> Joseph O'Neil postulates:
>
>
> > Assume for arguments sake palladium salts for photographic use were
> >readily available in just about every drugstore/chemist/pharmacy around the
> >world. Ready made kits, just pick up, 5 minutes easy work, and off you
> >go. Would then more people actually use that process? One of the oldest
> >rules of marketing is "availability creates demand", but I sometimes feel
> >that in some cases, the opposite would actually happen.
>
> <Snip>
>
> I've thought about this for over 20 years. Certainly the rarity, in this
> case of the metal itself, creates its own mystique. I would not, however,
> dismiss the archival permanence of the pt/pd process as a selling point.
> Another part of the mystique is the craft aspect. There is no difference in
> kind between a slip cast production line porcelain bowl and a paper thin
> handmade one... other than the fine handmade one will cost many times more.
> I have wondered what would happen if pt was $1.00 an ounce and it could be
> point on a paper and would be of enlarging speed and would be a multi
> contrast paper by using filters. I think it would challenge silver bromide
> paper. Lots of people are going to Iris prints despite the miserable
> permanence.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> --Dick Sullivan
>
>
I think the important thing to remember here is that in spite of the
elitist marketing qualities of the platinum print (permanence, the word
"platinum", hand-crafted, rarity, etc.) is the fact that the platinum
print has a look that is unique unto itself. The iris print, which is
sprayed onto the surface of the paper is different than the he look of
the platinum print where the image lives in a physical depth in the
paper. Its apples and oranges.
This is not to say that one is any "better" than the other, but that they
are different.
John>
>