Hack my roadmap towards 12x20 platinum/palladium contact prints (long)

[feppe]

I've been shooting 4x5" for a few years and enjoy it quite a bit, along with some 6x6 and lot of digital small formats. I develop the chromes myself (tediously) with a hand agitated Jobo tank which fits only six sheets - a typical shoot is 40-60 sheets so I develop for an entire day. I get them drum scanned, and print digitally. I'm also getting increasingly worried about the rug being pulled from underneath by the possibility of discontinuation of LF Provia (RIP Astia).

For years I've had a dream of starting to shoot 12x20" some day to do contact prints to skip the drum scanning and Photoshop. Mainly landscapes, possibly nudes in the studio; but not sure if Calumet in Amsterdam has enough lights for that :P

I recently attended a cyanotype workshop, and was shocked at how straightforward the process was. And was hooked. Did some research, and platinum/palladium seems like a similar process, and the tones are more appealing to me. To learn the process and to see if it really is for me, I'd like to test the waters before dropping a few thousand euros on a 12x20 system.

I consider 4x5 too small for contact prints, so 8x10 would be a good step up towards 12x20. I found this nice-looking pinhole camera made by a guy in Greece which is very reasonably priced. This should be a good way to get into developing 8x10, and doing contact prints.

So, the plan is:

1. Buy a 8x10" pinhole camera €
2. Buy developing system for 8x10" €€
3. Buy chemicals and UV lamp for contact pt/pd prints €
4. If it's for me, start acquiring parts for a 12x20" system €€€€€€

To future proof my purchases, I'd get a Jobo 2850 or 3063 which do both 8x10 and 12x20 for hand agitation. The former is reasonably priced at around €50, while the latter shockingly expensive at six times as much - just like other "expert" drums -, not sure why. It's a tank for holding liquid, costing hundreds of euros.

Another much cheaper option would be tray processing which I've never done, and my bathroom is tiny so might not really be an option for 12x20. I've also never done B&W developing.

So my questions are: is the above plan reasonable? Is there much to learn going from chrome to negative developing? Any pointers regarding contact printing 8x10 or 12x20 with pt/pd process? Is 12x20 insanity?

[gary892]

Is 12x20 insanity? In a word yes, but an wonderful kind of insanity.

I own and use a Korona 12x20 and make contact prints.
Keep the following in mind:
1.) it is expensive. Film can be purchased through the special orders from Ilford once a year.The cost is several hundred dollars.
2.) Film holders cost at least $200.00 U.S. each for my Korona.
3.) The Korona I have is oriented for Landscape. If I want to shoot vertical I would have to devise some system to mount the camera vertically yet provide the necessary support for the camera. I stay with Landscape.
4.) To the best of my knowledge there are no 12x20 paper sizes so 20x24 is what I use. Maybe someone else has a suggestion on paper.
5.) I tray process so I don't use a drum.
6.) Storage of processed negatives can be a bit problematic(costly).

That is all I can think of now, that should give you something thing to think about.

I am sure others will have comments and may even disagree with my opinion.
Take it all in before you make your decision.

Gary Fairchild

[Denny]

I think before I'd jump to 12x20, I'd consider shooting 4x5, scanning the originals on an Epson flatbed, and printing 12x20 digital negs. I honestly don't know if the results would be as sharp, but I suspect they would be close, because in my experience the finest detail in the neg is lost in the platinum print due to the texture of the printing paper. Much lower cost to begin, and the scanner and printer are always useful even if you decide to go with a very large format camera. There's a lot to be said for burning and dodging in photoshop, and the ability to create a "final" negative that can be reprinted if damaged. Not to mention how much easier it is to travel with a 4x5, and develop negs. Just my $.02.

[Vaughn]

Price out the amount of platinum and/or palladium you will need for a 12x20! Then consider other hand-coated processes, such as salt prints (using silver instead of platinum). I believe salt prints can a toned with platinum, though).

Why an 8x10 pinhole? With the availability of x-ray film (can be handled under a red safelight) in ULF sizes, you could cut down some 14x17 to 10x17 (very close to the 12x20 proportions) and make a pinhole camera for that size film. Cardboard and tape -- or as fancy as you wish. And working this size will tell you quickly if you have the space for 12x20! The largest I have dealt with is 11x14 -- and just the space needed for handling the film is big enough without throwing processing in! But even a couple of 8x10 negs can be exposed and developed to print together as a 8x20 or 10x16!

But I would suggest buying a solid 8x10 camera with a good lens and a few holders. Practice with the real thing. Prices are fairly stable (buy used), so you can re-sell it when you want to move up in format, or decide to forget the whole thing.

I tray process 11x14, and used Jobo Expert Drums for 8x10. Processing B&W will be easy after doing chromes. You will just have to think in reverse working with negative materials!

[Jim Noel]

Yes salt prints as well as kallitypes are both much cheaper than Pt/Pd and can be toned with platinum/palladium much cheaper than one can make such a print. When well done they cannot be separated visually from the real thing.
Both salted paper and kallitypes use only silver nitrate as the metal.

[John Jarosz]

You have a tall order. Some thoughts:

12x20 is huge. I think about things like darkroom size. Sink size. Everything else is disproportionately more costly. Lenses to cover 12x20 are hard to find. S&S filmholders (new) are way more than $200.
Xray film does not come in 20" dimension. You'll need to cut 14"x36" down to size unless you want real film which is also hard to get. And all these things are heavy. You'll need a big car and you won't be taking many photos far away from it.

7x17 or 8x20 is much more manageable (IMO). You'll be using a lot of platinum. If you make your own tissue, carbon transfer is fairly economical and it gives wonderful results. The learning curve is steeper than platinum.

When you are successful, you'll be making wonderful prints. I'd do some kind of two-step learning of the size and process you'd like to use. As Vaughn says, do everything and become proficient in 8x10 first. Then jump into the big stuff. It will take a while to complete this journey. Best of luck.

John

[William Whitaker]

I'm generally in agreement with the preceding comments, but want to add that a developing tube such as the Jobos you mention may or may not be a viable option. At one time I tried a 2850 for 7x17 and got horrid flow marks from the internal structure of the tube and from using a staining developer. I much prefer tray development also because even on the best day a developing tube will only allow me to process one negative at a time. And that's very slow, tedious and inefficient.

I consider 4x5 too small for contact prints, so 8x10 would be a good step up towards 12x20.

Yes, BUT... Paul Strand didn't consider 4x5 to be too small. He did some wonderful 4x5 contact prints. (The first Pt prints I ever saw were 4x5 by Strand...)
Remember, too, that an 8x10 print is 4x the area of a 4x5 which means 4x the materials cost. Or put another way, you could make 4 times as many prints with 4x5 as with 8x10 for the same investment in materials. And for the record, 12x20 is 12x the area.

My advice is to stick with 4x5 for now and get comfortable making Pt/Pd prints with that format. When you get to the point where you are very comfortable and confident, consider moving then to a larger format.

This is good for me to write out this stuff because I am in a similar situation. I have a 12x20 which I love to use. I adore the big ground glass and find the limited depth of field to be more of a benefit to composition than a hindrance. And I want very much to use it for Pt/Pd prints. But I need to stick with my smallest format (5x7) to gain facility in alt processes before I can commit the money to a larger format, even 8x10. So I do feel your pain.

If it's any consolation, while you're practicing your craft, keep your eyes open for a good 12x20. Something good most often shows up when you're not actively looking for it.

[gary892]

Something good most often shows up when you're not actively looking for it.

Will, your statement is the absolute truth. I have experienced that many times.

Gary

[angusparker]

I think before I'd jump to 12x20, I'd consider shooting 4x5, scanning the originals on an Epson flatbed, and printing 12x20 digital negs. I honestly don't know if the results would be as sharp, but I suspect they would be close, because in my experience the finest detail in the neg is lost in the platinum print due to the texture of the printing paper. Much lower cost to begin, and the scanner and printer are always useful even if you decide to go with a very large format camera. There's a lot to be said for burning and dodging in photoshop, and the ability to create a "final" negative that can be reprinted if damaged. Not to mention how much easier it is to travel with a 4x5, and develop negs. Just my $.02.

+1 I'd go down this route first as a test. Create digital negatives with an Epson 3880 and contact print. No need to invest in the hardware at the start. If you like the results you can move to in camera negatives. More reasonable to handle than 12x20 would be 7x17 - approximately the same pano format but much lighter and cheaper to buy/operate. You'll get many more negatives made. The upside is you can develop the negatives in a 2500 series Jobo tube combo which will be much cheaper than the 3063.

[angusparker]

Yes salt prints as well as kallitypes are both much cheaper than Pt/Pd and can be toned with platinum/palladium much cheaper than one can make such a print. When well done they cannot be separated visually from the real thing.
Both salted paper and kallitypes use only silver nitrate as the metal.

+1 Although Pt/Pd process is pretty simple it is expensive at ULF sizes. I'd look into Kallitypes as a cheaper and virtually indistinguishable alternative.