RE: Mike Ware's POP Pt./Pd. Pt
In my former mail I used a lot of times the I word. In fact it was If and In. Must be Freudian. Maybe still not correct English but already better and sending it twice gives me the opportunity to make my point ...., Freudian? I do want to say something in respect to POP. If you start from the descriptions Carl Weese and Dick Sullivan have given, you will find out that humidity is NOT at all important as long as you keep the humidity of the sensitized paper high. Shifts in printing colours are easily made with chemicals. (I have never used Mike ware's formulations though) I would recommend using Platinum 6 as a contrast agent for DOP. It can work very well. Dichromate is very effective in POP but also affects printing colour. Regards, Witho -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu] Verzonden: vrijdag 10 november 2006 16:58 Aan: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Onderwerp: 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. Sandy King 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? > >Thanks > >Loris Medici wrote: >>And I'd say we should thank Mike Ware, Pradip Malde, Dick Sullivan and >>Carl Weese (and other persons involved - not forgetting the early >>pioneers) for their efforts in devising workable, beatiful methods of >>POP Pt/Pd printing using AFO sensitizer and sharing the information >>freely without any commercial intention. >> >>Thank you! (Bowing) >> >>Best regards, >>Loris. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu] >>Sent: 09 Kasžm 2006 Pers¸embe 03:22 >>To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >>Subject: Mike Ware's POP Pt./Pd. Pt >> >>... >> >>In any event, I thank Loris Medici for putting me on the potential >>advantages of FAO. Lots of potential here I believe. >>... >> > >-- > > >Jordan Wosnick >jwosnick@fastmail.fm
|