[alt-photo] Re: Flatter than pure palladium?

Jon Reid jon at sharperstill.com
Wed Oct 6 03:44:08 GMT 2010

Hi all,
Thanks for the replies so far.

@ Etienne. I don't understand what you mean by contrast masks and a google
search didn't really help with anything in the context of printing in this
manner. Could you explain what you mean.

My thought, which I will try this weekend, would be to create a mask with
ruby-lith and try to gove the area additional exposure, though the top right
corner will be tricky..
As for reducing the negative I will reserve this as a last resort.

@ Judy. I have used flashing for enlarged silver printing before but didn't
know it was also viable for platinum printing. I am imagining however that
this might result in lowering the tone of the billboard area to below pure
white but not necessarily resulting in that area displaying detail. Would
this be the case? The billboard is covered in vertical ribs as seen at

@ Mark. I'm confused by the tone of your response. I'm using black light
tubes in a home made exposure box, Bostick and Sullivans FO. I'm using
sodium citrate over KOx because it is less warm, although I am unaware of
any major contrast difference.
Solution strengths in use? Normal, made as per my original workshop notes or
the Sullivan and Weese book.

I'm not particularly experienced with Pt/Pd, having attended one workshop
and read two books. Throughout this I have come to believe that pure
palladium was the flattest 'mix' available. Correct me if I'm wrong. I get
the feeling that this neg is perhaps beyond any little incremental contrast
changes that solution temperature or strength could bring. I'm the first to
admit that I might be wrong however my gut tells me I'll need to use a mask
or burning in method.

Thanks again everyone.


On 5 October 2010 10:54, EJ Photo <ejnphoto at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> WOW! What a great idea Judy. Did you also invent the wheel back then too?
> Lights,  glass, who's FO, perhaps, Potassium Oxalate instead, even hotter,
> lots of methods could work.
> What's on hand? what else are you already doing to make it flatter.
> Solution
> strengths in use.
> Eric Neilsen
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> skype me with ejprinter
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
> Let's Talk Photography
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf
> Of
> Judy Seigel
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:58 PM
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Flatter than pure palladium?
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, etienne garbaux wrote:
> > Jon wrote:
> >
> >> I'm keen to know if there is any way of further reducing  contrast or
> any
> >> other ideas that might see me realising a print of  this negative.
> In the REALLY old days, like practically before the invention of
> electricity, we used to simply flash an exposed print to reduce
> contrast... Primitive as it is, the method has the virtue of easy testing:
> You can move your opaque shield across the surface in steps , as many as
> you can fit in, pick one that looks promising and try on a larger area.
> (Or maybe you already ried that? )
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo


More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list