Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,965   Posts: 1,558,399   Online: 810
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21

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

    Yes, and I could also more gainfully spend my time with more focused writing projects or by printing. But it never does much harm, other than waste a bit of time, to explain our reasoning in a courteous manner way with people whose opinion and work we respect.

    And bear in mind also that the information in this discussion is presented in answer to questions by others, not to satisfy you or me. We both already know what we want to do and have the knowledge and experience to do it, at least in terms of printing with metal salts. That we should come to different conclusions about minor aspects of the issue does not surprise me, and might prove instructive to others in showing that there are many ways of reaching the same destination.

    Sandy

  2. #22
    cjarvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    183
    Images
    26
    Sandy wrote:
    "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."

    What? Silver is in fact converted to the more noble metals? I want the machine you own that converts silver into some other element. Sounds like a cash cow to me...

    Perhaps what you mean is that the reactive silver compounds are combined with the metallic toning compounds to form less reactive compounds (i.e. alloys).

    And while I appreciate the points of view of both Kerik and Sandy, I've found kallitypes, while quite lovely, afford me very little in monetary or time savings.

  3. #23
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by cjarvis
    Sandy wrote:
    "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."

    What? Silver is in fact converted to the more noble metals? I want the machine you own that converts silver into some other element. Sounds like a cash cow to me...

    Perhaps what you mean is that the reactive silver compounds are combined with the metallic toning compounds to form less reactive compounds (i.e. alloys).

    And while I appreciate the points of view of both Kerik and Sandy, I've found kallitypes, while quite lovely, afford me very little in monetary or time savings.
    What attracts me to kallitypes isn't the ability to mimic palladium prints but rather the added creative possibilities given by toning. Similar in some ways to silver gelatin prints.

    Don Bryant

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cjarvis
    Sandy wrote:
    "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."

    What? Silver is in fact converted to the more noble metals? I want the machine you own that converts silver into some other element. Sounds like a cash cow to me...
    Convert was an inappropriate choice of words. I should have said that the silver is replaced by the noble metal. Another possibility is that the noble metal simply encapsulates the silver.

    One would think that the exact nature of what happens in toning would be known but it apparently is not as there has been very little modern research on toning with gold, palladium and platinum. I exchanged correpsondence last year on this subject with a number of persons who know a lot more about this subject than me and the bottom line is that the reactions are fairly complex and not well understood.

    Sandy

  5. #25
    cjarvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    183
    Images
    26
    With whom did you correspond?

    I would imagine that Dr. Michael Ware or someone at IPI (Jim Reilly), RIT or the GEH (maybe Mark Osterman would be a place to start) would have a pretty good handle on exactly what's happening with toning in gold.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cjarvis
    With whom did you correspond?

    I would imagine that Dr. Michael Ware or someone at IPI (Jim Reilly), RIT or the GEH (maybe Mark Osterman would be a place to start) would have a pretty good handle on exactly what's happening with toning in gold.
    Etienne Garbaux and Ryujij Suzuki among others. The discussion was on the alt-photo-process list in October, 2003, in a thread called “Test for Silver Metal in Print? If you read the thread and look at the comments you will find that some of the folks who weighed in on the subject are scientists with quite a lot of knowledge of the issue.

    My original premise was that the silver metal could be completely replaced, which if true would mean there would be no difference at all between a palladium toned kallitype and a regular palladium. However, based on these discussions I concluded that 100% replacement of silver with one of the more noble metals does not appear to be possible, or if possible it would be more complicated than just to make a print with the more noble metal in the first place.

    My own interest in the matter was satisfied by the discussion because the practical implication on image stability is more important to me than the theory. Whether the process is replacement, encapsulation, or something else the end result is that toning a kallitype in either gold, palladium or platinum gives it a lot of permanence. Selenium toning offers similar, or even greater protection, but the theory of selenium toning is already fairy well understood.



    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 09-10-2004 at 03:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by jdef
    Cost is relative. If one were to ammortize the cost of a process over the life of the print, platinum might be the cheapest process to use, or maybe carbon? Digital prints would surely be the most expensive process in these terms.

    Other than death what is not relative? The point in discussions of this type is to provide people with accurate information and let them make their own choices. In other words, make apples to apples comparisons. I am not pushing any process or method of printing. I print in AZO, carbon, kallitype and Pt./Pd and I also make digital prints. I find advantages and disadvantage in all of these methods of printing. Carbon is without question the least expensive of these processes to work in terms of the raw materials, if you make your own tissue as I do, but in many ways it is the most exquisite of all photograhic printing processes, vintage or contemporary. But carbon has a very long learning curve and even after one masters the process it is still very time consuming to work, and failure reate is high, so if you put a value on your time it is the most expensive of all processes.

    My original suggestion was that people who know nothing about Pt./Pd. printing can basically learn the rudiments of the process by starting out with kallitype. And, if you have the two processes calibrated it is entirely feasible to proof in kallitype and make your final print in Pt./Pd, which can result in a substantial saving in materials because there is no question but that it costs more to make Pt./Pd. prints than it does to make kallitypes. How much more is subject to many factors, including the cost of chemistry and paper, which can vary tremendously as we have seen: Don Bryant suggests $4-5 dollars for an 8X10 print, Joe Lipka in his article at unblinkingeye.com suggests about $6.50 for a Pt./Pd. print of the same size, while Kerik suggests a cost of $5.00 for a 12X20” print. My own costs are similar to what Kerik quotes, or perhaps even slightly less. But bear in mind that Kerik’s figures and mine are based on buying the metals in quantity for roughly 1/3 or less of what they would cost through Artcraft, B&S or Formulary , and on buying papers also in bulk with considerable savings over normal retail prices.

    In the end I have no interest in championing any process and it makes absolutely no difference to me how people choose to print. But costs do matter to some people and I think it only fair that if we compare expenses it should be done in such as way that accurately reflects the different ways the base materials are purchased. Otherwise the comparisons are meaningless.

    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 09-10-2004 at 03:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Thanks to you all. I will certainly be trying platinum printing. It may seem strange, but part of the motivator was seeing some paintings of river scenes that reminded me of some of Kerik's prints (I have seen more of his images than anyone elses) in terms of the tonal scale, colour and size. I then realised what an excuisite thing a decent sized platinum print must be (not sure that 8x10 is big enough...11x14 up methinks).. Somehow the 'look' of such prints seems to lend itself to smaller, more 'precious' prints than regular silver prints (not counting AZO as I have never seen one). I will experiment with 8x10 then sell body parts to fund something bigger if I like it enough. I quite like the idea of reducing the size of the darkroom and being able to work in decent subdued light (eventually). Not sure that this would be possible, as at a recent exhibition there was FAR more interest in (and sales of) large prints of 17" or more (corroborated by other exhibitors). People (excluding serious collectors and those with loads of cash to spend on tiny prints....) just seem to want large wall centre pieces in the UK at the moment. Maybe I need to move upmarket! There was a whole lot of support for traditional monochrome in genereal tho.

    Thanks again!

  9. #29
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Don Bryant suggests $4-5 dollars for an 8X10 print,
    Sandy
    FWIW, here is how I calculated the expense per 8x10 print.

    1) Paper - I basing the print cost on the price of a premium paper in this case 1-11x14 sheet of COT 320. 25 sheets of COT 320 costs about $43 not including shipping. That makes each sheet $1.72.

    2) Metal salts - I'm basing the per print cost for palladium on the assumtion that 12 drops of palladium would consume .6ml of palladium solution (each drop is about .05ml). Going by that usage about 42 prints can be made from 25 ml. Current B&S price of Palladium solution #3 is about $65 not including shipping. So that would make each print cost about $1.56 for palladium.

    So just between paper and palladium the per print cost is $3.28. This price doesn't reflect the cost of other chemicals such as Ferric Oxalate, contrast agent, or clearing bath. Nor does it reflect the cost of shipping.

    So one would probably approach about $4 per 8x10 print. The paper cost can be reduced, by using a paper such as Fabriano Extra White but that still requires an oxalic acid treatment, not expensive but another expense never the less. BTW, Jerry's Art O Rama just had Fabriano EW 140 on sale bringing a 22x30 inch sheet down to about $2.15 each. So it pays to shop around.


    Good luck Tom,

    Don

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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