RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate

To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate
From: Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:08:41 +0200
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <a0602040dc1703598eac6@[192.168.2.2]>
List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

Thanks Sandy, you've made me feel very proud.

My vote would be for AFO - of course :)

Best regards,
Loris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu] 
Sent: 03 Kasım 2006 Cuma 01:58
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

References:
- Ferric Oxalate or Ferric Ammonium Oxalate
  - From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>