From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 08/30/03-04:44:33 PM Z
I have intended for some time to post the following message but
circumstances have not provided me with an opportunity to collect my
thoughts in a meaningful way. Took some time today for that, however,
so here goes.
The genesis of this message goes back to an exchange of messages
earlier this year on the alt list in which kallitype and Pt/Pd.
Printing were compared. I have held for some time that making
platinum or palladium toned kallitypes is a viable way to get Pt./Pd
tonal range and permanence for less expense. When this subject came
up in the spring Carl Weese and Kerik Kouklis expressed opinions to
the effect that kallitype was just too much hassle, and Carl also
mentioned that he had experienced some problems with streaking in
kallitype. At the time my personal experience with Pt/Pd printmaking
was rather limited and I had no response to their comments. Since
then, however, I have done a fair amount of palladium printing and
now feel that I have sufficient knowledge to compare the two
processes.
First, a comment about the final image, and in this case the
comparison is a final palladium toned kallitype, or a straight
palladium print. Both processes require negatives of the same density
range (about log 1.65-75) and the final images of the two processes
are for all practical purposes identical in terms of color and tonal
range. And, because the final image in both cases is made up of
palladium there should, theoretically, be no difference in archival
quality between straight palladium and palladium toned kallitypes. In
terms of cost, the major expense for both processes is the palladium
salt, and it takes about 1/5 the amount of palladium to tone a
kallitype as to make a straight palladium print. So, even when you
buy the precious metal in quantity there is a considerable cost
differential in favor of a palladium toned kallitype over a straight
palladium print, and the difference is even greater when platinum is
involved.
But, to address more directly the issue of kallitypes being more
hassle than straight Pt/Pd I am providing examples of my typical
workflow patterns with both processes. The development and clearing
times are based on use of Stonehenge Rising White and Clearprint
vellum papers, both of which work great for me with both kallitype
and palladium.
Step
1. Coat Paper
Palladium and Kallitype - Procedures same but kallitype needs about
20% more solution for a given area.
2. Expose
Kallitype is faster by about 50%. A typical digital negative with my
UV unit requires about six minutes of exposure for palladium, about 4
minutes with kallitype. An in-camera negative that requires 20
minutes for kallitype needs 30 minutes for palladium
3. Develop
2.0 minutes for both kallitype and palladium.
4. Clear
15.0 minutes for palladium, 5.0 minutes for kallitype.
5. Tone
Not necessary for palladium, 5.0 minutes for kallitype.
6. Fix
Not necessary for palladium, 5.0 minutes for kallitype
7. Hypo Clear
Not necessary for palladium, 1.0 minute in 1% sodium sulfite
recommended for kallitype.
8. Final wash
20 minutes for both kallitype and palladium.
Add all of this up and you get a total exposure and processing time
of 43 minutes for palladium, 42 minutes for kallitype. And this is
based on printing with a digital negative. If printing with an
in-camera negative the faster speed of kallitype would become a
significant advantage in shortening total time of operation.
Conclusion
The bottom line for me is this. Although there are more steps
involved in making a kallitype than in making a palladium, the total
time of operation is about the same for both processes, and on the
whole I rate both processes about the same in terms of ease of
processing.
There are important reasons why one might not consider kallitype a
viable printing medium, especially persons involved in selling prints
through galleries. I think we could all agree that platinum/platinum
printing has a certain name appeal that the other alternative
processes, with the possible exception of photogravure, do not and
will never have. Just consider, for example, a typical gallery
customer hell bent on laying out some cash today for a nice art
print, and his choices are a platinum print and a carbon print, with
no advantage for either process as regards size, subject matter, or
knowledge of the artist. My thinking is that the platinum print sells
nine times out of ten in this circumstance because of the snobbery of
name appeal.
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:46 AM Z CST