Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JohnBrew on June 04, 2009, 09:19:09 pm
-
Frankly I'm going to open up a can of worms here. What a pita if you follow the article for your platinum print. Perhaps if you are printing really big you would see a difference but if you follow the techniques listed in "Advanced Digital Black & White Photography" by John Beardsworth or several other publications there is no reason your digital platinum print should look any different than using the technique described in the article. And with much less time and aggravation.
I'm not belittling what the author recommends and I realize that using this time-honored system must result in a great deal of personal satisfaction, however if the purpose is to use the latest technology to create this type of print, then there are much simpler ways to create the end product.
-
I found it an informative and interesting article. I'm not likely to be trying it myself soon, but it gave me a good sense of what the process is like, or at least one route through it and the likely pitfalls along the way.
Thanks for sharing it, Tim.
-
John,
My guess is that you've never seen a "real" platinum print. If you had I doubt that you'd have the same attitude.
Michael
-
John,
My guess is that you've never seen a "real" platinum print. If you had I doubt that you'd have the same attitude.
Michael
I've been around long enough to have seen almost every type print there is. However, since I haven't printed the way the article details I'm more than open-minded enough to give it a try if for no other reason than to see how it compares to prints I've done using the other method.
-
While it's possible to get close to the tonality of a platinum print in an inkjet, given today's technology it's impossible to replicate the dimensionality. When coating the paper the media absorbs the platinum and when printed out there's a definite feeling of depth. It's actually quite striking to compare a print of the same image side by side - inkjet vs platinum.
-
I've been around long enough to have seen almost every type print there is. However, since I haven't printed the way the article details I'm more than open-minded enough to give it a try if for no other reason than to see how it compares to prints I've done using the other method.
Hi John,
so if I read/understand you right, you have done platinum prints and feel the procedure here shown is too cumbersome. Right? Then could you outline how exactly it can be done easier?
Best regards,
Christian
-
My advice to those who believe the OP is to avoid seeing these prints in person.
I have *never* seen more lustrous prints than Tim's P/P prints. Side-by-side beside rally well executed inkjet prints (of the same subject), they simply blow the digital alternative away. Curiously, I have trouble saying exactly why. I can see specific differences in tonal translation, but the degree to which my eye 'likes' and reacts to these differences (even at a distance at which I cannot tell which print was produced by which method other than by print-preference).
Perhaps if it's any indicator of the difference, I have signed-on to have Tim show me how it's done.
- N.
-
The genesis of Tim's article was a print discussion evening at my gallery a couple of months ago. Tim brought in some platinum prints along with inkjet versions of the same images. The differences were astonishing.
This lead to my urging Tim to write the article.
Michael
-
Frankly I'm going to open up a can of worms here. What a pita if you follow the article for your platinum print. Perhaps if you are printing really big you would see a difference but if you follow the techniques listed in "Advanced Digital Black & White Photography" by John Beardsworth or several other publications there is no reason your digital platinum print should look any different than using the technique described in the article. And with much less time and aggravation.
Even if the results are exactly the same (which they are not) what you might feel is a pita and takes to much time and aggravation many people (such as myself) enjoy doing it for what it is. Plus it is a great way to do something "photographic" while you are sitting around in January near the Great Lakes when it is well below freezing outside with day 45 in a row of snow. There is something special and rewarding with making something with your own hands, -vs- clicking print on a menu and letting a computer do it all.
-
There is no substitute to a well-made platinum print. The quality of such prints cannot be duplicated with any other printing technique. Not to say that other print types don't have their own beauty, they do, but that the look and presence of platinum prints is unique.
-
I've looked at quite a few platinum images, and my feeling is that I like silver prints better -- they seem to have more snap, and I guess I just like snap. Platinum seems to me to work best with very particular types of scenes and portraits, which are hard to specify, but I guess I would call "old timey"...pre-panchromatic film stuff, with white skies, and careful faces. They almost have the feel of 19th century steel engravings. This isn't to say that I don't like them -- they can be very beautiful when done well, but might not impress people who grew up with digital and color, rather than B&W.
-
I'd pay more for the real thing. If for no other reason than to have an example of the type of print.
-
I have a beautiful large format platinum print on my wall by a very skilled printer. Believe me I've tried to mimic the effect using my 45+ digital back and printing on expensive matte papers and I can't. Eleanor
Frankly I'm going to open up a can of worms here. What a pita if you follow the article for your platinum print. Perhaps if you are printing really big you would see a difference but if you follow the techniques listed in "Advanced Digital Black & White Photography" by John Beardsworth or several other publications there is no reason your digital platinum print should look any different than using the technique described in the article. And with much less time and aggravation.
I'm not belittling what the author recommends and I realize that using this time-honored system must result in a great deal of personal satisfaction, however if the purpose is to use the latest technology to create this type of print, then there are much simpler ways to create the end product.
-
It has been quite a while since I've seen a platinum print.
In a previous life I spent some time with Ron Partridge at his home and studio, if you can call it that, in Berkeley. Ron is the son of Imogen Cunningham and was the master printer for the trust for many years although I believe he has not held that title for some time.
Anyway, needless 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.
We can do some amazing things with inkjet now that those old masters did not have available but the reverse is also true. Who knows what kind of crazy stuff people will be pushing through inkjet heads or the prevailing tech of the time in the years to come though so maybe we will be able to return to something similar without all the futzing around that Tim has to go through now.
I remember Ron or someone saying that they tried to replicate some of Imo's albumen prints at one point, maybe the sixties or seventies, but could no longer source chickens from an environment that yielded the proper chemistry to reproduce the tones and so forth so eventually had to give up on the project. Talk about a PITA.
-
"could no longer source chickens from an environment that yielded the proper chemistry"
Neat.
-
"could no longer source chickens from an environment that yielded the proper chemistry"
Neat.
That´s nothing, Mr P; in Britiain, we have trains that stop in the middle of nowhere because they get the wrong kind of leaves on the track. This is true, not something out of Ripley.
Rob C
-
You guys are all talking about the wrong process... go back to the main page and you'll see that the title of the article is actually "Platium Printing"
Must be some new process, lol.
-
This month's issue of "Black & White Photography" (the Brit mag) also has an article on platinum printing that some might find interesting.
-
Perhaps someone may be able to point me to a link, I would be interested in reading it.
TIA
Kevin
-
I had the opportunity to see some daguerreotypes a few days ago. That is something that is not possible to do any other way. Old processes have their value to. They will probably be around probably longer than inkjets. You need a very sophisticated technological base just to look at digital images, and a lot more to create them. This resource base is starting to look not so sustainable, nor durable into time. Taking this into account it is far easier and in some accounts cheaper to make images the old way. By the way, the first daguerreotypes are still around. They are proven to last a long time in a real testing environment.
Oh, I have to go and buy some more hard drives to put my precious photos in.
-
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
-
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.
-
... 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 (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) (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 (http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic34-01-001_3.html) See also http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic...1-001_indx.html (http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic34-01-001_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/ (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) (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
-
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).