From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 12/28/02-07:56:42 AM Z
David,
Cesium palladium may well print with more contrast than 'normal' sodium. I
haven't tested the specific formula you mention, but it wouldn't surprise me
at all to find a change in contrast with it.---Carl
--
web site with picture galleries
and workshop information at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/
----------
>From: david distefano <zfd@lightspeed.net>
>To: "alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca" <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Subject: palladium printing
>Date: Fri, Dec 27, 2002, 6:43 PM
>
> I had some time today for experimenting with palladium printing. I took
> a 4x5 negative that I knew would print well and made a new image of it
> for a control. The make up was 5 drops FO No. 1 and 1 drop FO No. 2 and
> 6 drops palladium No. 3. For the experiment I used the same FO mixture
> and for the palladium I used 3 drops palladium No. 3 and 3 drops cesium
> palladium used for the ziatype. I exposed both sheets of paper at the
> same time which was 11 min. under a super actinic light. The standard
> mixture printed as it always had but the experimental image suprised me.
> I knew it would be warmer in color but the highlights where brighter(
> farther up the scale) and the shadows were deeper. The upper mid tones
> stayed the same except for the color. To me it looks like the
> experimental print makes the same negative seem to have a longer scale.
> Can someone explain why this happened? I like the experimental print
> better than the control. I quess it doesn't matter why it happened
> because it is sending me in a new direction with my printing.
>
> David
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST