RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate

[EJN Photo <ejnphoto@sbcglobal.net>]

Sandy, I don't mean to imply loss of sharpness, but it was more a lack of
mid tone contrast. That is why I said it may be more a paper issue than an
AFO issue per say.  We have seen that some papers "work" for FO some require
or at least greatly appreciate an acid coating before printing. 

I too have seen very nice prints made with AFO. It was just an observation
of what I have seen with some papers. 

EJ & Family
10219 Lynford Dr
Dallas, TX 75238
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:06 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate
> 
> Eric,
> 
> 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
> >http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> >http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> >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