[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ON Topic - was specks and z--type

Randall Webb wrote:
> ...
> Am I being naive here, but what is a Ziatype? Have I missed something? I
> looked in my Chambers English dictionary but it is not shown. Nor could I
> find Zia.  The nearest I could find was a word for Tibetan yak. Not very
> helpful. Fox Talbot makes no reference to it. I can only assume it is one of
> those new historic processes invented by modern day chemists to confuse
> humble printmakers like me. ...

Thank you for emphasizing the on-topic point to this.  The Z--type is
nothing more than a variation of the Pt/Pd process, a process that has
been around for more than a hundred years.  Not better, nor worse, but a
variation.  Not only does the use of a private name cause confusion to
one interested in alt photo processes, it's use tends to suggest that it
may be a priority process or available only from a certain vendor.  This
can certainly mislead someone new to the process.

Anyone interested in the POP (printing out process) aspect of Pt/Pd
whether it employs lithium salt or tungsten or whatever should
understand that the materials are available from a variety of sources
and that there are further numerous variations that can be applied. 
They should also feel comfortable that there are no secrets or
proprietary methods or materials that they must know or learn or use to
accomplish producing the very best of platinum or palladium prints.

That said, I acknowledge and congratulate Richard Sullivan for his
excellent research into both old and new variations and for his (and his
family's) commitment to manufacturing, stocking, and supplying the
materials.  However, we should keep in mind that others are doing this
as well.

While I am at it, a confusing terminology is in use as to the Pt/Pd
process solutions.  The use of #1 or #2 sensitizer solutions and the
likes is meaningless unless one uses the respective kits or suggested
mixtures of that particular manufacturer (not everyone does or is
required to).  It is far more informative to state that a 27% Ferric
Oxalate solution with or without the addition of a certain amount of a
certain contrast agent was used.  If one is determined to insist the use
of terms like "#2 sensitizer solution", they should at least consider
adding the defining qualifier (for example: "Bostic & Sullivan standard
kit #2 sensitizer solution").  With the qualifier, one could know to get
the information from B&S as to what it is and then decide to purchase
from B&S, Artcraft, Photographer's Formulary, or any of many other
vendors.  Materials can vary in price, quality, and availability amongst
various vendors.

I emphasize the importance of free and complete disclosure of the
details, methods, and materials of an alt-photo process especially
considering the labor intensive and time consuming commitment demanded
to master such a process.  Slapping a private name to a variation seems
to only cause confusion and infer a proprietary or exclusive use.

-- 
Jeffrey D. Mathias
http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/