Re: Machine-coated (Palladio) paper
CHPalmer@aol.com
Fri, 24 May 1996 16:04:10 -0400
As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I used Palladio paper when I first
began platinum/palladium printing several years ago. I agree with most of
the comments that have been made about the material. It is absolutely
consistent, and I think that the quality of the final print on Palladio
equals that of hand-coated paper. Its only real technical disadvantage, and
I that think this is for many images a minor issue, is lack of choice in
paper surface. The hydrogen peroxide method of controlling contrast is in
one important regard superior to the usual #1/#2 ferric oxalate solutions:
there is *no* grain in prints when using relatively high peroxide
concentrations in the developer to print flat negatives. The major
disadvantage is of course cost: I can hand-coat palladium for about $2.00
for a 9"x11" sheet, while a 9"x11" sheet of Palladio is $10.00.
For the beginning platinum/palladium printer, there is one big advantage of
the Palladio material over hand-coating. Beginners with alternative
processes often work in relative isolation, without ready access to an
experienced worker who can look at their images and tell them what is going
wrong (or, for that matter, what is going right!). With Palladio paper and
chemistry, the neophyte can concentrate on the considerable task of making a
good negative for pt/pd, without concern that some of his/her problems are
due to incorrect coating technique, improper chemistry, etc. etc. After
you've learned how to make a good negative, you can then switch to
hand-coating and concentrate your efforts on the problems of coating,
chemistry, paper selection, and the other variables inherent in the
hand-coating process.
Charlie Palmer
Albuquerque, NM