RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate
Wonder why that would be?
I have a very nice Ziatype print that Loris Medici gave me and it is sharp as a tack.
At 6:27 PM -0600 11/2/06, Eric Neilsen wrote:
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 http://e.neilsen.home.att.net http://ericneilsenphotography.com Skype ejprinter-----Original Message----- From: Sandy King [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:58 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org 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