From: Eric Neilsen (e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 01/27/02-01:13:41 PM Z
Clay, I find your findings curious. I can tell a very distinct shift in
color between the various ions used with palladium. I am also curious that
you don't use the ammonium palladium salt. I find that lithium produces a
print with much cooler color than other palladium mixtures. And please
email me your spreadsheet info.
Do you have four step test or one that was exposed one at a time? if just
one, did you repeat your test and alter the order of exposure?
Thanks
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas , TX 75226
214-827-8301
Web Sites : www.ericneilsenphotography.com
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "clay" <wcharmon@wt.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: LiPd / NaPd for the idle or curious
>
> After Carl's comments about using LiPd in DOP, I ran a quick step wedge
> comparison test yesterday of the different metal salts and their response
at
> the beginning of my printing session. I coated a single sheet of paper in
> four masked-off areas with each of 100% NaPd, 100% CsPd, 100%LiPd and
50/50
> NaPd&LiPd using straight ferric oxalate for the sensitizer with no
> restrainer of any type. I put a step wedge on each coated area, exposed on
a
> Nuarc unit for 250 units and developed them all on the same sheet of paper
> in potassium oxalate at 110 degrees. I've plotted the results of the test
on
> a excel spreadsheet for anyone bored or curious. Just email me off-list
and
> I'll send it to you. The bottom line is that the LiPd seems to have a
> slightly
> different speed and have a more linear response than NaPd. There also is a
> very
> slight color difference that is harder to see on the step wedge than on an
> actual print.
>
> Clay
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/15/02-11:47:41 AM Z CST