From: clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 01/26/02-09:26:17 AM Z
Two cents worth:
One thought about the preference for platinum/palladium is that it seems
^slightly^ less fussy in that there are fewer steps in the post development,
wet processing stage, i.e. just a clearing step versus a fixing, possible
toning, and a clearing procedure for kallitype. There also seems to be a
pretty complete consensus on the permanence of pt/pd versus some debate
about the kallitype. I'm speaking from complete ignorance about the
kallitype process, though, and depending on what I've read here and other
places about the process. I don't think anybody on this list would be doing
anything at all if time and complication were key factors in choosing a
process to work within. Any thoughts?
Clay
----------
>From: George L Smyth <glsmyth@yahoo.com>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>Subject: Why Use Platinum? (was: Kallitype vs. PT/PD)
>Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2002, 8:09 AM
>
>I have made Van Dyke prints that have been confused with platinum. The
>question that I have posed to some platinum workers has been why they use the
>process instead of the considerably less expensive Kallitype-type processes.
>The answer is always that the gradation is superior, but with this discussion
>I'm guessing that that might not be the case.
>
>So why do people use the expensive platinum process? Are the comments of the
>difficulty of determining the difference of the result of the two processes not
>accurate?
>
>Cheers -
>
>george
>
>=====
>Handmade Photographic Images
>http://members.home.net/hmpi/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
>http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/15/02-11:47:41 AM Z CST