Handcoated vs Palladio
Sal Mancini (sal@www.napc.com)
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:54:59 -0500
Dear list,
I have been unable to access email for several days. In my absence I
see that many have stated their opinions on the relative merits of
Palladio paper vs handcoated. It seems that the following points
and/or questions need adressing:
1. The cost of the two methods
2. Why isn't Palladio paper able to be processed with standard
chemistry?
3. the percentage of platinum vs palladium
4. Fresh paper being better than not so fresh paper.
5. Last but not least the same negative not printing as well on
Palladio as opposed to Handcoated.
Please forgive me if I have left out any other valid points.
1. The price difference is sort of a sticky issue. It seems to me that
it depends on the indiviual printer. One printer may have more
throwaways than another. Palladio paper comes wiht test strips which
minimizes mistakes on final prints.While an individual piece of
Palladio paper may cost more than an individual piece of handcoated
paper the actual cost of achieving a finished print may not be very
different.
2. One can use standard chemistry such as potassium oxalate or
ammonium citrate on Palladio. In fact, we used to sell Potassium
Oxalate as our soft developer in years gone by. Rob and Sura Steinberg
decided to stop selling it because of toxicity issues. Besides you can
still get it from B&S. We use a sodium citrate based developer for the
paper because contrast control can be easily achieved with addition of
H2O2. What one also has to remmember is that the Palladio sensitizer
is different from what alot of people are using. Unfortunately, the
details of these differences are trade secrets, so I can't be more
specific than that. The long and short of it is that Palladio paper
will behave differently in PotOX and AmmCit developers than it will in
our sodcit developer. Somee of the main differences would be contrast
control and printing speed.
3. The company line on this is that Palladio Paper uses an "optimum
blend" of Platinum and Palladium. Ican understand people wanting to
know the specific ratio. I am simply not at liberty to say. Trade
secret,sorry.
4. There is some misconception that needs clarification. Palladio
paper needs humidity to achieve a good DMAX. When the paper is cut it
is packaged in hermetically sealed bags with a dessicant to prolong
its shelf life. When you arte ready to print an individual sheet is
humdified. This humidification step can be a little tricky. We have
made improvemens to the paper in that humidity is not as critical as
it once was. With the older paper an improperly humidified sheet would
look frankly, like shit. Muddy midtones, no blacks etc. The improved
paper, due to an improved sizing technique, Gives an excellent image
right out of the bag. Although humidity will still improve the blacks.
A result of the paper spending more and more time in a sealed bag with
a dessiccant graduallly drying it out would need increased humidity.
The tests with the newer paper indicate no difference between fresh
paper, 6 month year old paper and 1 year old paper.
5. In response to this I refer to point response number 4. The prints
that David Kennedy saw may have been improperly humidified. This is of
course my guess without having seen the prints. There is also
something to be said for an instructor's ability to teach a student.
Whoever made these prints probably got tech support over the phone,
with whoeever giving the instruction unable to see the final result.
David Kennedy was RIGHT THERE seeing EXACTLY what the student was
doing. Taking this into consideration, I do not doubt that David was
able to guide the student into making a better print. However, I do
believe that in expert hands a Palladio print could be just as good if
not better than a Handcoated one. Myself being an expert on Palladio
printing I wonder if Mr Kennedy would ber interested in a "Pepsi
Challenge", so to speak.
Sal Mancini
Palladio