Re: Shooting long range negs?
The paper is SOOO important with salt. If the paper is not sized well, the
salt solution sinks into the paper and produces a flat, muddy, really ugly
print. I highly recommend using your Platine as a comparison right away.
I also find that salt is one process I cannot use tungsten light with--I do
it in the darkroom, because it is very easily fogged.
I also find that the tonal range is sooo long (called "poor man's platinum")
that you do need a negative that is suitable to platinum printing.
I also find that it is crucial to rinse well before fixing in that first
water bath or else you'll also get that ukky flat fogged look.
There--my 4 cents.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Chambers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 2:06 AM
Subject: Shooting long range negs?
I'm trying to achieve salted prints from 5x7 camera negatives.
I'm a little hampered by regular lack of access to a densitometer
(occasional access is not impossible -- I just don't want to strain the
friendship until I feel more confident of results) so I'm eyeballing them
best I can using the step wedge on the light box comparison method.
I would appreciate recommendations on the filmstocks / developers that I
have available (I've used Fomapan 200 and Kodak 320TXP; Xtol and D76 thus
far with results which printed OK on Ilford MG IV VC at grades 2 - 0, but
are still flat, but not totally hopeless, on salted paper).
I'm paying regard to John Barnier's recommendation to extend processing
I have also Arista Ultra Edu 100 and APHS Litho (Jim Galli's evil
neither of which I have tried.
My developers option is D76, Xtol, HC110, Rodinal and a bunch of raw
I haven't tried my preciously hoarded Arches Platine yet, I'm using some
cheap Canson 100 and realise that this could contribute to the short
What would any of you successful salt printers grab off my shelf to set
for a printable negative?
Thanks - Ross
New South Wales