Platinum Prints

[Michael A.Smith]

Recently I posted the following and got slammed for it.

"Beautiful prints can also be made on Pt/Pd paper. But few prints on Pt/Pd paper are truly beautiful. Usually, they are muddy (some would say "dreamy") and do not often have rich blacks."

Why this comment elicited hostility is a mystery to me. The above is my opinion of platinum prints I have seen. Note that I did say that beautiful prints can be made on platinum. Later I added that I had seen some exceptional platinum prints--I was particularly of thinking of Irving Penn's platinum prints.

In a wonderful article comparing platinum prints to Azo prints, Bob Herbst, had 1.43 as the maximum density for platinum prints, and it is my understanding that densities in that area are generally accepted as standard.

At the printing plant in Belgium where Paula and I are printing our new Tuscany books they have a Platinum printing atelier. (Next year they will add a Carbon printing atelier and a Dye-Transfer atelier.) I found that they not only make the finest book reproductions (no one else can print 600-line screen quadtone, and 10-micron stochastic printing does not quite come up to it--they do that, too), they also make what are, in my opinion, the finest platinum prints I have ever seen. They get densities in the blacks, on platinum prints, of up to 2.1. Their platinum prints are so rich, that Paula and I will have some of our negatives printed in platinum by them.

I hope this lets everyone know that I am not against platinum prints. I am just not impressed with a platinum print, unless it is also a good print. Just as I am not impressed with an Azo print unless it is also a good print. It is never the process that ultimately interests me, it is the quality of the finished result.

[jim Ryder]

Michael,

Please keep us posted about how this experiment works out. I am especially interested in how you view the final platinum prints compared to your Azo. This may turn out to be as interesting as Weston's color images. But please explain more about what your goals are for the platinum prints. Do you imagine they will be more beautiful, or perhaps bring out other subtleties in the negative? Or will you be trying to duplicate in platinum what you have already expressed in silver? Did you select negatives that are difficult to print in silver? Do you imagine side by side comparisons in your gallery? If so please share the marketing and opinion results with us. As an extremely dedicated and proven fine art printer, someone to whom the print matters, are you apprehensive about giving up control of the image? Are you confident the makers will be able to achieve the results you specify or will you be leaving some final judgements up to them? The images in your book can only be viewed as reproductions of works of art, on the other hand the platinum prints will be the works of art themselves. For that reason I would think you will approach these two processes very differently. Will you be signing the platinums? I am sorry but I probably have a million more questions. To me this is an exciting opportunity for our community to explore these issues with you, I sincerely hope you feel like sharing.

[Louie Powell]

When I was in college a (very) long time ago, I often got heavily involved in discussions with friends about various aspects of religion. One of the things that made this most interesting to me, as someone who grew up in a fairly strict, conservative religious environment, was the freedom to debate our beliefs on a purely intellectual basis without resorting to emotion or sheer assertion that certain things just had to be.

So what does that have to do with photography? Well, photography has a lot in common with almost any other aspect of human life and existence in the sense that there are those among us who hold so strongly to their beliefs that they are unable to carry on an intellectual discussion that even remotely challenges some of those principles. Whether it's the Zone System, some "non-Zone" system, Pt/Pd printing, color versus monochrome - the subject doesn't matter because there are going to be people who believe with almost religious ferocity that their opinion is absolute truth and any other point of view is dead wrong.

Some platinum prints are beautiful. But some are pretty awful. The same can be said of silver prints - or dye-destruction prints - or oil paints - - - pick your medium, the basic fact is always true. Whether the final product truly "sings" depends on three factors - how well the medium matches the subject, the skill of the maker, and the preferences of the viewer.

Louie

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Michael, no offense but I doubt they are printing in watercolor paper. But even if that was the case, why would anybody want to make a pt/pd print that looks like an azo print? Might as well tone your prints and be done with it.



The important thing is not to have a Dmax of 2.1, but to obtain proper separation in the shadows and "convincing" blacks, and that is possible even with a Dmax of 1.4.



You were not slammed because of your opinion, if you think all pt/pd prints are dull, that is your prerrogative. You were slammed for statements like this:



I am just not impressed with a platinum print, unless it is also a good print.



Your definition of "good" can be very different from mine or anybody elses in this forum. This is something you fail to concede to us, apparently because you think your 40 years of experience allow you to tell us what is good and what is not. This is why you were slammed, not because you expressed an opinion.



Perhaps I am being a bit cynical here, but could these "new" platinum prints be just another way for you to sell your prints at higher prices? or are you having them printed just to display in your house?



If this are prints to be sold then perhaps the economic incentive is what you like, rather than the "look" of the print.

[Geoffrey Swenson]

If you are at it you can explain your disdain of all sorts of digital printing as well. Yes I know you backtracked somewhat in the past, but I wonder if you still think if a digital print still worth a little over $29.00?

Again, there are awful prints in all mediums, but one cannot categorically put down alternative processes just because they are not according to your mantra. Even though Pt/Pd prints are often flat, you just cannot knock them, (for your own good) because for some people it is “long scale” . This also doesn’t mean that any other methods are superior or shoddier than your own, but a good print is a good print regardless.

As for Pt/Pd prints, I’ve seen beautiful and awful ones. Both are possible!

[jantman]

In August at the Portland Museum of Art in Maine, I saw the Weston exhibit. There were a LOT of his platinum prints there (and, presumably, palladium also). Anyone who doubts platinum as a medium needs only to see that exhibit or one like it. I hate to admit it, but after that, even St. Ansel's cotact prints looked a bit...dull.

[Richard Boulware]

Although I read this list often with great frustration, I am forced by these latest posts, to respond.

So long as the technical..."Nanner, nanner, nanner"..."my process is better than yours"...attitude persists, there is little hope for the greater goal...making great photographs.

How naive of me! Geeze, I always thought that the ultimate goal was attempting to make great photographs. Little did I realize that the name of the game was playing with "tools",... rather than using those tools to build something profound and meaningful...in photographs.

Perhaps this attitude is the reason why most LF photography, in my opinion, is so incredibly dull and without any emotional or intellectual content.

If you really want to put things into perspective, just pick up a book of W. Eugene Smith, Irving Penn, Werner Bischof, or others. For those whos goal is great pictures....I think you'll get the message.

[Bruce Watson]

It is never the process that ultimately interests me, it is the quality of the finished result.

You are kidding, right? Everything I've read from you and about you over the years says this just isn't true. You are interested in the process. You are clearly against any kind of digital output. I don't know whether you think that it's just impossible to improve on old technology or you are just scared of things digital. But you sure seem adamant that, if its digitial, it's vastly inferior. For that matter, you seem to be against any printing technology other than an Azo contact print.

I'm not saying that your opinion is bad. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I just have difficulty believing that you are mystified by some of the hostile responses you elicit.

Now, did you really want to discuss this, or did you really start this thread so that you could make yet another reference to your books on Italy?

[Sal Santamaura]

Up till now I've adopted a policy of not posting to these 'attack' threads. I have no dog in this fight. As a non-professional with barely enough time to do any photography at all before retirement, both platinum and the handling of single-weight Azo are potential activities which will wait until at least five years from now. But for some reason, this camel's back was just broken.

Please, please, please, read Michael's postings, think about what he wrote, stifle any urge to do other than respond to what he actually said (not what you surmise his motivation might be), and even then, let your response sit for a while before posting it. You may cool down and decide not to operate in 'reactive mode' after all. In other words, please "play nice." There was too much struggle on the part of Tuan, Bjorn and Tom re-establishing this forum for it to degenerate into an emotion-driven photo.net-like free for all.

Would love to say it's good getting that off my chest, but it isn't. Instead it is saddening that normally confrontation-averse me felt compelled to write it.

[Jay DeFehr]

Does that mean it's okay for us to like Platinum prints, now that you've given the process your blessing, or should we limit our admiration to the ones you deem worthy? Maybe we should take our densitometers along when we visit galleries to be certain they've met the density requirement of a M. Smith sanctioned Platinum print. Certainly our sense of beauty is not developed to the degree necessary for us to form a meaningful opinion without some quantitative measurement by which to judge. I'm relieved to be free of the burden of taste and discrimination. Thank you Michael.

[Sal Santamaura]

Thanks so much Jay for confirming that I completely wasted my time.

[Mark_3632]

Sounds interesting. I assume this is a machine process. Is it on glossy paper?

As for the bad print no matter what it is I believe Adams said something like: "If you have a mediocre print surround it in a huge mat, put it in a big fancy frame, and call it art."

[Ryan M]

Actually, I read the post where Michael did get slammed with great interest. It made me want to try both AZO and platinum. I feel that debates on generally subjective matter are very worth while, thought provoking, and get a ton of information out on the table that would otherwise be hard to find. This is just like political conversations I have with family members at our monthly get togethers. Nothing like getting Grandparents, Uncles Aunts, Wifes Husbands, Brothers and Sisters together for a night of loudly discussing whether or not Bush's administration is ruining the world. I look forward to these nights like I look forward to these threads. The previous thread really helped in describing the look of both AZO prints and platinum prints to me. Now if I could only see them up close and personal, I could chose what process, if any or both, I could shoot for. Man, I even spent some time checking out some workshops that I would think about taking in these processes. Thanks for all the great help everybody. Anybody know of good galleries in the western part of Kentucky I could go to for additional viewing? I agree with Sal above when he says to read the postings, then actually think about them, then what the heck, read them again, then post.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Please, please, please, read Michael's postings, think about what he wrote, stifle any urge to do other than respond to what he actually said (not what you surmise his motivation might be), and even then, let your response sit for a while before posting it. You may cool down and decide not to operate in 'reactive mode' after all. In other words, please "play nice." There was too much struggle on the part of Tuan, Bjorn and Tom re-establishing this forum for it to degenerate into an emotion-driven photo.net-like free for all.



Sal, after making an ass of myself in a few flame wars I have learned to do this. But there are times when a response has to be made.



As I said, perhaps I am being cynical, but Michael has said, repeatedly, that in all his 40 years of experience he has seen very few "good" pt/pd prints. This leads me to believe that either he has not seen that many pt/pd prints, or that this new "acceptance" of the medium has an ulterior motive, and in a way he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.



Dont you find curious that in 40 years he has seen very few good pt/pd prints and then all of the sudden we get a reversal in opinion?



By no means I am a "master" pt/pd printer, but I try to research and learn as much as I can on the process, unless this people in Belgium are using a proprietary method which they have not published I find hard to believe they can get a Dmax of 2.1.
Even pt/pd prints made on fixed out enlarger paper cannot get this high a Dmax. I am sure if there was a way to get this kind of response someone would have heard about or asked about it. Nevertheless, it could be possible and I am willing to give Michael the benefit off the doubt on this.



In the end I find this reversal of opinion too unusual.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Sal. With all due repect, what would a forum like this one be without emotion, or the freedom to express our point of view? I think that Michael has a sufficiently thick skin to weather my challenges, and he certainly doesn't temper his resopnses or "reactions". I appreciate your desire for harmony, and I think you'll find me polite and respectful to those who reciprocate. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and have no trouble with respectful disagreement, but that hasn't been my history with M. Smith. Kindest regards, Jay De Fehr

[Mike Lopez]

Jay, I've followed the threads about AZO for awhile now. Not because I use it, but because I am interested in learning about as many different techniques/materials that I can. Right now I use a rental darkroom for printing, and my choice of materials is limited to Ilford Multigrade paper, so I also "don't have a dog in this fight." But in every AZO-related thread I can think of, every single one, you are right there to slam Michael and/or to make sarcastic, cynical statements about him, his work, his experience, etc. I saw one where he announced that he was going to be placing an order with Kodak, and you immediately likened him to a televangelist asking for money. Why? You say that "respectful disagreement" hasn't been your history with him, but why are you always so quick to criticize, ridicule, etc, whenever anyone comments on AZO? I believe that was the nature of Sal's post, not that you don't have the freedom to express your point of view.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Mike. You must have missed the threads in which Michael told me I have no idea how to make a photograph, even though we've never met and he's never seen my work (which he claims is how evaluates a photographer's merit), or the one in which he threatened to have me banned from posting on that forum, or any of the other numerous insults he's directed towards me. Reread those threads objectively and I think you'll find that my comments are initially directed to the poster, expressing myself on the topic in question until M. makes one of his usual pity plays, accusing me of personal attacks against him. This is my post from the last thread:

Hi Mark. I'm afraid you'll find little objectivity regarding the differences between Azo and Platinum prints on this forum, partly because its contributors are strongly biased towards their own process, and partly because it is, in the end, a subjective question. Quoted endorsements from Michael's costomers are meaningless, just as Michael's own opinions are meaningless. I've seen both and have my own opinions, which are also meaningless. Beyond which print you prefer for your own work, is the question of which process you prefer. Although Azo and Platinum/Palladium are both contact processes, they differ greatly in many important ways. Platinum paper is coated by hand, and Azo is bought from a factory. Azo is most sensitive to visible light, and Platinum to UV. Azo comes in only two contrast grades, and Platinum prints' contrast is controlled chemically to wide variations and the list goes on. Do a little investigating and you'll find a lot of information on either process on the web, but for meaningful comparisons you'll have to see real examples of each process, but be aware that a lot of variation exists in the prints from either process, and no one photographer produces definitive results. Good luck with your research.

--Jay De Fehr, 2003-11-06 17:29:18

My remarks were directed towards the poster, and my comments regarding M. Smith were not insulting or inappropriate, just in disagreement. I attempted to pass on what I've learned regarding the posters question, and express my disagreement with another post in the thread. This is common practice and well within the bounds of polite disagreement. I didn't even offer my own opinion as to which process I preferred, but remained objective, as was the point of my post. This was Michael's reply:

Interesting that Jay's vendetta continues. He does manage to turn each of these threads into a personal attack on me. At least he recognizes that his own opinions are meaningless. If he had spent almost 40 years in photography studying prints in collections and museums around the world and that much time making them perhaps his opinions wouldn't be meaningless.

Do you feel that his response was appropriate? If so, what in my post provoked such a personal attack? Was it because I suggested that he, like platinum printers, was biased towards his own process? I think few would argue that he's not. Or was it because I had the audacity to suggest that his opinions are as meaningless as my own in questions of preference and taste?

The question was reframed, and I responded by providing a link to the information requested. I believe this to be the heart and soul of a forum like this one. To share information, ideas and opinions, even if we don't always agree. Did you adress a similar post to this one to Michael? No. Even though he was the one to post accusations and insults, somehow I'm the one who is being unreasonable. If you don't have a problem with M. Smith's declarations of superiority and arbirary assignment of validity, then we will tend to disagree where he's involved. I hope that will not prevent useful exchanges on other topics. Respectfully, Jay De Fehr

[Ole Tjugen]

It would be nice if we could at one time have a discussion about contact printing which did not turn into a discussion about Azo versus everything else.

I'm afraid I agree with Jorge and Jay to quite a large extent, while I also agree that they may sometimes over-react. I will also say that I've never seen a good Azo print, but readily admit that that is biased by the fact that I've only ever seen one. I HAVE seen a good Pd/Pt print, but again, I've only seen one.

I have seen a lot of good, bad and indifferent prints in any number of other processes, and have even made some myself. At this time I intend to try Pd, as I have some negatives that I think would be suitable for it. I do not intend to try Azo anytime soon, for purely logistical reasons: I can get the chemicals for Pd/Pt locally, I can not get Azo or Amidol.

In the meantime I use Bergger art Contact, which Michael A Smith has repeatedly told me "is not Azo". Yes. I know. But I like it, and it works, and I like the results it gives me. I honestly couldn't care less if it isn't Azo...

[Michael A.Smith]

Jorge,

No, they are not printing on watercolor paper. They are having paper made to their own specifications. It is not commercially available yet, but I think it will be at some point. They are not making platinum prints to look like Azo prints. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

"I am just not impressed with a platinum print, unless it is also a good print," seems like a pretty innocuous statement to me. I'm not impressed with anything unless it is good.

Jorge: "Perhaps I am being a bit cynical here, but could these "new" platinum prints be just another way for you to sell your prints at higher prices? or are you having them printed just to display in your house?
If this are prints to be sold then perhaps the economic incentive is what you like, rather than the "look" of the print."

You are cynical, Jorge. Of course, if I like them I will try to sell them. Is there anything wrong with that? But I would never print anything just to sell it. I have to like it for itself, first.

Geoffrey: If I saw digital prints that I thought were good, I might try those, too. However, another problem with digital, for me, is the cost of the equipment--equipment that constaantly has to be upgraded or else in 20 or 50 or 100 years, or a lot fewer, the files will not be readable. But, please, let's not make this a digital vs. other processes discussion.

Richard: Of course the only thing that counts is great photographs. Most LF photography is dull and boring. Most art of all types is dull and boring. Would you like each discussion here to be about "great photographs"? That would eliminate about 99.9% of all of the topics on this forum.

Hogarth: Sorry you are mystified, but if you read more carefully you will find that it is quqlity that I care about and not process. It is just that I have found Azo to be the vehicle for more consistently fine prints than other processes. It is easy. It is quick and it is cheap compared to other processes. It can be beautiful. Seems like a no-brainer to me, if one is making a lot of contact prints. Nowhere have I ever said it is the only way.

Mark: I don't think it is a glossy paper, although they are working on having a glossy paper made to get even richer blacks. It is not a machine process, but a hand process. They do make digital separations--each print is made from three or four negatives (as needed) so that each part of the scale can be expanded. This is nothing I could never do on my own. It really is quite a process.

Jorge, again: I have seen lots of platinum prints, but nothing before quite like those I have seen here. Reversal of opinion. Yes it is. I'll quote a friend of mine who often quotes a line from somewhere, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." And Stieglitz said something about "contradictions" and that of couse he said contradictory things, that to do so was part of being alive. (Don't have the exact quote at hand--library is at home.)

[Chad Jarvis]

Part of the problem with these types of arguments is that they are over philosophy. Arguing a philosophy is akin to debating why one's favorite color is the best. Of course making a gross generalization that "all platinum prints are flat" or "azure is the best color" is simply wrong, but stating


"Beautiful prints can also be made on Pt/Pd paper. But few prints on Pt/Pd paper are truly beautiful. Usually, they are muddy (some would say 'dreamy') and do not often have rich blacks."

is an opinion, perhaps even a philosophy worthy of consideration.

That said, I'm going to throw my two cents in. I have seen A LOT of flat Pt/Pd prints, many of which are my own, and I am still mystified at the reverence given Stieglitz' (or for that matter, Weston's) platinum prints, when, frankly, they were for the most part pretty lousy. And I don't want anyone to state that the materials at the time were terrible or that the technology was lame or whatever, because Frederick Evans did absolutely STUNNING (by ANY and EVERY MEASURE) work in platinum during the same time period. His prints weren't flat.

Know your materials. Know their capabilities. Know their shortcomings.

[Mark_3632]

Ahh-ha! Michael, using three or four negatives to process one print could be the answer to why you like these so much. (by the way are the books self published? My writing degree built in me a curiosity of the path something takes to end it's journey between hard covers).

Burkholder describes a multi negative process in his book. He states that you can get so much more out of the print because you control the dark's and highs all on their own so you can manipulate them seperately without touching the other or the mids. A process I will try some day when I have the time and money for the equipment. This multineg process might even take an AZO print to higher levels.

A true black makes for a crisp look, like the sharp crease in a pair of trousers. It makes perfect sense that this multineg process could achieve this look. With a multineg process you of course get into the realms of the digital neg and computer altering of the original image to isolate the highs, lows, and mids. I guess in theory if you did not want to store your images in a format that will quickly become drink coasters or wheels on a school project, you could get those files put onto photo negs elsewhere and then print them at your leisure. Because they are photo negs you would just store them with your others negs.

Does anyone know if there is a way accomplish this multineg process without a computer?

[Francis Abad]

If the result of all of the above is to have at some time in the future high-quality PtPd pre-coated paper commercially available (once again) then three cheers for those who pursue their ideals and likewise to those that take the opposite view in order to effect even greater drive to achieve those ideals. I am excited to see PtPd in the market very soon (please do champion this cause if you can Michael).

[John O'Connell]

One of the nice things about Pt/Pd prints is that they are Pictorialist in nature, with relatively weak blacks, low contrast, etc. Some of us even like these things. Azo still exists if we wish to explore a very different look. I happen to like Stieglitz's solarized Pd prints, horror of horrors, and part of my intent in getting into the handcoated processes was to explore that look for myself.

You can certainly explore multiple-negative printing with traditional materials if you have the time and the cash. You'll need pin registration equipment, good lab discipline, and a willingness to waste a lot of film testing but the results would be largely the same.

Burkholder's technique places registration marks on the computer-produced negative, but you still have to punch it and use pins. The advantage of the computer technique is that you get to test by printing and then reprint a new negative quickly.

[Bruce Watson]

Michael, I'm not mystified at all. You are the one who said "Why this comment elicited hostility is a mystery to me."

You asked. Some of us tried to answer.

To paraphrase an old quote for which I've fogotten the correct attribution, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

[Geoffrey Swenson]

“Perhaps this attitude is the reason why most LF photography, in my opinion, is so incredibly dull and without any emotional or intellectual content. ”

Here we go again on content…Well said!!

“Now, did you really want to discuss this, or did you really start this thread so that you could make yet another reference to your books on Italy? ”

Yupp! I just didn’t want to be the one saying it.

[Mark_3632]

>>You'll need pin registration equipment

Yep, no problem

>>good lab discipline

In all BW photography isn't this the case?

>>a willingness to waste a lot of film testing

Uh...isn't that how us photographers learn new things anyway. We shoot film I am not sure I would call it a waste.

>>but the results would be largely the same.

Do you mean the same as the digital negs?

[e]

Perhaps we get a little too involved in the process... to the detriment of the inner reason the photograph should exist. Ex.,you can dress up a moron in sharp clothes and he will still be a moron. Better looking but still a moron... Conversely you can dress up a saint in rags and well....In music, it's the same thing...there are the technicians aplenty that pride and measure themselves by their technical superiority, they tend to be very boring after awhile... kind of like watching someone lifting weights. Then you have the ones with heart and soul...these are always interesting... esp. if they have developed the chops and technique to express themselves clearly. Personally I always enjoy the photograph with heart, life and soul anyday over the perfect empty one. I guess it is just what your definition of "good" really is.

[Michael J. Kravit]

Isn't this silly.

I have seen pt/pd prints that have excellent contrast and excellent dmax. I have also seen Azo prints that are both good and bad. As a collector, I own a large number of platinum/palladium prints that are extraordinary made by artists who are revered for their printing and creativity.

Beyond that, I find this whole discussion not to be about Azo vs. Pt/pd, but Michael A. Smith vs. others. To be honest, I sense arrogance in Mr. Smith's posts as well as those that respond to him. There are those that find Mr. Smiths images less than stellar and those that love them.

Let's live and let live, but I think that the arrogant attitude on both sides needs to subside before truly productive discussions can be had.

Mike

[Michael A.Smith]

This from up above by J Ryder:

"But please explain more about what your goals are for the platinum prints. Do you imagine they will be more beautiful, or perhaps bring out other subtleties in the negative? Or will you be trying to duplicate in platinum what you have already expressed in silver? Did you select negatives that are difficult to print in silver? Do you imagine side by side comparisons in your gallery? If so please share the marketing and opinion results with us. As an extremely dedicated and proven fine art printer, someone to whom the print matters, are you apprehensive about giving up control of the image? Are you confident the makers will be able to achieve the results you specify or will you be leaving some final judgements up to them? The images in your book can only be viewed as reproductions of works of art, on the other hand the platinum prints will be the works of art themselves. For that reason I would think you will approach these two processes very differently. Will you be signing the platinums? I am sorry but I probably have a million more questions. To me this is an exciting opportunity for our community to explore these issues with you, I sincerely hope you feel like sharing."

Sorry not to answer sooner. Good questions, all of them.

Why do it? To see if I can learn something. I will be surprised if they are "more beautiful" than the prints I already make, but it is entirely possible and I expect that they will be for some tastes. Basically, my goal is to duplicate the tonalities of the silver print, although I know the prints will look quite different from each other. I will select a range of negatives, both easy and hard to print, but in all cases those I feel might be appropriate in platinum.

Marketing them. I'm sure I will want to sell them if they are any good, but I believe buyers I currently know will buy only my silver prints. I haven't really thought how I will market the prints--that is a long way away; it is way too soon to think of it now. Showing them side by side? I'll certainly look at them side by side, but have not thought of showing them that way. Probably, I'll have them make at least one or two carbon prints as well--then it will be indeed be interesting to look at them all side by side.

I am not afraid of giving up control of the printing process. These folks know what they are doing and, in this arena, I would not. I am confident they will do a good job. They know well my taste in prints. If I like the prints they produce, I will sign them.

These folks in Belgium have an atelier where they print for other artists--in a variety of media--gravure, platinum, combination silk screen and offset (a proprietary process), other processes at the moment I cannot recall, and carbon, carbro, and dye transfer will come next year. It is located in a small village on the grounds of an old castle and the people who work here are true masters of their craft. I'm really a little bit in awe of it all.

[Ken Lee]

Any update on the availability of the aforementioned paper ?

Any suggestions on how to get max DMax ? I have been using Stonehenge paper, with Pt/Pd in various ratios, and the images look wonderful wet :-) Once they dry, however, they lose their snap. Of course, I know they will never have the snap that we can get with other methods, and I have adjusted my film development accordingly. But I am wondering if there is a way to give them just enough so that my wife doesn't mention that they look (as Michael and Paula have described) "muddy" or "dreamy".

I recall that Paul Strand used to varnish his images, much to the consternation of people involved with print convervation and longevity. I presume that he admired the depth and warmth of varnish, as well as a little boost in the snap department. If varnish has been good enough for painters over the centuries, why not put some on a Pt/Pd print ? Or is there something better ?

On a related note, once the image is behind glass, how much does any of this matter ? In other words, doesn't the placing of an image behind glass contribute to the DMax, as much as say a glossy paper stock verus matte ?

Many thanks for any insights.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ken, Terry King from England will be giving a presentation at APIS about a reworked pt/pd process where he claims there is no dry down. Supposedly he will then give workshops on this. If you attend APIS maybe you can let those of us who cant know if this is true..... :-)

My own experience has been that you need to be extremely careful that you get a negative with the correct density range and that the print exposure is just right. Like you I have had prints that just glow in the water but loose a lot of it when dried down. OTOH I have also had prints that do not loose any of its glow and look just like they do when in the clearing bath. Invariably I noticed that these prints resulted from a "good" negative with the right combination of print contrast and exposure. In any case keep at it, and experiment with your negative density range, you will eventually hit the right combination. If you are using digital negatives, perhaps Sandy King can give you some pointers on how to get the appropriate negative.

[Ken Lee]

Thanks. What does APIS stand for ?

No digital negatives for me, at least for now. (Perhaps later if I want to re-do some of my 4x5 stuff). I have seen the light, and am now doing onlly in-camera negatives.

[Michael A.Smith]

Very interesting that this thread was revived today because today Paula is in Belgium at the platinum printing atelier. She is leaving an 8x10 negative and a print to be made into a platinum print. It will be one meter wide.

I am not sure about the paper. I suspect, since this is a test for us, that the print may be made on a variety of papers. (Maybe as 8x10s until we decide on the paper we like, and then the one meter wide print will be made.)

How to get Dmax? I really do not know. I was told that they are now getting Dmax of 2.4. That's hard to believe, but they would not say that were it not so. I certainly look forward to seeing platinum prints like that.

They make the prints from three digital negatives plus a shadow mask. Could anyone else do this? Maybe. Maybe not. I know I could not. First of all I do not have the equipment. They have an image setter that can produce negatives of a fineness nothing else seems to be able to do. It is a relatively old image setter--one not made any more. I was told that development money for this kind of thing (image setters) went in a direction other than finer resolution, the manufacturers thinking they had it maxed out in that area at a lower resolution than the one the folks in Belgium use. In addition, the folks at Salto (the printers) are way more fanatic about print quality than I am. They have spent six years working on this.

I'm not sure that Strand varnished his photographs. I do know he waxed them. Waxing prints will increase the Dmax. I have seen silver prints waxed with spray-on Pledge using a paper towel. Amazing results. The Dmax increases and print does not scratch while applying with a coarse paper towel and is thereafter impervious to fingerprints and scratching of any sort. (No I have not done that on my prints.) You might try it as a test on a platinum print.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

APIS= Alternative processes international symposium. It is held one year in the US and the next year in the UK. This year is being held in New Mexico. Visit the Bostick and Sullivan website and you can get all the info about it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

They make the prints from three digital negatives plus a shadow mask.

Ah, that is the secret. They are using the same method many printers use as well as ink jet printers. They make multiple "passes" to increase Dmax. Prints made this way are going to be very expensive.

[Michael A.Smith]

There is no secret. I had mentioned in a much earlier posting that they used three (or four) negatives. Recently I learned that it is three negatives plus a shadow mask. (I can only guess at what a shadow mask is. I leave all of the printing and techincal stuff to Salto.) And yes, Jorge, these prints are going to be very expensive.

[Ken Lee]

"Very interesting that this thread was revived today because today Paula is in Belgium at the platinum printing atelier".



Thirty years of meditation has finally paid for itself. :-)



I have seen silver prints waxed with spray-on Pledge using a paper towel. Amazing results. The Dmax increases and print does not scratch while applying with a coarse paper towel and is thereafter impervious to fingerprints and scratching of any sort.



Is there such a thing as an archival wax ?



What happens when the photo is put behind glass ? Is the extra wax dMax rendered irrelevant ?



They make the prints from three digital negatives plus a shadow mask.



A TriTone print in Pt/Pd: Heavens to Murgatroid.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yes, there is something called conservators wax, I have tried it and did not increase Dmax worth a damn.

What you get when you put pt/pd prints behind glass is a reduction of glare from the paper, the Dmax increase is negligible.

I would not try the pledge thing, silver paper has supercoating that prevents the oil from soaking into the paper, this is not the case with pt/pd unless you are printing on fixed out paper.

Dont feel left out Ken, we all go through this phase until we hit the right combination.

Michael, what I meant was that these people are going to charge YOU a lot for making these prints, it is very labor intensive and you have 4 more chances to make a mistake and ruin the print. I tried it once from two in camera negatives and it was a nightmare.

[Michael A.Smith]

Jorge, we know the prints will be expensive to make and we need to figure out a way to pay for more than the first test.

Fortunately, Salto will not be making expensive mistakes. They have it dialed in.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well hey, good luck to you! hope to see them one day.... :-)

[Philippe Grunchec]

I'm not sure that Strand varnished his photographs. I do know he waxed them. Waxing prints will increase the Dmax. I have seen silver prints waxed with spray-on Pledge using a paper towel. Amazing results. The Dmax increases and print does not scratch while applying with a coarse paper towel and is thereafter impervious to fingerprints and scratching of any sort. (No I have not done that on my prints.) You might try it as a test on a platinum print.

According to the late Richard Benson, who worked with and for Strand, "These [New Mexico and Mexico] platinum prints were also invariably varnished to make their surface more transparent. This practice, a horror to the conservator, is one that Strand clung to for his entire career, with the sole exception of those earliest enlarged platinum and Satista prints. If the print was platinum it was varnished to make it shine with almost the luster of a gloss silver print, and if the print was chosen to be in silver it was made on a semi-matte surface [Kodak Illustrator's Special] so that this could be treated afterwards to induce the right sheen".

[Jim Andrada]

Part of the problem with these types of arguments is that they are over philosophy. Arguing a philosophy is akin to debating why one's favorite color is the best. Of course making a gross generalization that "all platinum prints are flat" or "azure is the best color" is simply wrong, but stating



is an opinion, perhaps even a philosophy worthy of consideration.

That said, I'm going to throw my two cents in. I have seen A LOT of flat Pt/Pd prints, many of which are my own, and I am still mystified at the reverence given Stieglitz' (or for that matter, Weston's) platinum prints, when, frankly, they were for the most part pretty lousy. And I don't want anyone to state that the materials at the time were terrible or that the technology was lame or whatever, because Frederick Evans did absolutely STUNNING (by ANY and EVERY MEASURE) work in platinum during the same time period. His prints weren't flat.

Know your materials. Know their capabilities. Know their shortcomings.

A long time ago Carl Siembab's Boston Gallery had a great collection of Frederic Evans's prints stashed away in a drawer. Very very impressive even if you aren't a particular fan of cathedral stairs.

[Jim Noel]

At the time Weston and Stieglitz were working,the world in general was in a dark mood. This was reflected in the art of the day, not just photographic, but painting and prints.

[Tim V]

I’ve seen huge prints made at this place before, they were like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Incredible.