RE: Platinotype woes
Personally, I don't find any of the versions of platinotype worthy. As alternatives to COT, try Arches Platine (somewhat cheaper) or Fabriano Artistico Extra White (use the acid pre-soak first). Kerik > -----Original Message----- > From: Camden Hardy [mailto:camden@hardyphotography.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:47 PM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: Platinotype woes > > I'm about to start my senior thesis here at Montana State > (pt/pd prints), and just ordered $200 worth of Platinotype > white from Bositck & Sullivan. > They called me yesterday, and informed me that Cranes had a > snafoo with their machinery, and had to recall a bunch of > paper. B&S will be getting a new batch next week to test. > If it's ok, they'll send it to me. Now that the intro's out > of the way, here are my questions. > > Chris just informed me that she's heard the white Platinotype > doesn't work very well, and the natural finish is the way to > go. Do the pd masters out there agree or disagree? Should I > change my order before they send it out? I'm fairly > indifferent about natural vs. white, as they both would work > for this series. > > I've worked with Cot320, and really like it, but not > Platinotype. I decided not to go with Cot320 primarily > because it's twice as expensive, and I'll be needing a lot of > it (on a poor college student's budget). Is the Cot320 > really worth the extra money? Should I bit the bullet? > > I think that's all for now, but I'll probably have more later. > > Thanks, > Camden Hardy > camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net > http://www.hardyphotography.net > >
|