• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

A platinum print by any other name . . .


I applaud accurate descriptions, and I'm more than happy to share every detail of every print I make.

All I've been saying is that it's not wrong to simplify things when this is appropriate for your audience. In my experience non-photographers are usually interested in the image and in knowing just enough about the process to understand why the print looks different from anything else they've ever seen before. That's why I start simple.

BTW, your "Kalaloch, Beach 3, March 2008" is exquisite.
 
Thank you Ian, that's very generous. I really should defer to you on this point as clearly you have much more experience explaining platinum and palladium prints than I, and would never dream of questioning your experiences. Please excuse my starry-eyed ramblings as such. It occurs to me that I might be a little sensitive to this issue as I'm a building contractor and have been frustrated by the industry-wide practice of miscommunication and lack of specificity. Maybe I was undeservedly projecting a bit of that here.
 
Ian,

I did not mean to suggest that there was a contradiction, only that I think your description is partially incorrect, or at least incomplete.

It is definitely not my intention to suggest that anyone here is being deceitful in their use of terminology. I know for a fact that some of the respondents on this thread carefully note on the back of their prints the exact recipe for the emulsion used. That is in fact more than I do.

The way I label on the back is as follows.

1. pure palladium = Palladium Print
2. palladium + platinum salts = Platinum/Palladium Print
3. pure platinum = Platinum Print (but I have only made one of these)
4. platinum toned kallitype = Platinum Toned Silver/Iron Print
5. palladium toned kallitye = Palladium Toned Silver/Iron Print

If I am asked to talk about my work, I talk about it exactly in those terms. As I stated before, it is pointless to expect the general public to understand these nuances, so for that audience you might as well call the prints "Cobalt Blue Transfers." Believe me, the general public does not have a clue about process. For them, the "picture" is the thing.

Sandy King







 

I actually believe that the term Platinum/Silver print would be more appropriate since that reflects the exact physical nature of the print, as the term Platinum/Palladium reflects the physical nature of that type of print.

However, there are some who might accuse me of being deceitful if I were to label the prints that way so I refer to them as Platinum Toned Silver/Iron Prints, which really does not reflect their physical nature since all of the iron has been removed. Or at least we hope all of the iron has been remove, same as with platinum and palladium printing.

In any event I hope no one thinks that I am obsessing about the topic. I am primarily a carbon printer and spend most of my time and obsessions in that realm.

Sandy
 

Ain't it the truth. With the price of gold what it is, I think I need to start labeling my albumen prints "gold toned albumen prints," even though it practically goes with out saying that most albumen prints are gold toned.
 
sanking said:
In any event I hope no one thinks that I am obsessing about the topic. I am primarily a carbon printer and spend most of my time and obsessions in that realm.
Click to expand...

I'm probably the one who is obsessing - and on occasion over-sensitive too. As always, I value your thoughts and opinions Sandy.
 
For alt processes I primarily do kallitypes. Currently, I've been gold toning them, and label them gold-toned kallitypes. But the amount of toning depends on when I pull the print for the desired effect, so the amount of gold vs silver will vary. In the future I plan on trying platinum and palladium toning; and would call them platinum-toned kallitypes, for example. But, again, the ratio will vary.

There is a certain marketing panache when labeling prints - the nobler the metal, the higher the price. If we are educating the prospective buyer market, seems to me we out to be developing terms that relate to the percentage of a particular noble metal irrespective of how we got there. I realize this may be heresy to those who practice a particular technique, but clarity would seem to demand changes in terminology.
 
I use a 2:1 solution of palladium and platinum salts. I label them "Platinum/palladium prints. "Truth in Advertising" should have me lableing them by using the most common metal first, but "Pt/pd" just sounds better to me. I'd like to see a can of pork and beans that actually has more pork than beans, LOL!

Vaughn

PS -- Sandy...should we call our carbon prints "gelatin carbon" prints..since they have more gelatin than carbon in then? LOL! (rhetorical question -- no answer needed)
 

I think THAT level of clarity belongs in the fine print of the warning label, like on medication. If we had to go shopping for acetaminophen, acetaminophen/caffeine, acetaminophen/diphenhydramine chlorate depending on what kind of headache/cold symptoms we had, as opposed to Tylenol, Excedrin Migrane, or Tylenol cold & sinus, most people would give up before even entering the aisle. Even when making platinum, platinum/palladium or palladium prints, 99% of our customers don't know, don't care, and can't be bothered to learn the distinctions. Provide the information, but don't pitch it up front or you'll confuse most of your audience.
 
I'm suggesting that buyers may not care about the technique used, except for those techniques that are of historical interest (eg, Albumen print); but they may care more about the noble metals used. Many photographers use term "Silver Gelatin" print but that could be shortened to just Silver print, just as with Carbon print. A print that uses primarily Palladium with just a hint of Platinum could be called Palladium/Platinum print. A platinum toned Kallitype could be called a Platinum/Silver print. Just food for thought for I haven't yet tried using such labels.
 

Not trying to get off on a tangent, but first you would have to get the makers of "giclees" to call them what they are, inkjets....
 
I'm going to take Jason's post as an excuse to make a cheeky post.

I've decided to call all my cameras "Kodaks"

On a more serious note, I agree that it is important to use accurate language to describe things. Shorthand phrases do have their place though.

Pt/Pd is good, because it is meaningless to anyone who doesn't know already what you are talking about. No one is misled, and anyone who doesn't already know, is prompted to ask.

Matt
 
Wow, this thread is still going. I am going to make one wise-ass observation: in my experience, the only people who really care about this very legalistic naming precision are the same ones who will never buy a print from someone else anyway.

It is sort of the 'print sniffer' syndrome. I have noticed that the longer someone spends with their nose pressed up against a print, the less likely it is that they are going to want anything from me other than detailed information about exactly how I made it. At gallery shows, the buyers are the ones who stand back a few feet, and really look at a picture. The label readers would rather spend that $500 on a new lens so they can run out and make copies of work they have seen and liked.
 
While helping with the hanging a photographic exhibition yesterday I was asked by one of the gallery owners what the processes used for each image/set of images were and in some detail. Apparently some of their clients want this information when purchasing work.

Sadly there were no Pt/Pd photographs being exhibited. But there was some exquisite hand coloured gelatin silver prints.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
clay said:
The label readers would rather spend that $500 on a new lens so they can run out and make copies of work they have seen and liked.
Click to expand...
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here Clay. This has largely been my experience as well. People really looking to buy a print they like rarely ask process details, "what paper... lens, etc." If they do, it seems that 9 times out of 10 that they are another photographer looking for the information and not the print.
 
Ian Leake said:
But to be fair, the majority of APUG members are not photography collectors so it's likely that this kind of discussion will reflect the opinions of photo makers rather than photo buyers.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I think thats the very point Ian.

Its a discussion amongst a bunch of people that really can't even speak towards whether or not the "labeling" is of any importance to the community that IS filled with buyers.
Would be nice if there was a representative population here on APUG that actually collected/bought photography. But we just don't have that.
 
Clay,

I am not going to say you are not right, but even if you (which I am fairly sure you are) I personally could care less what buyers are looking for. Photography for me is primarily a means of self-expression, not a commercial endeavor. Mind you, I don't mind selling prints either as that is kind of like getting paid for having a lot of fun. However, in the end I am more interested in what the print sniffers, i.e. those who really understand photography and its processes, have to say than what a potential buyer has to say.

Sandy



 
sanking said:
I personally could care less what buyers are looking for. Photography for me is primarily a means of self-expression, not a commercial endeavor.
Click to expand...
Fine if you have a day job Sandy. Not all of us are that lucky! I find that "print sniffers" are great and I love talking to those that really know what goes into making a photograph. In fact, it can make all the difference in the world. God love 'em, but unfortunately they rarely help pay the bills.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, my wise-ass comment was not meant to rationalize fudging the information on prints. I do think it is important, if only to maintain your personal virtue, to be as honest as possible. I just find that most buyers don't care that much. And I agree with Sandy that the print sniffers can provide some pretty good feedback about how you are doing technically. Hell, I plead guilty to being a print sniffer on occasion myself. I just love looking at how people do their photographs.
 
Collectors of photographs buy for a number of reasons, for example;

a) they like the image.
b) they buy from a 'named' photographer.
c) rarity value
d) certain process.
e) mix of the above.

This list is certainly not definitive.


In so buying photographs some buyers/collectors like to have as much information about the image as possible, title/location, date picture taken, date print made (vintage or not), edition number, process, the list can go on.

Personally I buy/swop because I like the image. I have a mix of traditional and digital images.
 
Details, details...

I label most of my palladium and/or platinum prints simply as platinum/palladium. I am nowhere near organized enough to keep track of every frickin' print's details. When I'm talking casually about the process or the prints, I use platinum in the generic sense e.g. "today I am going to be platinum printing" or "pass me that pile of platinum prints". In the same way I say "pass the Kleenex" not "pass the box of facial tissues".

Now, for you detail freaks, don't forget that the concentration of the platinum solution is roughly twice the concentration of the palladium solution. Someone else is going to have to do the molecular weight math and chemistry to determine the actual number of pt vs. pd molecules in a drop of solution, because I just DON'T CARE.

ps Clay is dead right about buyers vs. photographers in a show setting. I like them both, but I'm not too proud to say I LOVE selling prints. I've got a day job, too, but the print sales help sustain my work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been reading on the development of the modern silver print, and the original paper by Dr. Maddox in the BJOP was titled "A Silver Salted Gelatine Emulsion”, way back in 1871.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to silver prints as "Silver Emulsion", combinations of silver-gelatin and occasionally gelatin-silver prints seems to be popular nowadays.

Perhaps, I'll go back to the roots of the process and refer to my prints as "Silver Emulsion", which sounds much more hi-tech than anything that has gelatin in it. Or, I'll ressurect and corrupt a term from the day - how about "Paper Supported Dry Plate Prints"?

Seriously, I would like to see people using names that are connected to the basic, original process used to make the print, or at least whatever the historically used name was.
 
Kerik said:
Details, details...

ps Clay is dead right about buyers vs. photographers in a show setting. I like them both, but I'm not too proud to say I LOVE selling prints. I've got a day job, too, but the print sales help sustain my work.
Click to expand...

Kerik,

The devil is in the details you know!!

BTW, at this point in time I don't have a day job any more so I am also proud to sell prints, and 2008 has not been so bad in that regard. Unfortunately the stock market has not been nearly so kind.

Sandy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register