Re: Brush development of palladium prints. RE: Potassium Oxalate developer for Platinum printing

Terry,

you say below "I prefer to get my negatives right frst and not use tone controls. To my eye this produces a better print.", I think I understand why you say this and here I assume you are talking digital, to make it as short as possible I would say if you are not using the proper methods or techniques to work out things in the numerical world things can and will degrade fairly rapidely. I'm not saying you have poor working methods, I'm just trying to find possible explanations to why you say such a thing. There are other possible explanations of course.

Regards
Yves

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: TERRYAKING@aol.com
  To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:48 AM
  Subject: Re: Brush development of palladium prints. RE: Potassium Oxalate developer for Platinum printing

  In a message dated 3/5/06 1:39:23 am, sanking@clemson.edu writes:

    Terry,

    Then I must assume you have never actually printed a 21 or 31 step transmission wedge of log 3.0 in palladium and actually measured the densities step by one of the steps at paper base white.

    Sandy

  Sandy

  You will have seen my reply to Mark.

  The discussion here has been, to a great extent, at cross purposes.

  I prefer to get my negatives right frst and not use tone controls. To my eye this produces a better print.

  This leaves to one side the question of why you would want to produce a negative with a range of 2.9 for platinum printing or how you achieved those densities using an ink jet printer.

  Terry
Received on 05/04/06-07:28:08 AM Z