U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate

RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate
  • From: Eric Neilsen <ejnphoto@sbcglobal.net>
  • Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:27:03 -0600
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:In-reply-to:X-MIMEOLE:Thread-Index;b=MQaK53J3Tn5n7QWrk6nLID1/gpeQjhMIUXFVKPqf1X7MY7tZp6ZsCg/QYS6uphNxk3fEh/3kLJp31onB/MiTHcERPqt3CUhZxPw8NOF2uTKi1hSs9e3EUgPNzUJUsitcqGQHj+3QCbmJnV/f+8uyEEDzLRqoybtlu5F6KPy1qaE= ;
  • In-reply-to: <a0602040dc1703598eac6@[]>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Thread-index: Acb+25zih17SqQOeSWC2D+igOwk7PwAAgPNA

Sandy, Yes the AFO is indeed a much better defined chemical than the FO,
which can vary all over the place. POP pt/pd prints can most certainly be
made. One thing that I seemed to see in prints made from negs that print
well with FO when using AFO, are prints that look a little hazy. That might
be OK, if you were making prints of foggy or moody scenes but for crisp
images, not so hot. It may also be a paper pH issue, where what works for FO
will react differently for AFO prints. It does have a shelf life after
mixing but last at least as long as FO if not twice as long. 

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
Skype ejprinter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:58 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate
> After looking at some very beautiful prints made by Loris Medici
> using FAO I am evaluating the prospect of shifting from FO to FAO. A
> recent major lack of inconsistency in results from batches of of FO
> motivates in part this interest. Mike Ware recommends FAO, noting
> that FO is a very ill-defined substance.
> Just wondering what some of the other Pt./Pd. printers on this list
> think, pros and cons FO versus FAO?
> Sandy King