Platinum palladium printing first try - please critique

[ZhanTeh]

I finally started dabbling with Pt Pd printing. The photo below is I think the best one out of my first batch of testing.

I am after some critique from the well of knowledge here. Particularly if you see areas that I should improve on or pay more attention to.
And some questions from myself:

• The transition from skin color to white makeup on the face seems blotchy. Is it normal for a print this size(about 4.5x6.5") or there can be improvements? *note that the photo is of a geisha with white face makeup and not natural skin color
• I use Hahnemuhle platinum rag. Am I crazy thinking the 2 surfaces are different and there is a smoother one?

Details of my process:

• I use Bostick and Sullivan's Na2 (20%) Pt Pd kit
• Hahnemuhle platinum rag paper
• Image size approx 4.5x6.5"
• Exposure with UV LED box
• I do not have access to humidifier to I left the paper in the bathroom for a bit after a shower
• Digital negatives created following Bostick and Sullivan's guide and printed on pictorico. This is how it looks before processing:
  
  

Critiques are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[jeffreyg]

Very nice. Your technique is fine. Remember that it is a hand coated technique and each print is a one of a kind. As far as humidifying what i do is to brush the paper with distilled water and wait until it is practically dry to the touch before coating. I also get supplies from Bostick and Sullivan but use Arches Platine paper but that should not really matter. I’ve been using that paper for a long time so I’m used to it. If that happens on other prints check your negatives since you are making them on Pictorico you can tweak it with a new negative.
Bostick and Sullivan have always been good with assistance and information just give them a call

 

[koraks]

The transition from skin color to white makeup on the face seems blotchy.

My experience with inkjet negatives is that you always end up with a degree of coarseness in tonal transitions. It's never quite as smooth as an in-camera silver gelatin negative. Prints on absorbent paper (like Pt/Pd) tend to smudge/bleed a little, making the problem a little less apparent. On the other hand, as @jeffreyg says, these prints are hand-made and small variances and imperfections are pretty much part and parcel of the workflow. Add to this the sensitivity of the chemistry to minor variances in the paper base itself, often resulting in a not entirely linear transfer of the negative image to the final print. It'll be hard to the point of impossible to get the kind of delicate nuances of the original digital images to a Pt/Pd print, especially when using inkjet negatives.

Having said all that, looking at the scan you posted, you could improve matters a bit by working on the digital negatives; you can experiment with different printer settings (e.g. which ink channels are used and densities per channel) and in particular linearization.

 

[jeffreyg]

Plus one what koraks posted. If you want a better negative it would be film although not that much difference to the eye. You could enlarge on to X-ray duplicating film but Pictorico is easier It comes in two qualities Get the UltraPro Premium.

 

[Alan9940]

Are you using 20% Na2? How many drops? I ask because Na2 really kicks up the contrast and a 20% solution is quite powerful. When I use Na2 (not that often), I use a 5% solution and sometimes dilute it in half to 2.5%. Also, regarding the substrate you may want to give Fixxon a try. Personally, I like it better than Pictorico.

 

[cliveh]

I have never done Pt Pd printing and so probably limited validation to comment. However, I did view a Linda McCartney exhibition that was all Platinum prints and printed by professionals in this process. What I did notice is the superb blacks platinum gives. This seems to be lacking in your first print, but much better in the second. Hope this helps?

 

[koraks]

the superb blacks

A lot depends on paper chemistry, sizing and (optional) post-treatments such as waxing. Lighting does a lot, too.

much better in the second

That's not a print, but yes, it's nice and punchy.

 

[ZhanTeh]

Very nice. Your technique is fine. Remember that it is a hand coated technique and each print is a one of a kind. As far as humidifying what i do is to brush the paper with distilled water and wait until it is practically dry to the touch before coating. I also get supplies from Bostick and Sullivan but use Arches Platine paper but that should not really matter. I’ve been using that paper for a long time so I’m used to it. If that happens on other prints check your negatives since you are making them on Pictorico you can tweak it with a new negative.
Bostick and Sullivan have always been good with assistance and information just give them a call

I might try brushing with distilled water. That sounds more consistent that the bathroom method.

 

[ZhanTeh]

My experience with inkjet negatives is that you always end up with a degree of coarseness in tonal transitions. It's never quite as smooth as an in-camera silver gelatin negative. Prints on absorbent paper (like Pt/Pd) tend to smudge/bleed a little, making the problem a little less apparent. On the other hand, as @jeffreyg says, these prints are hand-made and small variances and imperfections are pretty much part and parcel of the workflow. Add to this the sensitivity of the chemistry to minor variances in the paper base itself, often resulting in a not entirely linear transfer of the negative image to the final print. It'll be hard to the point of impossible to get the kind of delicate nuances of the original digital images to a Pt/Pd print, especially when using inkjet negatives.

Having said all that, looking at the scan you posted, you could improve matters a bit by working on the digital negatives; you can experiment with different printer settings (e.g. which ink channels are used and densities per channel) and in particular linearization.

The print was actually created from a second version of a negative after some curve adjustments. From just eyeballing the negative, I do not see that much coarseness.

I do intend to print bigger. I did these smaller ones as tests to get my workflow right. Hopefully, the coarseness will be less apparent with a bigger negative.

 

[ZhanTeh]

Are you using 20% Na2? How many drops? I ask because Na2 really kicks up the contrast and a 20% solution is quite powerful. When I use Na2 (not that often), I use a 5% solution and sometimes dilute it in half to 2.5%. Also, regarding the substrate you may want to give Fixxon a try. Personally, I like it better than Pictorico.

Yes, I am using Na2 20%. I dilute with drops of distilled water cause my working image is quite small. Perhaps, that is not enough dilution.

Speaking of diluting Na2, any tips on how to get this done?
I'm struggling with diluting down to drops and trying to pick it up again for the sensitiser.

 

[ZhanTeh]

I have never done Pt Pd printing and so probably limited validation to comment. However, I did view a Linda McCartney exhibition that was all Platinum prints and printed by professionals in this process. What I did notice is the superb blacks platinum gives. This seems to be lacking in your first print, but much better in the second. Hope this helps?

Might not be so apparent in my photo but I did manage punchy blacks in the print (out of border brushes and hair). I toned down the blacks in the background in the negative to create more separation.
And yes, the second image is a digital image for reference.

 

[Vaughn]

Are you using 20% Na2? How many drops? I ask because Na2 really kicks up the contrast and a 20% solution is quite powerful. When I use Na2 (not that often), I use a 5% solution and sometimes dilute it in half to 2.5%. Also, regarding the substrate you may want to give Fixxon a try. Personally, I like it better than Pictorico.

I agree that there might be too much Na2 used - which might be increasing contrast a little harshly. The transition between white and shadows on white on the modles's face and neck could be smoother. The very subtle tone changes on her face seen in the pre-processing image are exaggerated in the digital neg-to-print. The tones on the neck are much farther from the tones of the face in the print. Might just need some tweaking of the negative and/or lowering the contrast caused by the Na2.

Working with the white tones takes a fine touch. Small changes in density of the ink printed in the highlights cause greater changes in the density of the tones on the print. (One is dealing with small amounts of UV reaching the paper in the highlights.)

I would take another small bottle, put 20 drops of distilled water in it and add two drops of the 20% Na2. This should make 22 drops of 2% Na2 -- or close enough, but CHECK MY MATH!! But in general do something like that to dilute the solution in a large enough amount to use in a few printing sessions for repeatability.

Design your digital negative around the least amount of Na2 you can get away with...1) saves a little money, 2) IMO prints look better because one is working around the native contrast of the process...and allows one room to use just a little bit more Na2 for a print if it needs it, instead of using large amounts of Na2 to pump up contrast.

PS...for my own work I use just the platinum and palladium salts and the ferric oxalate (no contrast agent) with in-camera LF negatives.

 

[ZhanTeh]

I agree that there might be too much Na2 used - which might be increasing contrast a little harshly. The transition between white and shadows on white on the modles's face and neck could be smoother. The very subtle tone changes on her face seen in the pre-processing image are exaggerated in the digital neg-to-print. The tones on the neck are much farther from the tones of the face in the print. Might just need some tweaking of the negative and/or lowering the contrast caused by the Na2.

Working with the white tones takes a fine touch. Small changes in density of the ink printed in the highlights cause greater changes in the density of the tones on the print. (One is dealing with small amounts of UV reaching the paper in the highlights.)

I would take another small bottle, put 20 drops of distilled water in it and add two drops of the 20% Na2. This should make 22 drops of 2% Na2 -- or close enough, but CHECK MY MATH!! But in general do something like that to dilute the solution in a large enough amount to use in a few printing sessions for repeatability.

Design your digital negative around the least amount of Na2 you can get away with...1) saves a little money, 2) IMO prints look better because one is working around the native contrast of the process...and allows one room to use just a little bit more Na2 for a print if it needs it, instead of using large amounts of Na2 to pump up contrast.

PS...for my own work I use just the platinum and palladium salts and the ferric oxalate (no contrast agent) with in-camera LF negatives.

A lot of good advise given on this thread. Some points I have taken for my next test session:

• Play around with negative curve a bit more
• Humidify paper by pre-brushing with distilled water
• Diluting Na2

I will try to provide an update in a couple of weeks.

 

[Alan9940]

Yes, I am using Na2 20%. I dilute with drops of distilled water cause my working image is quite small. Perhaps, that is not enough dilution.

Speaking of diluting Na2, any tips on how to get this done?
I'm struggling with diluting down to drops and trying to pick it up again for the sensitiser.

I buy 5% Na2 from B&S, then dilute down to 2.5% using half 5% Na2 + half distilled water. IMO, if your negatives are calibrated correctly you should never need anything beyond 5%. The higher concentrations of Na2 can cause harsh high value areas which may be what you're seeing in the face of your example image.

You can play around tweaking a PS curve, but if you really want to get serious about crafting digital negatives for pt/pd printing, I highly recommend Richard Boutwell's QuadToneProfiler-QuickCurve-DN (bwmastery.com) and QuadToneRIP for printing the negatives. This software will enable you to really dial-in your process.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[Robert Poole]

I finally started dabbling with Pt Pd printing. The photo below is I think the best one out of my first batch of testing.

View attachment 379429

I am after some critique from the well of knowledge here. Particularly if you see areas that I should improve on or pay more attention to.
And some questions from myself:

• The transition from skin color to white makeup on the face seems blotchy. Is it normal for a print this size(about 4.5x6.5") or there can be improvements? *note that the photo is of a geisha with white face makeup and not natural skin color
• I use Hahnemuhle platinum rag. Am I crazy thinking the 2 surfaces are different and there is a smoother one?

Details of my process:

• I use Bostick and Sullivan's Na2 (20%) Pt Pd kit
• Hahnemuhle platinum rag paper
• Image size approx 4.5x6.5"
• Exposure with UV LED box
• I do not have access to humidifier to I left the paper in the bathroom for a bit after a shower
• Digital negatives created following Bostick and Sullivan's guide and printed on pictorico. This is how it looks before processing:
  View attachment 379433

Critiques are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[Robert Poole]

A great start. But please be aware that using the so-called "Na2" (otherwise "sodium platinum") does NOT give you a print with any platinum in it, only palladium. This is because the chemical form of platinum in Na2 is not precipitated onto your paper and into print.

 

[jeffreyg]

I don’t use “sodium platinum “ I buy separately platinum solution #3 (potassium tetrachloroplatinate 20percent), palladium solution #3 (sodium chloropalladite 15percent), ferric oxalate #1 and #2 and also gold chloride 5percent. If you wish to try my brew: in drops for a 7x7 to 10x10 print - 3pt, 8pd, 1au, 10#1, 2#2, 4h2o2 and 8 distilled water If less contrast is needed then no #2 and +2 of the #1 This works best for most of my negatives but for some I modify after making a test print. That’s subjective for an individual negative.
If you wish to invest$ in the X-ray duplicating film it is easy to use and IMOP is the best for enlarging negatives. Some years ago I printed a limited edition series of 12 numbered, artist proof and printer’s proof each of four images 7x7in (56 total prints) for an internationally known photographer. His original negatives were 2 1/4Tri-x. They go for $3000-4000 per print now. If anyone is interested I was payed in prints. He has since died so they will never be printed again.

 

[ZhanTeh]

A great start. But please be aware that using the so-called "Na2" (otherwise "sodium platinum") does NOT give you a print with any platinum in it, only palladium. This is because the chemical form of platinum in Na2 is not precipitated onto your paper and into print.

Thanks, I did not know this.

From my limited knowledge, it seems the "Na2" method is a less expensive formulation and also easier to produce contrast. Are there any other difference to note compared to traditional pt/pd method?