> Thanks for you very helpful comments on my original questions on your tests on
> how various papers react to platinum.
>
> Why infamous ? I would have thought that they provided a sound basis for a very
> worthwhile discussion.
Just an attempt at self depreciating humor I guess. This certainly
has been a very worthwhile discussion for me and I hope for others. I
am a bit frustrated that the only way I can share the results is
through numbers and graphs which can't possibly convey the most
meaningful aspects, those to which the densitometer is blind. But as
Judy said in another post, anyone else doing similar tests would very
likely get different results and I too would probably get at least
somewhat different results if I were to repeat them tomorrow. Such is
the nature of the beast.
> Why not clear in EDTA?
I have found that EDTA does not work well in combination with
potassium oxalate. It works fine with ammonium citrate which I rarely
use at present.
> Variations in the proportions of platinum and palladium in the sensitiser can
> markedly affect the density of the final print as can the amount of size applied
> to paper.
Indeed, but it affects image color just as markedly. As for sizing
I've yet to try it but no doubt will someday.
> The implication of the last point is that one could spend one's whole life
> making tests instead of making pictures.
Which would be most unfortunate. Hopefully, though , a couple months
of testing will be followed by many more of making pictures. Much of
the current literature is still out of date on the subject of papers.
Even the new edition of Luis Nadeau's History & Practice of Platinum
Printing still mentions a paper from Fabriano called Perusia which a
near as I have been able to ascertain has not been available on this
side of the Atlantic for at least 10 years. (Luis never responded to
my inquiry about this a couple months ago.) Another list member, Russ
Young, who I had the pleasure of meeting face-to-face last week, has
some left from an old stock and has offered to send me a piece to
try. (Thanks Russ :-})
> Did your tests include Waterford and Fabriano. Large Waterford produces stunning
> results. I have posted details of the distributors in the US.
I just received some Waterford, both HP & CP 140#, from Daniel Smith.
Also Fabriano 5 Classico and Rosapina, Magnani Italia, Somerset, and
Twinrocker Watercolor. I will try them out this weekend.
> With some of my students on Tuesday we got into a discusssion of the philosophy
> behind image making while examining 'On Photography'. One concept that we bore
> very much in mind was Occam's razor. An idea which many people doing tests fail
> to take into account. As you say conditions can vary so much that very little is
> absolute.
In a very real way it is all the ineffables and immeasurables that
makes working in these alternative processes so magical and
mysterious, and delightfully frustrating. {:-}
Keith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith Schreiber
Rights and Reproductions
Center for Creative Photography
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Fon: 520-621-7968
Fax: 520-621-9444
Email: keith@ccp.arizona.edu
WWW: http://www.ccp.arizona.edu/ccp.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~