[alt-photo] Re: Palladium Failures
viapiano at pacbell.net
Sat Oct 1 00:20:51 GMT 2011
Is this from the new batch of Platine...? Or new Cot 320...?
----- Original Message -----
From: "eric nelson" <emanphoto at gmail.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 4:15 PM
Subject: [alt-photo] Palladium Failures
> In my 20+ years of working with DOP palladium and platinum, I have never
> so many issues arising as I am now that I can't figure out.
> My studio is in our basement, 4 steps down from ground level, and I have
> been testing both Platine and Cot 320. I have had a momentary success
> 320 to get *one* print made with 1 neg, but now, w/new negs generated by
> same LVT and profile, I have had just about every kind of failure.
> My previous working methods, (in my old studio that was above ground with
> humidity control), that were *perfect* years back with the 'old style'
> Platine was to double coat with a tube, leaving the sensitizer to set for
> minutes each time before drying w/a hot hair dryer.
> Fast FWD to present day.. with early tests in my new studio that I assume
> more humid than my old one, tube coating didn't work well at all and the
> images were slightly abraded looking on Cot 320 and even worse with
> unevenness using Platine, so I switched to a hake brush and dismissed
> Platine as unworkable. Double coating on Cot 320 with a tube gave a
> ugly print.
> Test prints on the Cot with a tube looked OK initially but when used for
> actual 16x20 print were uneven. Another defect using the tube that I
> thought would disappear with more sensitizer was the appearance of paper
> fiber disturbances, i.e. those little dang hairs that one could spot out
> they were Lilliputian.
> So yesterday's test prints showed solarization in the blacks. I haven't
> that happen in 20 years! This occurred with both Platine and Cot coating
> with a brush.
> I researched this online and found a posting that suggested using a cooler
> setting on the dryer which I did today.
> I coated 2 sheets taped together (edge to edge) which I then separated to
> dry one immediately, and the other I dried 5 minutes later.
> I could see immediately in the first one I dried that the coating had
> away in a round pattern despite using the brush to spread the sensitizer
> to bottom and left to right.
> The 5 min. set time coating seemed a little better, but both, once
> developed, had solarization in the shadows and unevenness.
> Here's my procedure presently:
> Single coat paper w/slightly damp hake brush (distilled water) with
> paper lying on plexiglass.
> Drop schedule for tests on paper 10"x12" 18-4-22Pd
> Developed in ammonium citrate, rinsed, cleared in 4% citric, 5-10 min wash
> then edta/sulfite bath and washed again.
> Unevenness is showing up in the *printed out* image.
> The prints are being exposed with 8 brand new 4 foot BL tubes for 18 mins.
> which appears a little dark.
> Here is a scan of my 2 latest tests. On the left is the 5 min set time and
> the test on the right was dried immediately. The scan exacerbated the
> defects so FYI they do not look as bad as this. Color is off too but I
> it as close as I could in a quick scan.
> This a sample of the same area of the *original* digital file. The
> I'm printing from was made with an LVT.
> I know I must be leaving something out in my descriptions so feel free to
> ask for any clarifications.
> Any suggestions are *greatly* appreciated.
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list