Bostick & Sullivan kits

[Rick L]

I am going to get started in platinum printing - I have been doing salt prints for a while and want to expand my skill set.

I plan to print photographs of nineteenth century houses/buildings taken with a period camera and lens in a style they would have been done in the late 1800's and studio portraits in vintage costumes - 5x7 and 8x10 formats

I am looking at either the B&S Na2 Platinum & Palladium Combination Kit or their Platinum Printing Kit.

my question is - what is the practical difference between the two kits in use and appearance? How do they compare in detail reproduction, contrast/tones and ability to print various negatives - is one more forgiving than the other?

is there a reason to pick one kit over the other? It would be cost prohibitive to purchase both to experiment at this time.

I am sure this is a long shot - but it would be great if anyone could post an example of the same negative printed with both chemistries.

[Vaughn]

Any subtle differences probably can not be seem on a computer screen. There will be a slight color difference between using platinum or palladium, or in combination.

Generally I do not use Na2, but do when using lower contrast roll film negatives. Otherwise I use a 2:1 ratio of palladium to platinum, and no contrast agents (I get the contrast I want on the negative.)

Using Potassium chlorate in the Ferric oxalate for increasing contrast works well, but it has an upper limit for increasing contrast -- it starts to get grainy. That's where the Na2 method works better. Note that NA2 can only be used with palladium...using it with platinum nullifies its contrast effect.

[Jim Noel]

I would give you the same answers as Vaughn and add, I suggest students begin with Palladium, no Na2. I haven't used any contrast agent in more than 20 years. Begin with learning to make a proper negative, and most of your woes with Pt, Pd will be over. Since you have been making salt prints you should already be familiar with making long scale (more contrasty) negatives. If not, it is time to learn, think of it as saving a lot of money over the next few years. Proper film choice is the starting point.

[Scott Davis]

I'll add in the recommendation to start with the Palladium/NA2 kit because palladium is a much more forgiving material than platinum. If you want the cold tone of platinum, there are a number of ways to achieve that with palladium - either through toning or various contrast agents (such as NA2, which is a salt of platinum). Trying to do pure platinum when starting out is a recipe for frustration and disappointment. Pure platinum prints are often very grainy, and contrast control options are more limited (you can use dichromated developer or incorporate dichromates in the printing solution). As others have suggested, best to get your contrast right in the negative beforehand so you don't have to use any contrast agent in printing.

[gnd2]

What's a "proper" negative? My negatives have a good contrast range, but I'm used to the luxury of VC printing and making small tweaks to taste when printing. Are you saying with Pt / Pd you want to get the negative exactly where you want your contrast to be with no tweaking during printing? Would a negative suitable for VC printing around grade 2 1/2 be suitable for Pt/Pd or would you need a significantly different contrast range?

I was confused by the different kits also. Maybe starting with simple Pd as suggested is a good idea.

[Jim Noel]

A proper negative for palladium wil print nicely at "0" or "1/2". Grade 2 1/2 is far too contrasty a paper grade for Pd or Pt. It is even more so for Salt.
Several years ago I had the opportunity to print a waxedpaper negative from the 1840's which was designed for Salted paper. There is no silver gelatin paper which will print such a negative correctly. Others had attempted to print the negative for a show, and all prints were total failures. They were far too contrasty.

[CreationBear]

A proper negative for palladium wil print nicely at "0" or "1/2". Grade 2 1/2 is far too contrasty a paper grade for Pd or Pt. It is even more so for Salt.

Very happy to have you and Vaughn available for a little hand-holding (I'm in the process of building my own UV box.:)) A couple of questions:

1.) Do I remember rightly you underexpose a bit? I'd be curious how many stops, say, for FP4+.

2.) When you're in the field, is there a particular minimum "Subject Brightness Range" that you have in mind so that you're left with a reasonable expanded development? (Maybe not an issue out in sun-splashed SoCal, but it gets pretty dark in my East Tennessee hollers.)

[Scott Davis]

Very happy to have you and Vaughn available for a little hand-holding (I'm in the process of building my own UV box.:)) A couple of questions:

1.) Do I remember rightly you underexpose a bit? I'd be curious how many stops, say, for FP4+.

2.) When you're in the field, is there a particular minimum "Subject Brightness Range" that you have in mind so that you're left with a reasonable expanded development? (Maybe not an issue out in sun-splashed SoCal, but it gets pretty dark in my East Tennessee hollers.)

The general guideline is expose as normal, but over-develop by 20%. But that also depends on what developer you're using for your film. That's what I do with my FP4+ in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. I give the same time, 11:00, but I run my chemistry at 75F instead of 68, and I develop in a Jobo with continuous agitation.

[CreationBear]

but I run my chemistry at 75F
.

Excellent, thanks--as you might expect my temps naturally fall toward the high end most of the year, so that wouldn't be a problem. I might also try to explore some sort of continuous agitation (probably with BTZS tubes) as well.

[Jim Noel]

I always attempt to expose correctly. Rarely does the light call for slight under-exposure.

[CreationBear]

Rarely does the light call for slight under-exposure.

Excellent, very helpful.:)

[Vaughn]

I always attempt to expose correctly. Rarely does the light call for slight under-exposure.

But I do find sometimes the best exposure can be slight less than 'normal' -- but I do not call that under-exposing, but the proper exposure for my needs. Much depends on how the shadows are dispersed within the image. But the reduction in exposure is small -- never more than a stop. I generally want some shadow areas to be clear on the film. These shadow areas are very small and any lack of detail in them is too small in a contact print for me to be disappointed that I cannot see info in them.

I develop at about 100% of 'normal'. PyrocatHD, 2:2:100, 74F. 8 to 12 minutes or so. Expert Drums. A lot depends on the film type and which process I will be using -- platinum/palladium or carbon (which requires more contrast than pt/pd).

[Jim Noel]

I agree with what Vaughn says - and to me that is the correct exposure for the conditions.

[MarsZhukov]

One other thing to note is that Dana Sullivan (of Bostick & Sullivan) is super accessible. I have had multiple in-depth conversations with him before I made a purchasing decision. He was great at listening to what I had previously done, what I wanted to do, etc. I would give him a call and just chat if you have any questions about which kit is right for you. Not in any way affiliated - just a happy Pt/Pd and Kallitype customer.

[CreationBear]

I develop at about 100% of 'normal'. PyrocatHD, 2:2:100, 74F. 8 to 12 minutes or so.

Vaughn--excellent "visual" info, thanks...and that's really putting the spurs to your negatives!;)

Jim--thanks as well...no doubt you've got your development down to a science--I'm still at the "alt 'em if they're thick; scan 'em if they're thin" stage, but hopefully I will get sorted before to long.

[Vaughn]

Vaughn--excellent "visual" info, thanks...and that's really putting the spurs to your negatives!;)...

Yeah -- I am sort of the opposite of Jim -- To decide on a development time I lick my finger and stick it in the air -- then wonder why my finger is wet -- and then look at some past developing records (to check SBR, how I developed, and how I remember the print turning out) and decide on a time.

Sandy King read a couple of my negatives -- he said too much exposure, but since I use the negs to print, I like the contrast and strength of my shadow areas -- most of the time. He scans negs and can mess with shadows in PhotoShop. I end up with negs with a density range of around 3 for carbon printing...a little less for Pt/pd.

Of course dense negatives need to be exposed longer -- but generally, alt processes actually like long exposure times...especially those that self-mask like Pt/pd...and even Carbon to a small extent.