[alt-photo] Re: ziatype

Loris Medici mail at loris.medici.name
Thu Apr 26 19:24:25 GMT 2012

Dear Christina,

26 Nisan 2012 18:15 tarihinde Christina Anderson <zphoto at montana.net> yazdı:
> ...
> Is that argument still valid or merely usual list grumbling?

Can't / won't comment about the argument. OTOH,  I personally prefer
to name all variants as "pop pd print" or just "pd print" myself...

> Is the process widely practiced or more or less a sort of..."subset"...of pt/pd?

It's pt/pd printing done with ammonium iron(III) oxalate (AFO) -
instead of the usual / traditional iron(III) oxalate (FO). I think
there are many practitioners... (Thanks to Christopher James?)

> Is there no longer a book available on the process, really?

There's a pretty complete / detailed chapter on Ziatype in the
Christopher James book. It contains more info than enough actually...

> I notice B and S still sells all the chemistry so it must be being used by someone.

I use it. In fact, I just did one last night...

I prefer it to the traditional way because I can get AFO locally
whereas I have to order FO from abroad, and importing chemicals is a
real PITA here in Turkey! BTW, I can get PdCl2 (for reasonable prices
- absolutely not implying prices elsewhere are unreasonable BTW!!!)
here in Istanbul too, therefore I can mix every kind of Pd solutions I
may need. (Li2PdCl4 or (NH4)2PdCl4 or Na2PdCl4...) IME, when using
AFO, you don't need a developer(!) for Li2PdCl4 and (NH4)2PdCl4 but
you usually need a developer(!) for Na2PdCl4...

If I could get FO locally, (I think) I would prefer the traditional
method; AFO based pd printing is very sensitive to moisture in paper
at time of exposure (drives you crazy sometimes; you really need a
good humidification regime and/or a very stable environmental
conditions in the workplace - if not, you'll have serious
inconsistency problems!!! Traditional method is much more consistent
in that regard...), plus, as it has a very strong print out, the curve
you have to derive is usually much more drastic (especially in the
shadows!) compared to the traditional process which gas a very light
or no print out at all. Also, as I now use a vacuum frame, it's harder
to inspect the print mid-exposure, therefore, in my case, a full
print-out doesn't bring an advantage anymore - I mean when compared to
the times back I was using a split-back frame. OTOH, having a strong
print out means you can make good "pure" Pd prints with strong dmax
w/o any risk of solarization, whereas you often need to mix a little
Pt in (1:3 - 1:4?) with the traditional method, in order to protect
yourself from solarization, and Pt is considerably expensive compared
to Pd!

Lots of pros and cons; go figure... :)

Best regards,

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