Re: Mike Ware's POP Pt./Pd. Pt

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

Title: Re: Mike Ware's POP Pt./Pd. Pt

One caveat I should have mentioned is printing speed. In my initial tests I am finding a loss of about two stops with FAO and Ammonium Tetrachloropalladate (II) compared to FO and sodium palladium chloride. With the latter I can print a digital negative on Pictorico in about 100 units/seconds, while with the POP process the same negative needs about 400 units/seconds.

Hopefully I will find some way to change this scenario, because there clearly seem to be some advantages with the use of FAO.

Sandy

At 8:22 PM -0500 11/8/06, Sandy King wrote:

> I finally received some ferric ammonium oxalate today
> and was able to do a few tests with Mike Ware's POP Pt./Pd. process.
> The results were very encouraging. The Dmax I was able to get with the
> sensitizer of  FAO + Ammonium Tetrachloropalladate (II), on the
> first try,  was definitely better than I have been able to get
> with palladium printing using FO in my working conditions.  I am
> working in a room with about 60% RH, which gives a sepia color print
> with straight palladium. I am also exposing by time, not visual
> inspection.
>
> I would also add that working with the FAO is  a real delight
> compared to FO. It mixes up quickly and completely in about 5-10
> minutes, and results are very low fog. I am using Mike Ware's
> recommended post-exposure processing, which you can find oin his web
> site
> (http://www.mikeware.co.uk/mikeware/Platino-Palladiotype.html),
> but I have also found that I can get contrast control with the
> Disodium EDTA with dichroamte. Mike does not specifically recommend
> this approach, as I recall, but I find that it gives a lot of
> flexibility to the process..
>
> In any event, I thank Loris Medici for putting me on the potential
> advantages of FAO. Lots of potential here I believe.
>
> Sandy King