Re: Machine Coated Platinum (Palladio) and the Aesthetics of Paper
James A. Strain (jstrain@iquest.net)
Thu, 23 May 1996 14:42:13 -0500
Ronald J. Silvers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 May 1996, Peter Marshall wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> For what it is worth, I agree both with Ron Silvers and Peter Marshall. I use Palladio
virtually exclusively for the reasons that Peter identified. I could not ever get the
consistently good results hand coating, and, therefore, Palladio was cheaper than hand coating.
In fairness, I never tried Dick Sullivan's glass rod. But Ron is correct in saying that you
should make your own negs to fit that paper. It will not handle too much contrast. My typical
density range, which I can achieve reasonably consistently with the help of Phil Davis' little
PC-6 program, is .15 to 2.25 or so. I am gazing at a Palladio print now made from a neg with
just that contrast range and it is gorgeous (he said modestly). But significantly more or
significantly less contrast does adversely affect Palladio print quality. Cheers. Jim