From: Andre Fuhrmann (Andre.Fuhrmann@uni-konstanz.de)
Date: 05/08/00-02:42:00 AM Z
>On Sun, 7 May 2000, Maylee Noah wrote:
>>
>> I mixed up a batch of the traditional formula too and tested both on a
>> variety of papers. Ware's formula has a much richer dmax but the traditional
>> formula was less finicky about what paper I used. Crane's platinotype was
>
>Maylee, you seem a likely prospect to resolve the question still hanging
>in air: Did you doublecoat the traditional formula and give it an acid
>bath on the order of the acid bath for the "new"? I'm told either or both
>stategies can bring the traditional formula close to the new in d-max...
>
>Still wondering,
>
Judy
2 weeks ago I decided to end my wondering by doing some tests with
both formulas. Here is what I found:
Comparison: Ware's formula, aged 4 mths (WF); trad. formula, ditto (TF).
Setup: Arches Aquarelle 200g. Tween. Single but good coating with
foam brush. After exposure (artificial UV light) prints were put
through 2% acid for minute. Final wash 20 minutes.
Exposure: WF is about twice as fast (5 versus 10 or more minutes).
Bleaching/bleeding: Less so with WF. But with TF BB can be
compensated for by overexposure and is greatly reduced by the acid
bath.
Final image:
WF gives a flatter print; the euphemism for that is "longer tonal
scale". TF is much contrastier. Dmax about equal, perhaps even
higher with TF.
Final judgement (my wife):
"I like these ones (=TF) better." -- "But look, this one (=WF) has a
longer scale!" -- "Don't know what you mean. I just like them
better. Die sind einfach sch"oner!"
Suspicion:
WF deteriorates with time.
Resolution:
Next time I shall try mixing WF and TF: the former for highlite
rendering, the latter for working up contrast.
-- Andre
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:18 PM Z CST