Recommend a book on Alternative Processes

[CharlesWest]

Out of print? Really? His second edition? It is still pretty available. I see it all the time in stores. Maybe get a copy before it gets expensive. If you don't have Dick Arentz pt/pd book, you need to get it. Second edition.

[JamesFromSydney]

Well, it's currently selling for $400 on Amazon.

[D. Bryant]

I see it all the time in stores.

Oh really. What store(s) would that be?

Don Bryant

[Michael S]

Why is digital technology automatically deemed necessary for the enlargement of negatives for alt process printing? You can save yourself a whole lot of time and effort by optically enlarging your negatives in the darkroom. With the use of pyro development, the resulting negatives are exceptionally well suited to platinum/palladium as well as any other alternative U/V photographic process. I refer the reader to Bob Herbst's web site in which he details an elegant optical process to create enlarged negatives for platinum/palladium printing that was published in "View Camera" magazine. Bostick and Sullivan has an article on their web site as well. So do yourself a favor and skip the digital and stick with optical. You'll be glad that you did.

[Michael S]

As for a book recommendation, I suggest "The New Platinum Print" by Richard Sullivan (of Bostick and Sullivan) and Carl Weese. For platinum and palladium printing it is surely one of the best (although it is spiral bound, which I don't care for). It doesn't contain all of the charts and graphs that are in Arentz's book, but I never found them to be of much use. Also "The History and Practice of Platinum Printing" by Luis Nadeau is an invaluable resource for information on platinum and palladium printing.

[D. Bryant]

Why is digital technology automatically deemed necessary for the enlargement of negatives for alt process printing? Bostick and Sullivan has an article on their web site as well. So do yourself a favor and skip the digital and stick with optical. You'll be glad that you did.

I can assure you that if you visit Bostick & Sullivan's carbon works you will will find nary an enlarger. All of their enlarged negatives are done digitally. Optically enlarged negatives are passe and - well a PITA compared to enlarging digitally now. Working in Photoshop provides much more control of image contrast and other adjustments such as spotting, dodging and burning, etc., not to mention creative possibilities.

When is the last time you made color separation negatives in the wet darkroom?

Outputting to a high quality ink jet printer is much quicker than wet processing. And if real film con-tone negatives are important to you, one can always have negatives printed on a Lambda.

Don Bryant

[Michael S]

Don Bryant posted...
"I can assure you that if you visit Bostick & Sullivan's carbon works you will will find nary an enlarger. All of their enlarged negatives are done digitally. Optically enlarged negatives are passe and - well a PITA compared to enlarging digitally now."

Written like a true slacker! I wasn't meaning to gore your sacred digital cow, Don. For anyone who feels that darkroom work is a pain in the ass, fine then by all means do your digital. Personally, I actually ENJOY working in my darkroom, go figure. However, if you had bothered to actually read what it was that I wrote, which was was that if you check Bostick and Sullivan's web site they have a process to create optically enlarged negatives, then maybe we wouldn't have to go through this.

By the way, when was the last time you priced one of those high end printers? Talk about a PAIN, but I suppose that if we all don't conform to and bow down to the digital God, then we will be damned to darkroom Hell forever. Anyway, the thread was book recommendations for alternative processes. Do you have one?

[D. Bryant]

Written like a true slacker!

Now you are really showing your ignorance.

I wasn't meaning to gore your sacred digital cow, Don.

I didn't think you were, I was just pointing out that there is nothing to be gained any longer making enlarged internegs in the darkroom.

For anyone who feels that darkroom work is a pain in the ass, fine then by all means do your digital. Personally, I actually ENJOY working in my darkroom, go figure. However, if you had bothered to actually read what it was that I wrote, which was was that if you check Bostick and Sullivan's web site they have a process to create optically enlarged negatives, then maybe we wouldn't have to go through this.

I read what you wrote and my point is that there are productivity issues to consider, enjoyment doesn't equal productivity. And I have checked the article a long time ago. I'm very familiar with how to make enlarged negatives and used to until the digital technology eliminated the need to work in the darkroom. Now that we can do it digitally there isn't really any reason to make optically enlarged negatives any longer. Like I said when was the last time you made color separation negatives in the darkroom for tri-color gum printing?

By the way, when was the last time you priced one of those high end printers?

Yesterday, BTW. IF you shop around you can get very nice deals on used equipment.

Talk about a PAIN, but I suppose that if we all don't conform to and bow down to the digital God, then we will be damned to darkroom Hell forever.

The issue isn't about conformity, for me it's about quality and productivity.

Anyway, the thread was book recommendations for alternative processes. Do you have one?

If you had read the thread carefully you would have seen that I did that already.

That's my 2 cents worth - time to move along,

Don Bryant

[Michael S]

Way to kill the thread, Don. Two cents? I don't think it's worth even that much. I was merely suggesting that there is an ALTERNATIVE PROCESS (this thread is about information re: alternative processes) to creating enlarged negatives for alternative printing, and I pointed to sources of information for others to proceed in it. You come on as a maelstrom of negativity with your pathetic whine that it's a "pain in the ass", thereby discouraging anyone from even thinking about trying it, and that was wrong of you to do. Apparently some don't think that it is a pain in the ass, myself included. Once all of the kinks are worked out, it's actually quite easy to crank out a few enlarged negs in a darkroom session. Maybe making enlarged negs optically didn't work out for you, and you are more comfortable doing it on the computer. That's fine. I have no problem with that, of course. However you should allow others to see if it might work for them.

As far as productivity is concerned, for me if there is no ENJOYMENT in the darkroom (or any other work space for that matter), there is no production, hence ZERO productivity.

And By The Way, I'll assume that BTW actually means Big Tight Wad, and you've got me pegged right there. I can't stand the idea of plunking down good cash to purchase used computer components which are either obsolete by now, or were somebody else's headache before they were dumped on the used market, to make one last brief stop at my house only to end up residing permanently in the landfill. I don't think so.

[D. Bryant]

Way to kill the thread, Don.

I haven't killed the thread Michael, I was simply reacting to your droll little comment - "So do yourself a favor and skip the digital and stick with optical. You'll be glad that you did."

Like it's really important and vital that you enlarge optically. Why would someone be glad they enlarged the negative optically?

Today I had the pleasure of looking about 2 dozen large (16x20) palladium prints, originally shot on 8x10, made from ink jet negatives. They looked great and I can't see how enlarging them optically would make them any better. Can you explain to me how they would have been better if the negatives had been made optically?

thereby discouraging anyone from even thinking about trying it,

I would discourage anyone from trying if they thought it was going to produce a superior enlarged negative which is what your comment implied.

However you should allow others to see if it might work for them.

Like I'm stopping people from doing something. I'm just pointing out that there is an alternative especially for those without a darkroom that can be used to enlarge negatives or that may have digital files from scanned negatives or digital cameras.

As far as productivity is concerned, for me if there is no ENJOYMENT in the darkroom (or any other work space for that matter), there is no production, hence ZERO productivity.

I have worked in a darkroom for decades and I can honestly say that I never enjoyed the toil and tedium. Enjoyment has nothing to do with productivity.

And By The Way, I'll assume that BTW actually means Big Tight Wad, and you've got me pegged right there. I can't stand the idea of plunking down good cash to purchase used computer components which are either obsolete by now, or were somebody else's headache before they were dumped on the used market, to make one last brief stop at my house only to end up residing permanently in the landfill. I don't think so.

Obviously you don't have enough savvy to work with a digital photography and so your reaction is that digital methods are inferior to traditional methods. You still haven't answered my question about how you would create color separation negatives. I can assure you that you won't snap your fingers and have them pop out of your darkroom.


Don