> In-Reply-To: <960522005544_118556700@emout10.mail.aol.com>
>
> I reviewed Palladio paper for the British Journal of Photography a few years
> ago. Carefully following the instructions I was able to get first class
> results - which I could compare not only with my own platinum work but with
> that of other people in the UK I had seen - including several on this list,
> and historical work......
>
> My conclusion was that the results were at least as good as most of the hand
> coated prints. The peroxide method of contrast control also seemed to give
> the printer a slight edge in the precise tuning of negative to print,
> without the problems I had encountered using chlorate with hand coated
> solutions.........
JUDGING PALLADIO
My assessment of Palladio paper is generally similar to Peter's. Where I
differ from his judgment is in considering the range of negatives that
Palladio is capable of handling. This is a one grade paper, and yes
peroxide can make a bit of difference. But even with peroxide, I find the
contrast control of this machine made paper is vastly limited compared to
hand coated paper.
A couple of years ago I used Palladio for a project of printing over 40
turn-of-the-century glass plates. It was my introduction to historical
processes. I found Palladio could handle only negatives with reasonable
density ranges. Very soft and highly contrasty negs were unsuitable. I
am now hand coating platinum and palladium for the more difficult
negatives of this collection.
If you are producing your own negatives and can set your density range
then Palladio is a great paper. It has an exceptionally nice "tooth" to
its surface. And its haptic/tactile quality is exceptionally vital. I
find its appearance to be gentle and sensual. Palladio does come at a
cost: being much more expensive than hand coating your own paper.
I believe that the greatest difference among papers is not whether it is
machine or hand coated. Among papers for hand coating, I find differences
in their potential to adequately register highlights and shadow areas.
But ever more important, there is a variety of qualities that I find
difficult to describe but are ever present as I look at different prints.
THE AESTHETICS OF PAPER
*Aesthetics is the creation and composition of mutant percepts and
affects.* (Felix Guattari, Chaosmosis, Indiana Univ Press, 1995, p. 91)
Each paper, arches platine, cranes platinotype and parchmont, Palladio,
etc. seems to have a particular look, a certain appearance and potential.
Some of them are softer, gentler, some stronger in presence. Some seem
to lay more on the surface, others deeper into the paper. Printing from
old negatives, some show up better for satin cloth of women's dresses,
others for the feel of summer heat amidst a field of hay, or for heaps of
winter snow, and still others for the appearance of metal wheels. It may
be a consequence of my level of experience, but I find that it can take
days before I can find the right combination of: formula to the negative
density range; image subject matter and atmospheric appearance; and
selection of paper.
For some time I've been looking for the **one** great paper. But now I am
beginning to realize that there are different papers for different
negatives/images. A way of selecting paper for photograph is not yet "in
my head". But I know it at a tacit level.
Have any printers in platinum and palladium created a way of identifying
your papers by potential of percept and affect? I'd like to learn of your
classification.
Yes, I'm still experimenting with Terry King's recommendation of Fabriano
and Ossein. I find this combination to have still a different look than
other papers. I have tried it with only one negatives thus far: I do my
tests by printing the same negative with different papers to see the
results. Only then can I judge the paramenters and potential of the
aesthetics of a paper. I need to try it with other photographs before
commenting on Terry's suggestion.
ron silvers