Dear Friends,
I go away for a mere 48 hours and immediately this list does weeks and
weeks of discussing nothing but platinum/palladium and NOBODY, not one
person, has said "see the archive." Therefore the above thread is most
welcome. Need I add that there is a *great deal* about film and negative
types for alt-photo in the archive, where in fact these very questions are
answered at length, and variously, although there is always more to say
about such a crucial topic. ( In fact the processes themselves are pretty
basic. The devil is in the negative -- not an exact quote from Wm
Mortensen but the gist.)
I myself have said (probably ad nauseum) that the way to determine
the proper negative for each medium is to print a 21-step on the paper of
choice with the emulsion at issue and then work backwards -- ie.,
negative should, ideally, match the range that you see printed.
Certainly by choosing your paper and adjusting other variables carefully
it is possible to print a given negative in more than one emulsion, but
there are limits. For instance, VanDyke Brown on most papers requires a
contrast range of 1.85 -- you could also print salted paper,probably
carbon, platinum, whatever, with that negative, but I'd hazard a guess
that if you were skilled enough to print optimally you'd also be skilled
enough to have your negatives more or less on the money to begin with. Of
course to print a negative with a 1.85 contrast range in gum, you'd need
to do it in several (maybe 3) exposures.
As for the question above, about using a paper print from a laser printer
for an alt-photo "negative," that depends. My understanding is that the
density of the paper image (ink or toner) is not great enough to print
from directly, while the laser paper itself might possibly add an
unattractive fibrous look. I have tried a couple of laser prints on
*acetate* from different machines and found density far too thin even for
gum. The best I've heard so far is from a printer who prints a positive
acetate from a laser and in the darkroom contacts it to lith film, which
gives him a punchier negative. (And you know who you are -- any comment?)
But there goes the "ease" of getting different densities with the click of
a mouse -- if you want the different densities you'd have to do a
different lith film for each -- which is what I already do, only beginning
with a film positive.
Once you have the positive (whether film or paper), getting the negative
in different densities in lith requires no further testing, simply longer
development. Lith *likes* to get contrastier.
Judy, still waiting for that free lunch......