From: Witho Worms en Jorien van Santen (verzet13@xs4all.nl)
Date: 04/07/02-04:46:51 AM Z
I will say just try. I use Jeffrey Matthias concentrations for (Zia) POP
prints as described in his manual, 35% Afo in combination with the platinum
chemicals I got from B&S, mixed in the right strength. Just treat as if it
were a palladiumprint.
I work on Arches platine.
But because many odd things happen in my life (bookshelves fall from my
studiowall which according to the one who sold it to me can't happen) I will
verify my memory coming week.
Witho
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Lopez de Haro" <alhr@wanadoo.fr>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: DeCosse prints
> Hi Witho:
>
> I have never try it. According to Carl and also is written in his book in
> collaboration with Sullivan, they mention that this is not possible.
>
> What are you doing that it is different?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Witho Worms en Jorien van Santen" <verzet13@xs4all.nl>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: DeCosse prints
>
>
> Alejandro,
>
> To make a pure platinum print there is no need for brush development. Just
> use ammonium ferric oxalate and process as a POP print (Zia). If you don't
> dry the paper completely after coating then there is no need for
> development.
>
> Witho
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alejandro Lopez de Haro" <alhr@wanadoo.fr>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: DeCosse prints
>
>
> > Hi Keith:
> >
> > I did try to make sense of what you said about a "spreader", but
honestly
> I
> > can't picture it. Could you possible mail it to me off the list as a
jpeg
> > file? I have no problem with large jpeg file, I have cable internet.
> >
> > When I ask you about "brush development" I meant developing by brush the
> > 100% platinum print, not the coating part. In other words, the developer
> is
> > in the brush instead in the tray.
> >
> > Concerning the enlarged negative vs. the non enlarged negative
(in-camera
> > negative), I agree with you 100%, there is something missing in the
> enlarged
> > one when you look the final print.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alejandro López de Haro
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keith Taylor" <keithmtaylor@mac.com>
> > To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: DeCosse prints
> >
> >
> > Alejandro,
> > I coat the paper using a small spreader made from "velvet" wrapped
> > around a piece of plastic, 2" x 3". It's more of a synthetic velvet, if
> > that makes sense. For the larger prints it's just a matter of making a
> > larger version. I've used brushes which work OK for the smaller prints
> > but I just cannot make a rod/tube work for me. I did use a rod in
> > Britain which worked fine, but here in the USA, no way. The spreaders
> > are so easy to make in batches you don't have to worry too much about
> > cleaning them etc.
> > Can I tell the difference between prints? I guess the differences are
> > there if you look for them. A print from an in-camera negative 11x14 or
> > thereabouts will always be better ( or should be ) than a 3rd or 4th
> > generation image. But with careful working methods, choice of films etc.
> > it's possible to come extremely close.
> > Keith.
> > On Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 12:22 PM, Alejandro Lopez de Haro wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Keith:
> > >
> > > When you say that the prints are all platinum, are you brush
developing?
> > >
> > > Congratulations on your forthcoming coauthoring portfolio.
> > >
> > > On another thought, can you tell the difference from a p/p prints made
> > > from
> > > a non-enlarged negative and one from an enlarged negative?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Alejandro López de Haro
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Keith Taylor" <keithmtaylor@mac.com>
> > > To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 4:59 AM
> > > Subject: DeCosse prints
> > >
> > >
> > >> Alejandro,
> > >> Cy's prints - all platinum - vary from 14" square through to about
> > >> 34" x
> > >> 20". The majority, as you say, are approx. 20" square. They are all
> > >> enlarged from either 120 or 4x5 negs. I have only experimented a
> > >> couple
> > >> of times with digital output using an imagesetter. That was for one
of
> > >> the 34"x20" prints, but eventually, because of time constraints, I
made
> > >> the negative using the Arista lith film, APHS. Too much to learn too
> > >> quickly!
> > >> Regarding your previous message about co-signing prints, that's a
> > >> tricky
> > >> one. All of the prints are made under Cy's supervision at his studio,
> > >> but I don't sign the prints. I've heard all the arguments for and
> > >> against the practise. I've just finished a portfolio of polymer
> > >> photogravures for Cy that will be co-signed though.
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > Keith Taylor
> > Minneapolis MN
> > (612) 721 2286
> > >>
> > >> On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 09:34 AM, Alejandro Lopez de Haro
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Keith:
> > >>>
> > >>> Just curious, de Cosse prints comes in all sizes, but I think the
> > >>> largest
> > >>> ones are: 23x18", are these made by a 20x24 camera or are these
> > >>> enlarged
> > >>> negatives? If so, are they digitally enlarged negatives?
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Alejandro
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST