Chris, I am taking advantage of a refine edges on a rather large file to answer. I think that you’ll find that there is no one coating solution/developer mixture that enough people use to be definitive. The Ziahype might just be a name, but the print out process is for real. There tonal scale is no less valid than a traditional FO. Also there is no set standard coating mixture or even a qualified solution concentration. These are real issues for anyone trying to map out the scale of PT/PD solutions. You best do your own and specify how, what , where, when , why, etc. and then you’ll still have people that “know better” question your product.
Look at Ware’s appear on the issue of pt pd solution and yield. It is however written with the AFO, Ammonia based chemistry, much of the principles hold true for FO traditional chemistry through my experience.
And as for printing with a 1 , 0, or 00 filter? All the time. I may not use it for the whole exposure, but you be sure that those filters see the enlarger often.
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
From: Christina Z. Anderson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: pt/pd stops
Thanks for the answers. I am getting that one can print over 10 stops (wow).
Eric, I am interested in just platinum and palladium and combinations thereof, not Ziatype or whatnot.
I am interested in the utmost capability of a pt/pd print in terms of stops--to compare with bw, cyanotype, gum, etc. I have gone back and started reading Mike Ware's Cyanotype book again and find it is SO worth reading because each time I return to it I find more. More on this later with extending cyanotype's range.
It is not a question of "my pt/pd steps are bigger than yours" :) nor does it relate to those printing gorgeous prints from midtone to black with no white...
In the BW darkroom I did an interesting visual of printing a Stouffers with every filter in the Kodak filter pack to illustrate the tonal range/number of stops each filter produced. Very illustrative of the effect of filters! I'm tempted to post one more visual :)
But no one would print with a 1 or 0 filter which, if memory serves correctly and I am too lazy to go get the step wedge prints, gave the longest tonal range.
etc. etc. gotta go teach...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:11 PM
“Moisture at the time of exposure will also make a difference.”
Chris, the process is not static. I have certainly fill out/ used up all the steps on a standard stouffer tablet. I have not , as Mark, gone out on bought the extended version. There are of course many variations of PT/PD combinations and combinations of FO/AFO ( and others) so the question is are you looking to see what is the longest scale that can be achieved with any combination? Or specifically just a PT/PD combination?
I don’t normally tell people to shoot for a range bigger than 2.2, simply because getting longer scale is more difficult than some want to work. They can get lost in the scale and lose the trees. We are after all making pictures not printing grayscale patches for fun, The painters have covered that ground although I have seen some photographers doing much the same. Hey if it works….
From: ender100 [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: pt/pd stops
With pure Palladium, I am getting over 10 stops—I bought a 41 step tablet because of this!
Moisture at the time of exposure will also make a difference.
On Apr 11, 2009, at 2:26:02 PM, "etienne garbaux" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Can someone tell me the greatest amount of stops they have gotten
>with pt/pd? Or put it in terms of logs or DR, if that's how you do it.
I use the traditional formula, 100% Pt, no contrast agent, and you
can clearly see all 31 steps of a 3.05 wedge on the very smooth, very
white papers I favor. That is the exposure scale, of course -- the
print Dmax is generally 1.5 or so. I usually make negatives with a
DR of 3.1-3.2 for this process (which limits one's choice of films).