Woodbury, Connecticut
Making some palladium prints seemed like a good idea for the last day of the year. A 9" print is draining and the setup is ready to do a 17.5" panoramic digital negative worked up from a 7x17 format original.
In the developer. This shot is the first I've printed from my current "winter light" series.
In the first clearing bath. This is a 100% pure palladium print. No standard platinum component, no contrast agent, no "Na2," which I really don't like to use. When it's completely dry and I've had a good look at it I want to print it again with a small amount (about 10%) of standard platinum solution to see what difference it makes. For years my "standard" formula for working from in-camera negatives has been mostly palladium with a 10-15% percent platinum component and no contrast agents of any sort. I want second generation negatives with sufficient density range to print exactly the same way.
9 comments:
Hi Carl,
I'm just starting down the hand made print route and wondered what you meant by the 'not liking' na2?
Tim
Tim, for me the distinguishing characteristic that most makes 'the look' of a good Pt/Pd print is the extremely long scale (low contrast) of the material. The best prints come from negatives with enough density range to match that long scale. Contrast agents shorten the scale, which can help make an acceptable print from an inferior negative. Na2 works better than other contrast agents like potassium chlorate and ammonium dichromate, but the best Pt/Pd prints to my eye are made from good negatives, using no contrast agent in the print formula.
Ah OK - I'm using only 2 drops of 2.5% Na2 on an 18 drop 8x10 print but do things improve if I drop the Na2 completely?
That's actually a strong hit of contrast which will make a much harsher print than one from a negative with enough range to print well with no Na2 at all.
Thanks Carl - I'll have a try with no Na2 to see how it prints out. Perhaps a bit of sensitometry is in order...
If the print with 2X 2.5% Na2 looked OK in terms of contrast, the same negative will make a flat print without the contrast agent, but a negative with significantly more density range (contrast) will produce a print with a full range of tones and much smoother overall gradation without Na2. Just as when working directly from in-camera film, the best prints come from "getting it in the negative" and not from shortening the scale of the print formula.
I'm using QTR to and calibrating closely but at the end I'm fine tuning with Chartthrob. However I'm also starting to play with using 'real' negatives (on Bergger). Am I best calibrating without any NA2 then (as I can create a full scale image by changing QTR settings)?
Yes. I don't use QTR, however. For any new variable, I always first want to see if I can get a full scale print with no contrast agent, because that has the potential for the smoothest and richest possible overall result. For real film, developing with a pyro formula makes it much easier to achieve a 'platinum-ready' negative that will deliver all the rich tonality possible in this medium without using any restrainer/contrast-agent in the formula.
In fact, if a film or a digital negative production approach fails to achieve a density range that makes a full scale pure palladium print without any contrast agent, I would reject it as unsuitable for the process.
So, see if QTR settings will get you to a density range that runs from dmax to full highlight on your combination of paper, FO, and palladium solution with no Na2.
Thanks Carl - I do have some pyro I got from a colleague when he sold me his Jobo ATL2300. I'll let you know how I get on ;-)
Post a Comment