Way back in the 70s when the only source of chemicals came from the now
defunct Elegant Images, I also double coated everything for better results,
until I ran into Kip Kumler at the Maine Photographic Workshop. He had
produced a gorgeous portfolio of plants in platinum. His one-coat Pts had
better blacks than my double-coat prints.
The secret was mostly in the quality of the ferric oxalate. The crummy
liquid type I was using was (mostly) the culprit. Bostick & Sullivan's
powder was better and more consistant. Other "secrets" involved indeed the
drying of the paper, which had to be just right for top quality results.
This of course was back in the days when manufacturers did not load up
their papers with chalk to make them alkaline...
I eventually learned to use one coat with better results than two and
especially three coats, the latter simply dissolving the previous two.
Most, if not all of the superb Pt/Pd prints in my collection, donated by
various readers over the years (Dick Arentz, Rob Steinberg, etc.) are
one-coat prints.
Then I went back to carbon processes, but that's a different story...
>
>I once had the somewhat frightening experience of having one of my prints
>exhibited next to a Frederick Evans print of Lincoln Cathedral. I was
>glad I had double coated that print.
Can you elaborate on this comparison for those of us who did not see your
prints next to his?
Luis Nadeau