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