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

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.

Sandy King

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
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