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

I do want to say something in respect to POP. I 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. I can work
very well. Dichromate is very effective in POP but affects printing colour.



-----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?
>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,
>>-----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