Platinum printing

[Brian Gilkes]

Every printmaking process has it's own vocabulary and syntax. It is foolish to imitate one process with another. Students do this  as play (useful) and because  often they cannot yet perceive the difference. The dimensionally of platinum/palladium is , as has been said largely to do with the way the image sinks into uncoated papers. One could simulate this by the multiple printing of the predominantly carbon black inks , using say Quad Tone RIP on a paper like Buxton. The image would be built up progressively.  By the time registration was achieved, one may as well have produced a Pt print. Even then the appearance would be closer to that of a carbon print. Carbon and Pt/Pd refract light differently. Dimensionality and presence is achieved by different means in ink-jet printing. These include crafted luminosity mapping in profile construction, light masking and local contrast variations. The result can be uncannily three dimensional-nothing like standard ink-jet prints. The process requires a different strategy for each different image, and usually takes some days for each print. All going well it might only take a couple of days. This is about the same as Eddie Ephraums informed me it takes to produce a fine silver gelatin print- all going well. The result does not look like a platinum print. At one time I was making tri- colour carbon prints, dye transfers and Cibachromes. I stupidly attempted to make one look like the others e.g. by exposing Ciba  sequentially to 3 primary (RGB) sources from masked  colour separations. Beautiful print were possible , but each spoke in a different language.
One must decide if their printmaking is about process or communication of content. If it is the latter , pick a process you are comfortable with that can make your print live, and stick to it until you are a close to perfection as possible. This may well be an amalgamation of techniques. A few years ago I worked with Dan Burkholder combining platinum (for the greyscale) and ink-jet (for colour. They were no longer ink-jet or platinum, but something else, not more or less.
Have fun
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au

[dwdmguy]

Interesting. This reminds somewhat of a the digital vs. Film debates. Albeit a lot more civil.

The tone however seems to be "what is better?" or "which process yields better results?" I find answer is very much the same as to all questions of this nature. It is art. It is personal and objective, and frankly there is no right or wrong way. When I see an image it sparks something in me. The printing process is the same. I will be having a PP done by a master in NYC next week of a specific image, here, that deserves a PP. It's one of the few PP's that I would have done. I happen to like / enjoy wet silver prints, however I've done a series on the ol large format inkjet that came out remarkable and would, frankly, not have extended my vision as well on a silver or wet color print.

[Paul Roark]

... I realize that using this time-honored system must result in a great deal of personal satisfaction ...

Platinum/Palladium prints are often said to have "the greatest tonal range of any printing method using chemical development."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_prints

Since platinum prints have a rather modest dmax (1.48 according to http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/herbst_azo_amidol.html), what do these statements about the "greatest tonal range" mean?

Some of the easthetic appeal of the platinum/palladium process seems to come from the matte finish.  I've argued for some time that the the reflective surfaces of glossy prints actually results in less of an ability to "see into" the shadows due to the reflections in most typical display settings.  At a recent workshop I noted that the matte copies of a print that was made available were much more in demand than a glossy copy.

Platinum prints were once thought to have exceptional longevity, but that too is being questioned.  "Until recently, both platinum and palladium prints have had an excellent reputation for stability and permanence, primarily because the metallic platinum or palladium that forms the image is more resistant than silver to attack from peroxides and other oxidants. However, acidity introduced by the clearing bath can threaten the paper support, and it now appears that palladium prints in particular may be more prone to staining or discoloration than was previously expected."  http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic34-01-001_3.html   See also http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic...1-001_indx.html  Platinum appears to be a catalyst that may be producing radicals that attack adjacent paper.

In a previous post "seangirard" mentioned "spent[ing] some time with Ron Partridge ... the son of Imogen Cunningham ... [N]eedless to say, that place is basically a museum and history of American photography or at least of a certain school. Prints by Imo and some of the rest of the f/64 group laying around everywhere. I have never seen such a survey of printing styles, including platinum, nor do I ever expect to see anything like it again."

I've worked with Joshua Partridge, the grandson of Imogen Cunningham, on a process to reproduce the Cunningham prints.  The direction of the effort was to combine my 100% carbon inkjet workflow (see http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ generally) with Josh's "washed Arches" approach.  The 100% carbon does not fade.  ("The carbon particles do not fade over time even when in sunlight or when bleached."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ink#Carbon_inks)  And the washing of the Arches Hot Press watercolor paper (not inkjet paper) removes excess carbon as well as ink base chemicals, resulting in a print that does not have the annoying black rub off and sensitivity to abraision.  In general, Josh has found galleries receptive to this more "hands-on" approach.  In my view 100% carbon is the best fine art B&W medium we have for inkjet printing and what I currently do for all my prints intended for sale or archiving.

Frankly, I see the appeal of the platinum process as a form of labor intensive craft that, by the nature of the process, eliminates most competition and the fear that large numbers of easily-produced copies can be made, diluting the value and uniqueness of the product.   The power of monopolists (which we are of our images) comes from their ability to limit quantity.  The "limited edition" approach is virtually a scam as applied.  A labor intensive craft is a better guarantee of uniqueness.  But I'll stick to my carbon pigment printing and avoid the chemicals.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[buckshot]

This subject doesn't necessarily need to devolve into a 'this versus that' argument - the two forms of printing can happily co-exist, I'm sure.

So, if you want a unique, hand-crafted print - buy an alt. process print, such as a carbon print, kallitype, platinum print etc.

If on the other hand, you want a machine-made clone, buy an inkjet print (oops...I meant a giclee print...nope, I meant to say a pigment print...dang, or was that an Iris print....shucks no, it was a digigraph).