Pd. is slighly less sensitive. This procedure is especially useful when making large prints.
    Sandy
    Sandy,

    From your article: "Finally, a well-made kallitype, when toned with platinum or palladium, is for all practical purposes identical in tonal range and color to a true platinum or palladium print."

    What do you prefer in the pt/pd print versus the kallitype?

    phil

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik
    ....Possible even the Philippines...

    Kerik Kouklis
    www.kerik.com
    Hi Kerik. The Philippines huh. How are you going to swing this? I am so interested in doing a workshop with you over there, particularly because I have family in Manila and in Cebu. I am impressed that there could be some demand for PTPD in the Philippines. Certainly not without pic taking opportunities. The colonial villages alone are worth the visit, not to mention that is a fantastic archipelago.
    Francesco

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by philsweeney
    Sandy,

    From your article: "Finally, a well-made kallitype, when toned with platinum or palladium, is for all practical purposes identical in tonal range and color to a true platinum or palladium print."

    What do you prefer in the pt/pd print versus the kallitype?

    phil
    Phil,

    In terms of the final print there is nothing to prefer since a Pt./Pd. toned kallitype is for all practical purposes the same as a regular Pt./Pd. print. Both consist of an image formed of palladium or platinum metal on a paper base. In making a Pt./Pd. toned kallitype you use a silver/iron sensitizing process to make a silver metal image which is then converted to Pt./Pd. metal in toning. In making a regular Pt./Pd. print the sensitizing process is a Pt./Pd./ iron process that produces in one step an image of
    palladium or platinum metal.

    Visually there would be no way to distinguish between a palladium toned kallitype and a regular palladium made from the same negative and processed by someone who understands how to control contrast and color with the two processes.

    From a working perspective there are more steps in making a kallitype print than in making a regular Pt/Pd print and this may result in shorter working time. On the other hand Pt./Pd. is less sensitive than kallitype so exposure times are longer. This can make a big difference in working time in printing in-camera negatives. Clearing is faster with kallitpye but then you have to tone and fix, which is not necessary with regular Pt./Pd. If you make a lot of prints in one session you would probably find regular Pt./Pd. less complicated to work. In my working conditions, which are based on one-tray processing, these factors are pretty much a wash so from start to finish making a 12X20 palladium toned kallitype or a regular palladium print takes about the same time.

    Cost wise it is clearly a lot less expensive to make a Pt./Pd. toned kallitype than a regular Pt./Pd. print. I estimate that the cost of a 12X20 palladium toned kallitype to be about 1/5 that of a regular palladium print, with single coating. More with double coating.

    In terms of archival qualities both a Pt./Pd. toned kallitypes and a regular Pt./Pd. prints are extremely stable and their ultimate survivability probably depend more on how the images were processed, the quality of their paper base, and conditions of storage, than on any slight differences in the mechanism by which they were made.

    Finally, if you work with digital negatives you can use the same curve for both kallitype and Pt./Pd., assuming that you adjust both to the same contrast.

    Ultimately it does not make a lot of difference which process you use because the end result is for all practical purposes the same thing. That is why I suggest that even if your ultimate goal is to make Pt/.Pd. prints you can save a lot of money along the way by learning with kallitype and later using it as a proofing method for Pt/Pd.

    Sandy

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by philsweeney
    Sandy,

    From your article: "Finally, a well-made kallitype, when toned with platinum or palladium, is for all practical purposes identical in tonal range and color to a true platinum or palladium print."

    What do you prefer in the pt/pd print versus the kallitype?

    phil
    I will add two comments to the previous message that migh be seen as reasons to prefer a regular Pt/Pd. print over a Pt/Pd toned kallitype. .

    1. In toning kallitype images with palladium I have found that it is possible to replace or convert something on the order of 97 - 99.5% of the silver to palladium, but not 100% of it. I suspect that the small difference in silver remaining in the toned kallitype would be a much less important factor in archival qualities than how the print is processed, type of paper support, and storage conditions but in the absence of actual samples there is really no way to know.

    2. Persons involved in promoting and selling their work in galleries, etc. would probably do best to stick to Pt./Pd. Although as photographers we may believe that that process matters less than the image, in the marketplace process matters a lot. For a variety of reasons Pt./Pd. prints will attract more attention, and sell better, than Pt./Pd. toned kallitype, all other things being equal.

    Sandy

  7. #17
    Kerik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,466
    Images
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    snip...

    Cost wise it is clearly a lot less expensive to make a Pt./Pd. toned kallitype than a regular Pt./Pd. print. I estimate that the cost of a 12X20 palladium toned kallitype to be about 1/5 that of a regular palladium print, with single coating. More with double coating.

    In terms of archival qualities both a Pt./Pd. toned kallitypes and a regular Pt./Pd. prints are extremely stable and their ultimate survivability probably depend more on how the images were processed, the quality of their paper base, and conditions of storage, than on any slight differences in the mechanism by which they were made.

    snip...

    Ultimately it does not make a lot of difference which process you use because the end result is for all practical purposes the same thing. That is why I suggest that even if your ultimate goal is to make Pt/.Pd. prints you can save a lot of money along the way by learning with kallitype and later using it as a proofing method for Pt/Pd.

    Sandy
    Not surprisingly I don't agree with Sandy's assessment. Firstly, the cost of the paper for a 12x20 print is roughly 50% of the materials cost per print. So assuming Sandy's 1/5 cost is correct for the sensitizer, a 12x20 pt/pd print will cost me $4.25 and the same thing in a toned kallitype will cost $2.50. The Kallitype is about 2/3 the price of the pt/pd print, not 1/5. Just want to clarify that...

    Then there is the time factor. Sandy says it takes him roughly the same amount of time to make a pt/pd and a Kallitype. I've done Kallitype myself and found it a much bigger hassle for efficient use of my darkroom time than pt/pd printing. But the hands-on part of the processes are very personal and we are each drawn to different processes for different reasons. For the way I value my time, pt/pd printing is much less costly than Kallitype. Spending a couple extra bucks to make a pt/pd print vs. a toned Kallitype is money well spent, in my opinion.

    As for the Sandy's archival claims, I'm skeptical but have no hard data to disprove him. Over the long haul, will a toned kallitype be as archival as pure pt/pd? Who knows... And, frankly, I don't really care. I'm just saying I'm not sure about the archival issue. In then end it's the look of the print that counts, and hopefully it will have a long and appreciated life! I'm not one of those a "archival freaks". I want my prints to last a long time, but don't obsess about it.

    I'm not trying to say Sandy is 'wrong' on any of this. I respect his abilities and dedication to what he is doing. Clearly he is knowledgable and does what he does well. I simply want to point out that there are different ways to evaluate the cost of a process than dollars and cents.

    To be successful at any of these processes, you really need to enjoy doing them. I love pt/pd printing... I love gum printing... I'm now working with wet plate and loving that as well. Kallitype for me was a PITA.

    Kerik
    --------------
    www.kerik.com

  8. #18
    Kerik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,466
    Images
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    I will add two comments to the previous message that migh be seen as reasons to prefer a regular Pt/Pd. print over a Pt/Pd toned kallitype. .

    1. In toning kallitype images with palladium I have found that it is possible to replace or convert something on the order of 97 - 99.5% of the silver to palladium, but not 100% of it.

    2. Persons involved in promoting and selling their work in galleries, etc. would probably do best to stick to Pt./Pd. Although as photographers we may believe that that process matters less than the image, in the marketplace process matters a lot. For a variety of reasons Pt./Pd. prints will attract more attention, and sell better, than Pt./Pd. toned kallitype, all other things being equal.

    Sandy
    Sandy,

    Obviously I wrote my last post before I saw this one. No. 1 is interesting. How did you determine those numbers? Laboratory anlayses?

    I agree with you on No. 2, although it really does not come into play for me. Yes, I sell work through galleries, but I use pt/pd because it is faster, easier and much more fun for me than Kallitype.

    Kerik

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik
    Sandy,

    Obviously I wrote my last post before I saw this one. No. 1 is interesting. How did you determine those numbers? Laboratory anlayses?

    I agree with you on No. 2, although it really does not come into play for me. Yes, I sell work through galleries, but I use pt/pd because it is faster, easier and much more fun for me than Kallitype.

    Kerik
    Kerik,

    I made this determination based on bleaching of untoned kallitype prints and Pt./Pd. toned kallityes. An untoned kallitype in a strong solution of R-14 bleach will be reduced to no image in about five minutes. A Pt./Pd. toned kallitype will retain up to 97-99% of its density after extended bleaching in the same solution. The theory is that toning either converts the silver metal to Pt./Pd., or encapsulates it, and the bleaching tests tend to confirm this. Even chemists disagree about the exact nature of toning but laboratory analysis has been reported that strongly suggests that in toning with gold or Pt./Pd. silver is in fact converted to the more noble metals. In any event the practical result is that toning appears to give a kallitype print the same level of protection from oxidation as a regular Pt./Pd. print.

    However, since the replacement of silver metal with the Pt/Pd. metal is not 100% complete I will concede that a Pt./Pd. print may have some slight advantage in terms of archival quality. But I think it most probable that other factors such as care in processing, quality of the paper support, and method of storage are far more important in the long run to print stability. It is not unusual to hear of silver prints from the last century toned with gold and Pt/Pd. that have survived in pristine condition because of good storage conditions and of Pt./Pd. prints in very bad condition from poor storage conditions. Indeed, even carbon prints on poor supports often show deterioration.


    As for the other issues I would like to address once again the comparative issues of cost, time and stability between making toned kallitypes and Pt./Pd. prints because my experience simply does not agree with yours. Assessments are often based on emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with reality. I agree that in the end one will not be successful with any alternative process unless you love what you are doing, but why one comes to love doing one thing and not another is not always a product of pure reason and logic. You, for example, state that you find kallitype a PITA but love gum printing. I, on the other, see no practical difference in making toned kallitypes and regular Pt./Pd print, but find no pleasure at all in gum printing.

    So we have different opinions about working procedures, but cost and time can be reduced to fact, not opinion, and I have some further thoughts on both.


    Cost — I stand by my earlier estimate that the cost of a toned kallitype print of 12X20” is about 1/5 (and less than that if you double coat) than hat of a regular Pt./.Pt. print. My paper costs, based on buying in quantity, are typically $1.50 to $2.50 per 22X30 sheet, from which one can make two 12X20” prints. So your finding that the cost of paper is roughly 50% of the cost of a print is simply not consistent with my own experience. Price per print will certainly vary with choice of paper but you would have to be paying over $5.00 per sheet of 22X30” paper in order for paper costs and chemistry costs to be the same for a 12X20 print. That is not what I have paid in the past for papers like Fabriano, Stonhenge, Lenox, the various vellums, or even Cot-320.

    Time —As you correctly observe, time is worth something so if it could be clearly established that it takes less time to make a regular Pt/Pd. print than a kallitype I would willingly concede this point. But in my work it does not. There are more steps involved in making a toned kallitype than a regular Pt./Pd. print but when you time the entire sequence of operations it take about the same time to make a large print with either process. In fact, since the exposure time is a significant percentage of the total time involved in making a print, and kallitype is more sensitive than Pt./Pd., the density of the negative being printed has a very big impact on the total amount of time needed to make a print, if you time from the moment of exposure to the end of wet processing. A couple of years ago you and I had this same discussion and I provided a typical flow-chart for making large prints with the two processes that clearly supports the above conclusion.

    If I were making a lot of small images I think it is likely that making regular Pt./Pd prints would go faster, but for making a single large image, say 7X17 or larger, there is really no advantage in terms of time with either process, in my opinion. And my opinion is based on considerable experience in printing the same negative with both processes.

    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 09-08-2004 at 02:46 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20
    Kerik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,466
    Images
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    my experience simply does not agree with yours.
    Sandy,

    Clearly this is true, but this horse is dead so I'm going to quit beating it. Our working methods and results are so different that this is becoming pointless to belabor. I'd rather be printing...

    Kerik

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin