There are trwo important points here.
1. What makes a 'good platinum print'.
2. What makes one paper better than another or makes us prefer to use
particular papers.
A very good guide is ' Which ? Paper ' by Silvie Turner ISBN
1-55821-312-0. which gives details of manufacture including sizing and
suitable uses.
My own preference is based upon my personal experience and my approach when
I took up platinum printing. I like to seek a benchmark of excellence. In
other words whose work appears to have the technical qualities that one
should start by trying to emulate. In my case it was Frederick Evans. His
platinum prints have great subtlety of gradation and, where appopriate,
immense tonal range. As Evans was using standard commercially available
ready coated paper from the Platinotype company his 'secret' lay in the
negative. Incidentally the use of the Platinotype name to describe a
modern non coated paper strikes me as being a little misleading.
Having researched the 'negative' I tried various paper to suit my own
preference for a heavy art paper that would give the range of tone and the
gradation and ease of use that I was looking for. I arrived at Fabriano
Artistico and Waterford. Waterford has the advantage that it comes in big
rolls for big pictures. That was my preference but, as Keith implies,that
is just a matter of individual practice.
Taking the sizing point a little further I found that the additionally
sized paper was easier to brush coat. for larger pictures.
I have already set out this procedure on the list. But I could copy it
again.
But all that was preparation for a return to Keith's point as to what one
considers a good platinum print to be. As I said earlier I seek good
gradation and and good contrast range. In order to achieve this I use a
particular combination of film, exposure and development. I read the
other day of another's practice in making negatives. My reaction was 'Oh
that explains why his prints look so flat'. To which a friend replied '
But I thought that that was platinum prints were supposed to look like; I
make my platinum negs that way'.
Which brings me back to the general point that we have our personal
preferences based upon our way of looking at the world and the prints we
have seen. To take the discussion away from the dangerous ground of
invidious comparisons between modern practioners, my own feeling is that
Evans's prints glow and Emerson' s platinum prints tend to flatness. This
is not just a matter of contrast range for the subject matter of some of
Evans's most famous prints have a brightness range that must have been less
than that of Emerson's.
Unfortunately the only effective way of making the comparison is to hold
the work of both in one's hands. It is worth making the pilgrimage.
As a matter for discussion it would be interesting to know what others look
for in papers for platinum printing and what qualities they look for in the
final print.
As a tail piece I would add that one platinum printer I know of always
leaves the brush marks 'so that people will know that it is a platinum
print' and that an awards jury left to one side a 20 x 24 platinum print
with clean edges on Waterford because they had not realised that a
platinum print could have either that range of tone or have clean edges.
Terry King