Re Platinum and velum:

Jeffrey: You mentioned platinum. printing and lith film. What velum
are you using for your translucent material. I remember your very
nice velum platinum prints that were stunning. Who manufactures that
brand of vellum and what points are you using. 2 point, five point??

Stephen Harrison

>Monnoyer Philippe wrote:
>>I see a lot of people are talking about lith film.
> > I'm not much aware of the previous discussions on this topic since
>> the beginning of the list but I'm curious:
>> I have a limited experience with lith film, but the few I tested NEVER
>> gave me a long range of tones suiting palladiotype or platinotype.
>> I even used very very soft developping agents and dilutions.
>> The Dmax can be high, but a long halftone range was impossible.
>> I should check the manufacturing specifications of such films,
>> but in the meantime, let me propose 3 hypothesis ...
>
>Philippe,
>Your experience with lith film being limited in tones is like my own.
>For the Pt/Pd process lith film alone will not provide the subtle
>tones capable of being printed with that process. Although, some
>photographers still use it, especially to get a larger negative, it
>seems they are not interested in achieving those subtle tonalities
>(this shows in their prints, not that it is good or bad, but that it
>shows). Lith films are useful as masks to add some densities to
>areas of the image (either in the highlights - negatives or in the
>shadows - positives. But a good base film with excellent tonal
>latitude is still important to have.
>
>It seems that some like to find shortcuts, and most of the time this
>is evidenced in their prints. The good graphic arts films have
>almost all been discontinued, but there is some hope if one is
>willing to work in the dark. Instead of the ortho films that are
>now gone, try using a regular panchromatic film (many still
>availiable in large sizes). By going through the positive/negative
>production route and adding masks where needed, one can still make a
>superior enlarged negative.
>
>Another alternative for large negatives is the Kodak Duraclear
>material which comes in wide rolls and has very good dmax and tonal
>quality (but not as good as some B&W films). One still has to work
>in the dark, but processing in best by machine.
>
>I still have found digital to be not there yet due to posterization
>issues, but it should not be long before at least 16-bit depth can
>be printed on a transparent substrate. At least then a competitive
>comparison can be made between a digital and a quality analog
>negative.
>
>--
>Jeffrey D. Mathias
>http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/

-- 
www.talismanpress.com