From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 11/30/00-01:01:08 PM Z
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 Kerik717@aol.com wrote:
> ... I think you will find that Kallitype is a
> much more difficult process to master than platinum/palladium. The
> main hurdles with Kallitype are complete clearing, loss of image
> density during processing, consistency, and image permanence. For
> proper clearing, fixing, and toning you will need many more steps in
> the Kallitype process than pt/pd printing. I think you will get to
Well, here's another county heard from. Re image loss during fixing, did
you add ammonia to the fix? With that, image loss was minimal. (Do a
21-step to measure image loss, then "overprint" accordingly -- wasn't very
much.) But that may also be a factor of the developer -- I used sodium
acetate with tartaric acid -- proved a very reliable combo. Also much
easier to mix than that nasty Rochelle salts (& many times cheaper), &
less poisonous than potassium oxalate. With that developer virtually no
clearing problems. For permanency, who knows? But a gold toner (gold
prices still drop) takes care of that, and with student work, permanency
is not a paramount issue.
True, kallitype is more fuss than palladium printing (but anything is more
fuss than pl/pt printing, the easiest processes on earth, only made
*difficult* by nervous attacks re the cost of metal), but that's only
because there's an extra step -- the fixing, plus hypo clear. On the plus
side, much more flexibility in color of the print & much more variety in
style of paper. Also free spirit -- and isn't that the whole point?
If you decide to go on to palladium from there,it will seem even easier
than it is. I'll add incidentally that I understand some "platinum"
printers have switched to kallitype for personal work, also that some
ceertified classes in certified "platinum" begin now with kallitype for
financial reasons.
As for size of print -- a lapidary *vision* is one thing, but surely it's
inhibiting to print small simply for reasons of economy. And Kerik, I
wouldn't agree that "less than $1 each" is liberating for a beginner !!!!
I may be a fossil, but.... .... OK the 4x5 is a good intro to palladium
printing but many photographers, coming over from silver gelatin, never
learn anything else, if you could believe !
> satisfying results much sooner (and with less headache) with pt/pd.
> And, since you're only printing 4x5 for now, the cost of materials for
> pt/pd shouldn't be a major issue. You should be able to make 4x5
> palladium prints for less than $1 each. Start with an inexpensive
> paper that works well single coated - the Cranes 90# cover that Carl
> mentioned would be a good choice.
as ever,
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/01/00-11:46:58 AM Z CST