Palladium Printing

I am new to palladium printing and have read the book by Dick Arentz as well as a few other resources. The one thing I am having trouble with is exposure. Everything I have read says I should see a latent image like a printing out paper but I have yet to see anything remotely like this. My exposures have been completely black to lightly muddy. I know... a test strip, but I am wondering if the latent image problem is as significant as I am making it out to be. I guess I am asking for some guidance from someone here with practical experience in this type of printing. Thanks in advance!

Check the Alternative Process forum for a more informed response at

http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/forum-altproc.html

David,

 

<p>

 

If your print is completely black it is completely exposed, that is,

grossly overexposed. If it is light-muddy, it may be that the negative

is much too low in contrast for palladium. Try drastically cutting your

printing exposure. A "develop out" palladium print should show fairly

dark borders and some density in the deepest shadows before

development, but nothing near a full print-out exposure. If you use POP

palladium chemicals (ziatype or Ware/Malde) you will get a complete

print out image without separate development.---Carl

If you are using the traditional (develop out) palladium printing

approach with ferric oxalate as the iron based sensitiser then the

latent image is not all that obvious. It depends to some extent on how

much residual moisture is left within the sensitised paper after

drying. Don't worry it is almost impossible to assess the correct

exposure based upon the feint latent image. Make a test strip using

equal amounts of the palladium salt and ferric oxalate, expose to a

u.v source or the sun and develop the strip in potassium oxalate or

ammonium citrate, wash and clear as instructions and dry the test

strip before making your assessment of the correct exposure. I can not

give you a recommended time because it depends on a number of factors

including the density of your negative. If you wish to conatact me off

list for further advice then please feel free

David,

 

<p>

 

Carl Weese gives you excellent advice.

 

<p>

 

I print palladium almost exclusively. You need to obtain a density

range that is fairly high for palladium. I find that I need a DR of

1.9 to 2.2 depending on the scene and exposure. This assures that I

will not need any contrast agent. I find that contrast agents such as

potassium chloride degrade the image.

 

<p>

 

Yes, you should see a faint image using traditional pt/pd. You want

to expose until you just begin to make out the highlights. But for

sure, you should do test strips. Pt/pd is way to expensive to waste

the material. After a while you will develop the ability to look at

the latent image and see if the exposure is good or not.

Occassionally I look at the latent image and say "wow" that looks

incredible. Then add the developer and it really "pops" (sorry no pun

intended).

 

<p>

 

If you are getting muddy weak images before development with almost

no highlight/shadow separation, you are most certainly provesseing

your negatives to a too low density range. Try selenium intensifying

an existing negative 1:3 for 10 minutes. Then print again. If this

helps a bit try making another negative more contrasty (longer

development time) and see what happens. Keep very accurate records

and after a bot of experience you will be able to tailor your

approach.

 

<p>

 

David Michael Kennedy has a great website with a great reference

article on palladium printing. It is at www.davidmichaelkennedy.com ,

check it out, I think you may find it helpful.

 

<p>

 

Best wishes

Mike

I can only add comment to the unlikely but fatal possibility that you are somehow

inadvertently exposing your paper before you get to the contact printing stage.