On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 JKSchreibe@aol.com wrote:
> Hark! Someone calls my name. It sure is nice to be remembered after my recent
> absence.
>
> In response to David's post of 5/24, in all my testing of papers with
> palladium the maximum density on anywhere on any of my step tablet prints was
> 1.45 in the margin on double-coated Buxton. Margin readings were usually a
> bit higher than step 1 even when steps 1 and 2 were the same - i.e. maximum
> image density. The highest step 1 Dmax was 1.41 on Masa (screen or rough
> side).
>
> Most of the papers tested showed separation in 20 if not all 21 steps. The
> few which did not could be said to have inherently higher contrast, at least
> under the conditions in which the tests were conducted.
>
> Regarding the usefulness of densitometer data, I must admit to being wary of
> the use of REFLECTION densities to compare DIFFERENT papers. There are simply
> too many visual and tactile qualities that can't be quantified. However, for
> evaluating the effects on any one paper of a myriad of possible variations in
> contrast, curve shape, printing speed, etc that result from additives such as
> potassium chlorate, hydrogen peroxide, and sodium dichromate, or from
> changing the ratio of palladium to platinum, or the use of different
> developers, or the effects of humidification on density, etc etc,
> I think it can be useful.
>
> On another note, I found a copy of Silvie Turner's excellent book "Which
> Paper?" that was mentioned recently by Terry King. I think, however, that the
> brief section on papers for platinum/palladium printing is for the most part
> wrong. While she admits that "it is not easy to recommend a paper for this
> process", of the 9 papers listed by name only Fabriano 5 (Classico on this
> side of the pond) performed well in my tests. Of the others Rives BFK, Rives
> de Lin (Moulin du Gue), Arches Aquarelle, and Strathmore Bristol fared rather
> poorly. Saunders Waterford has potential. Rising Stonehenge I did not test
> but had tried a couple years ago with lackluster results. Canson Opalux is
> one I'm not familiar with. And finally, ANW Opaline may be the "Swiss Opaline
> Parchment" that Kerik had mentioned a while back and which seems to work
> quite well. I printed a step tablet and 2 real negatives on it just before
> putting my darkroom into storage for a while 2 months ago and they were all
> very beautiful.
>
> Apologies if I have rambled on too much here.
>
> Happy printing to all,
>
> Keith
>