U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Platinotype woes

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).


> -----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