Keith Schreiber (jkschreiber@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:47:10 -0700
Gary,
I haven't found Platine to be faster than Cranes Platinotype, but who
knows - a new batch might be different. It sure sounds from your description
like you are over-exposing. I would think that a step-tablet test print
exposed just enough to merge steps 1 and 2 should not show solarization at
all. If there is any it should be only in the margin. Hmm, and you are using
some Pt too. Why do you use less metal than sensitizer? Try equal amounts.
It may make a difference, I don't know. Did you do the Cranes test today
also? If not, something else may have changed that would affect it as well.
You say that the first 4 steps are totally obliterated. That sounds like
over-exposure of a full stop. Try half the time. Good luck.
Keith Schreiber
jkschreiber@worldnet.att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Miller <gmphotos@earthlink.net>
To: Alternative Photo Group <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 8:38 PM
Subject: Solarizations with Platine and Pt
> Today I bought some Arches Platine and did a few Pt/Pd tests. I used 11
> drops to cover a 4x5 area. The mixture used was 5 drops of solution 1, 1
> drop of solution 2, 3 of Pd, 2 of Pt, and sometimes 1 drop of Tween 20
> (10%). All four samples that I did were exposed for different times
ranging
> from 11 mins to 16 mins, and all showed reversal/solarization in the
darkest
> areas. I even see this solarization in most of the numbers on my step
wedge
> and the beginning, top, part of the wedge up to about step four is totally
> obliterated/solarized. Is my exposure too long. The 11 min one looks
fine
> otherwise with detail throughout,even in the brightest highlights. The
same
> formulation used on Cranes Platinotype had an exposure time of 16 mins.
> Both were developed in potassium oxalate at 85F, and cleared the same.
Any
> advice would be greatly appreciated before I do some more tests with
shorter
> exposures. Could there really be such an exposure time difference between
> these two papers?
>
> Gary Miller
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:38