U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Mike Ware's POP Pt./Pd. Pt

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

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.


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