Re: Mike Ware's POP Pt./Pd. Pt
Cost wise I don't think you will find a significant difference between traditional DOP Pt./Pd. with ferric oxalate and POP Pt./Pd with ferric ammonium oxalate with either the Ware method or Ziatype. FAO costs a lot less than FO, but in the larger scheme the paper and metal salts represent more than 90% of the total cost so if the goal is to save money the best method is to buy the metal salts and paper in volume.
To this point I have used primarily traditional DOP Pt./Pd. with the dichromate system of contrast control, though I did experiment with Ziatype in the past, and in the last several days I have made some very nice prints with the Ware method. For the most part, DOP Pt./Pd. has proven trouble free, but getting the FO solution right is very important, which can be complicated by the fact that FO is an ill-defined substance and supplies can and do vary. The advantages of FAO are that it is less expensive, better defined, and goes into solution much easier than FO.
I really don't know which method would be better for a beginner. I tend to think that POP Pt./Pd. might be slightly easier, but control of humidity is more important than with DOP Pt./Pd. since it affects both color and printing speed.
If cost is a major issue you might consider making kallitypes and toning them with palladium or platinum. The end result if almost identical, in that in both cases you have a print that is primarily made up of metallic palladium or platinum. Silver nitrate is a lot less expensive than palladium or platinum, and you don't waste the palladium except on images that are good. However, making good kallitypes also requires a lot of attention to detail.
At 11:06 AM -0500 11/9/06, Jordan Wosnick wrote:
For someone beginning Pt/Pd printing (but with experience doing Vandykes and cyanotypes), would you all recommend the Mike Ware (ammonium ferrioxalate) method or the "traditional" (ferric oxalate) method? Is Ware's method cheaper than the "traditional" method?