RE: shadow density in zone III

> Eric and Etienne appear to be
> developing their negatives to density ranges from 2.25 to 2.65 (Eric)
> and 2.8-3.0 (Etienne), much greater than many would consider normal.
> In my own work the typical density range of negatives that works for
> me is in the 1.4 - 1.9. Yet Eric and Etienne obviously know how to
> print so there must be something they do that requires such hard
> negatives. I assume the difference is in their choice of metal salts
> since no other factor in my own range of options can cause the need
> for such hard negatives.

I use Pt only (no Pd) with no contrast agents, and I'm seeking prints with
densities from paper white (I use the brightest, smoothest paper I can
find) to Dmax (I can get a maximum reflection density of about 1.85 if
everything is right). I use Englehard salts and often put some gelatin in
the sensitizer, although the same negative values gave full-scale prints
long before I knew about Englehard or started using gelatin.

It has long been my observation that the print density values of most Pt,
Pt/Pd, and Pd prints I see in galleries (and for that matter, prints made
with most of the iron-based processes) do not reach either paper white or a
Dmax greater than 1.3, which is what I would get with my printing methods
and negatives with a DR of 1.8 or so. Interestingly, many Pt prints from
the heyday of Pt have a full density scale rather than the abbreviated
scale so common today. I have always assumed that modern Pt practitioners
want their prints to look very different from S-G prints for marketing
reasons (if it were an artistic choice, it seems suspicious that all and
only modern alt printers would share it). Could it just be that the
"common wisdom" of making negs with a DR of 1.8 - 2.0 for Pt (and other
iron-based processes) has become so enshrined that it has replaced testing?

Of course, it is possible to reduce the exposure scale of Pt with contrast
agents, in which case it should be possible to get a full-scale print with
a negative having a lower DR. I settled on my methods when dichromate was
the only known contrast agent for Pt (at least, to me), and was never able
to get satisfactory results with it. I have not tried any of the more
recent contrast agents.

etienne
Received on Fri Sep 30 11:58:36 2005