From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 08/31/03-01:52:26 PM Z
Kerik,
What I have found to my satisfaction is that when the issue is making
a single print there is very little difference between processing a
palladium print or a kallitype. You have three less steps for
palladium but overall processing time is virtually identical. No big
deal in my opinion, not even a little deal for that matter.
When the issue becomes one of productivity during a printing session
it does not surprise me at all that you think you would be more
productive with palladium than kallitype, with less failures. It
therefore should not surprise you that I am equally convinced that I
could be equally productive with kallitype. Most people are most
productive doing the things they do best and know the most about.
As for your take on art consumers, I humbly disagree. In my opinion
the great majority of Pt/Pd prints sold in the $500 range are sold
primarily *because they are Pt/Pd print." Obviously subject content
is highly important because most people buying in that price range do
so for decorative reasons, but I find the notion that there is not a
process appeal for pt/pd print apart from subject content, and apart
from the reputation of the artist, disingenuous. Beyond $1k artist
reputation becomes a lot more important than either image content or
process.
Sandy
>Sandy,
>
>> I gave an example of my workflow based on what I consider minimum
>> times with both processes to do archival processing, and the times
>> came out about the same for kallitype and palladium. Show me your
>> workflow so I can understand how you cut the time for palladium
>> processing in half.
>
>I just re-read your workflow and now see your total process times were for
>digital negs and included the wash time (it was very late when I read it). I
>wasn't even considering the wash time, because that is happening in the
>background and does not impede one from working on the next print or
>whatever. The bottom line is that I tried kallitype a couple years ago and
>worked with it for a few weeks. Long enough to convince myself it wasn't
>going to fit into my way of working. Most of the wet processing with
>palladium takes almost no attention and allows me to be working on the next
>print or next several prints. If the print sits in the clearing bath for too
>long because I was coating/drying another sheet of paper, no harm done. Not
>so with a kallitype sitting in the fixer for example.
>
>So it's not so much the time it takes to make one print start to finish
>because that is really just trivia since I don't work that way, but it's
>more about the productivity of the process during a printing session of
>several hours as Carl suggested. I have no interest in trying to quantify
>it, but I'm quite certain I can make many more palladium prints during a
>given session than kallis with fewer failures. Again, the cost of the
>materials is trivial compared to the value of my time.
>
>And if some dolt buys one of my prints because it's made with palladium vs.
>one of yours because it is a kallitype, I'll take his money. But this is NOT
>why I choose to print in platinum/palladium. Most sophisticated art buyers
>are much more concerned with the content of the image and who made it than
>the content of the print. Most unsophisitcated art buyers aren't going to
>spend the $500 on up that it's going to cost for a fine photograph,
>regardless of the print medium.
>
>Kerik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:46 AM Z CST