From: Jeff Buck (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 11/13/02-08:27:11 AM Z
I think I'm OK on this. The MB doesn't absorb liquid, and with the amounts
mentioned I too get a little "extra" on the edges (after protracted
coating) that I take off w/ a Q-tip. -jb
At 05:04 AM 11/13/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>Sounds OK if you're using measured amounts, but with small amounts of liquid
>absorption by the bristles could be a factor. Maybe magic brushes don't
>absorb - don't know. I don't do much Pt/Pd, but when I do I usually have
>straight borders, masked with tape for coating. If the coated paper is
>tilted, a little puddle of sensitiser forms along the edge of the tape at
>the bottom after a minute or so, which I take off with a dry brush. That's
>my way of knowing there's enough on the paper.
>
>Amount of sensitiser could account for inconsistencies you've described:
>less sensitiser = generally darker (but probably lower D-max) & lower
>contrast.
>
>
>
>Liam
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Buck [mailto:jeffbuck@swcp.com]
>Sent: 13 November 2002 04:32
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: RE: Consistency Is No Hobgoblin
>
>
>Liam: I don't think I do that, but let me cite my std. formulae and see
>what you think: For a 5x7, 9 drops FO and 9 drops metal. For an 8x10, 19
>drops FO and 19 drops metal. Spread w/ a Richeson 9010 4-inch brush (the
>"magic brush").... -jb
>
>
>At 04:23 AM 11/13/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >Jeff,
> >
> >Another thing to look at might be your coating consistency. Trying to
> >stretch your sensitiser as far as you can, using as little as possible per
> >coat (as some folk do) could account for it.
> >
> >
> >
> >Liam
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeff Buck [mailto:jeffbuck@swcp.com]
> >Sent: 13 November 2002 02:58
> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >Subject: Consistency Is No Hobgoblin
> >
> >
> >Actually, it's the tendency of a phenomenon to recur in the same
> >form.... Anyway, after doing platinum/palladium for about fifteen months
> >now, I find if very difficult to achieve. I arrive at a print that is
> >satisfying. I want to repeat it. So, I use the same paper, the same
> >chemicals (plain FO, pure palladium, PO w/ sodium dicromate mostly), the
> >same exposure, and the same developer. As for ambient temperature and
> >humidity, I can get pretty close to repeating, especially this time of year
> >when I'm producing both artificially (by and large). Like the last couple
> >days, I'm printing this negative, and the temp is between 65F and 70F, the
> >humidity is in the range of 60% to 70%. In each instance, the paper has
> >been laying out in the area of that temp and humidity for a few hours; it's
> >a little "heavy" and tacky to the touch. I guess I made four prints in
> >these conditions (I was double-coating Platine, if that makes any
> >difference). There were notable differences in the overall darkness of the
> >prints and in degree of contrast. Would you expect discernible differences
> >working within these variations in temp and humidity? How do you measure
> >the temperature of the FO and platinum or palladium? I'm squeamish, maybe
> >for no reason, about putting a thermometer into a bottle of precious
> >metal....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST