Re: Palladio Users Need Not Apply

Kerik Kouklis (KOUKLIS_KERIK@aphub.aerojetpd.com)
Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:52:34 -0800 (PST)

I have to agree with Sal and Jim. Palladio is a very fine product
capable of producing top quality Pt/Pd prints. I only use it
occaisionally any more since my hand-coated prints are working so
well and I just love *doing* the hand-coating. The cost difference
(Palladio is significantly more expensive than my double-coated
Platine paper) is a real issue for someone who prints alot (350+
prints last year) and in relatively large sizes (7x17 and 11x14). I
find I can make Palladio work particularly well for printing older
negatives that were not originally developed for Pt printing. This
is it's primary niche in my work.

-Kerik Kouklis

> David: In response to your statements about your students not
> achieving image quality on Palladio, can you describe either the
> teaching method used or your criteria. I am a big supporter of
> Palladio, in part, because when I hand coat I cannot achieve the
> velvety blacks that I can with Palladio and, in part, because my
> success/time rate is significantly higher with Palladio than it is
> with hand coating. Admittedly, I was taught to use Palladio by its
> developer, Rob Steinberg. And, at this point, I use Phil Davis'
> system to produce negs with a density range that prints well on
> Palladio. But too many people, potentially including you, have
> dismissed this product on the obviously invalid grounds that it is
> machine coated rather than hand coated. Jim

> ...do not believe that the use of these factory made tools makes
> the practitioner any less of an artist. Though a good hand coater
> would have a more intimate grasp of the inner workings of his/her
> craft. Following the same reasoning the use of Palladio paper
> should not disqualify the image or the artist.
> Sal Mancini Palladio