A platinum print by any other name . . .

[rbergeman]

i don't know if this question belongs in the ethics/philosophy forum or here, but i'll plunge ahead anyway -- i have seen many prints in galleries described as 'platinum' for the medium, when it seems apparent they were printed with a combination of pt and pd .... on the other hand, i've also seen plenty of prints described on gallery walls as 'platinum/palladium' ...... the question: is there any standard or conformity to the practice of describing a print made with varying proportions of pt + pd as a 'platinum print' vs. a 'platinum/palladium print'? or is it all just marketing?

this question has been knocking around in my head for a while now, so i thought i'd toss it out to see what more experienced printers think/do

rich

 

[Ian Grant]

It's just trying to be accurate, you can have a Platinum print, a Palladium print or a combination. It's similar to Silver Gelatin, Silver/Selenium etc etc.

There's no standard labelling sstem and comes from Museum/Gallery curators who want to know the provenance and details.

Ian

 

[Ian Leake]

Strictly speaking a platinum is made using just platinum, a palladium print is made with just palladium, and a platinum/palladium print is made with a mixture of the two. There are very few pure platinum prints made nowadays so my assumption when someone describes a print as "platinum" is that it's actually pt/pd. Many people, for whatever reason, shorten platinum/palladium to platinum. Personally, I find platinum/palladium is a bit of a cumbersome so I tend to shorten it to platinum except in a situation when it's important for someone to understand how a particular print is made (like when they're thinking of buying it or when I'm posting here). Others may have different opinions of course.

 

[payral]

When I am speaking or demonstrating prints I use platinum print as a short way (but i had explained it at the beginning).
When I label my prints for a sale or an exhibition I don't want to cheat people and I call platinum print a 100% Pt print, palladium print a 100% palladium (most of mine) and platinum/palladium or palladium/platinum print using first the most present of the two and I also say the paper name.

 

[JBrunner]

Platinum only prints are pretty difficult as a printing medium, and the palladium helps with tone. Most prints described as "platinum" are platinum/palladium, even though they are described as "platinum prints". Most people that are into making or collecting them know this, and "platinum print" is used in general practice as a way describing them. You see pt/pd just as often. It doesn't carry a self absorbed affectation like calling an inkjet a "giclee", which is basically trying to dress something up with a fancy word.(of course that discussion is a merry-go round)

It boils down to how exact you want to be in your description. A pure platinum print doesn't generally carry a premium over a pt/pd print, or vice versa, and it doesn't seem to be a sticking point, nor a marketing affectation.

 

[df cardwell]

Gosh, I wonder where I've been !

All along, I thought "Platinum" meant PLATINUM;
"Palladium" meant PALLADIUM;
and "Silver" meant SILVER.

"Platinum/Palladium" meant PLATINUM+PALLADIUM.

Calling a Pt/Pd print 'platinum' is as much a lie and affectation as
suggesting there is magic in Azo, that big cameras are better than small ones.
It is a way of trying to sell a poor picture that can't stand on its own merit.

Tomorrow, the truth about 'artist statements'.

 

[mark]

Ummmm...Big cameras are better than little ones. Kind of like an amplifier going to 11. It's just better.

 

[Ian Leake]

Calling a Pt/Pd print 'platinum' is as much a lie and affectation as
suggesting there is magic in Azo, that big cameras are better than small ones.
It is a way of trying to sell a poor picture that can't stand on its own merit.

If abbreviating "platinum/palladium" to "platinum" is intended to deceive then yes it's a lie.

But the vast majority of people I talk to about platinum prints don't know what palladium is and couldn't care less. The technical specifics are irrelevant for them - they want to know about the pictures, why I make them, and how the pictures make them feel. Abbreviating to just "platinum" actually helps them because it makes the geeky/techy side just a little bit more human.

If I'm talking to someone who does care about the technical specifics then of course I explain the role palladium plays, the ratios I use, the paper, etc.

Using long, complicated, jargon-like words when they're not necessary just switches people off. It's a matter of understanding what your audience wants and talking at the level of detail that's right for them. That's not lying, that's just good communication.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

As Ian said, most people have no clue the difference between platinum, platinum/palladium and palladium. They recognize the word "platinum", so that's the generic label I use when talking to someone uninformed. If they seem to have any interest at all, I go on to explain the distinction, and which method/mixture I have used for a particular image. There is no intent to deceive, just a simplification. To me, it's kind of like using the brand name for a car - my Honda Civic that uses a gas engine is the same brand and body style as the Civic Hybrid that runs a gas/electric motor. Most people are more concerned that it's a car and it gets them from point a to point b, and won't make a distinction as a passenger which motor is powering it.

 

[pelerin]

<SNIP>

Tomorrow, the truth about 'artist statements'.

Yes,
... and please address the zen of considering/expounding one's accomplishments in the third person. :munch:

Celac

 

[Trevor Crone]

As Ian said, most people have no clue the difference between platinum, platinum/palladium and palladium.

I must confess to being somewhat one of those people. I knew about the elements - platinum and palladium but I did not fully know what was involved in producing a 'modern' day Pt, Pd, Pt/Pd print.

It wasn't untill I attended the excellent workshop Ian Leake was running on Pt/Pd printing. I saw his stunning prints first hand, I was immediately smitten, and I embarked on the road to financial ruin

 

[Keith Taylor]

Calling a Pt/Pd print 'platinum' is as much a lie and affectation as
suggesting there is magic in Azo, that big cameras are better than small ones.
It is a way of trying to sell a poor picture that can't stand on its own merit.

Irving Penn often added iridium to his mix of platinum and palladium to alter the tonality and colour. Sotheby's and Christie's refer to those prints as platinum prints.

 

[df cardwell]

Irving Penn had no need to inflate his image.

 

[phaedrus]

Forgive the naive question, but I wonder how you can tell them apart on a gallery wall. Doesn't the developer have more influence on tone than the ratio of Pt to Pl in the solutions?

 

[rbergeman]

yes, developer choice, paper choice, amount of pt to pd -- they all affect print color ..... the 'pure' platinum prints i've seen are older, historic prints that i've looked at in museum print viewing rooms-- at eastman house, for instance -- they were a very cold, sometimes almost purplish black, very heavy tones .... because of the expense (pt is somewhere above $700 a troy ounce, last i heard), and from what i've heard from other photographers, i suspect that there are no contemporary photographers printing in pure platinum anymore, so i assume that any contemporary print i see on a gallery wall that says 'platinum' has some palladium in it ..... am i wrong? are any of you, or printers you know, working in pure platinum?

 

[Ian Leake]

are any of you, or printers you know, working in pure platinum?

I make pure platinum prints from time to time. Pt is very sensitive to the paper used: you can make good Pt prints with Buxton but not with Arches Platine for example (maybe there's a way of pre-treating Platine, but I'm not aware of one).

Regarding the previous comments earlier in the thread: it's simplistic to concentrate on the Pt/Pd mixture alone. Pt process, the negative, paper choice, Pt/Pd ratio, developer, developer temperature, humidity, contrast agents, and paper pre-treatments all influence the print's final appearence. And most people can't see the nuances. I have a set of 4 prints I made from the same negative with slight process changes in each one - most people can't see the differences between the prints although they are different.

 

[RobertP]

If you want to see a master printer's work that consist mostly of platinum go to Sal Lopes' website. Although I think even Sal's work is not pure platinum, I've been told that his technique is made up of about 90% platinum salts. So I guess those who insist on splitting hairs about the lingo wouldn't consider them platinum prints.

 

[2F/2F]

Are all these funny names here the same thing as a picture? What I really want is just a picture.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Are all these funny names here the same thing as a picture? What I really want is just a picture.

You are right but how we present/portray that picture can surely elevate/enhance it or indeed degrade it.

 

[RobertP]

www.sallopesphoto.com

 

[JBrunner]

Are all these funny names here the same thing as a picture? What I really want is just a picture.

Not really, because the discussion is about a process. My cell phone makes a picture, the same as my view camera. The process, however, differs.

Many lay people, and a fair share of photographers these days trumpet process as irrelevant. The interesting thing is that if they really felt that way, they would not be so urgent in denying the effect of process on the properties of the final artifact, but rather ignore it. It's usually attributable to an ingrained personal insecurity about their own work, and chosen process. A chip on the shoulder. In some cases it goes both ways, when someone dresses a lousy photograph up with a fancy name, as if that would elevate mediocre work.

That said, almost everybody I have seen working in alt process is at a point where the content of the work is benefited by the chosen process, and mastery of an arcane skill such as platinum printing is simply a part of a particular artistic work flow, no different than any other in that way, but having distinct characteristics of its own. The rush to equate all photographic process as homogeneous to validate ones own work is as great a display of ignorance as you'll find in any field, anywhere, and is truly the bane of modern photography. It does, however, sell a lot of electronics.


I don't agree with Cardwell, in that I don't believe that the addition of palladium invalidates a platinum print as being such, as I don't believe that platinum printers feel the addition of a controlling agent constitutes some sort of deception, especially when the result of that agent happens to be as noble as the other salt.

I can describe a silver print as just silver, or silver gelatin, or silver gelatin fiber, or selenium toned silver gelatin fiber, with increasing accuracy. None would constitute a willful deception, and I can't see how describing a platinum print in short terms constitutes some sort of machination, unless one is exceedingly paranoid, and also ignorant of the process.

 

[2F/2F]

First of all, I was joking around as somewhat of a relief from all the terminology. Methods and processes are incredibly important; I totally agree, as is correct identification of such if you want to display and/or sell them. I correctly identify my pix because I think detail and accuracy matter. It is the difference between homemade strawberry shortcake from scratch with real shortbread and real whipped cream, and angel food shortcake with frozen strawberries and canned whipped cream!

But, I do have the belief that the content of the picture should always come first, and that a picture need not be elevated to the level of art to be "successful" in some way, shape, or form. Sometimes that angel food shortcake is just the ticket! A lot of fine art buyers and viewers get lost in the minutiae without actually appreciating the art as art.

I do not think that labeling a pt/pd print as platinum is deception, per se; just sloppy and inaccurate. If I were the buyer, however, I would want to know the medium as specifically as possible. Not because it would change whether or not I like the picture, but just out of curiosity and a general desire for detail and accuracy. That's just me, however.

I must disagree that an attempt to reinforce the basics of why we do what we do (making images that are to be viewed as images, not solely as displays of technique); to focus on content and concept before technique (not totally in place of) is a way to homogenize photography and increase the value of one's own sub-par work. It has nothing to do with one's own work. I think it is simply a way to learn to appreciate all images in their own way, be they amazing hand coated, hand-crafted, hand-everything prints or some old pix in a family album. I am not saying that the family pix are "just as good" and should cost just as much. I am just using them as an example to state my point that all the technique and proper labeling in the world cannot make a picture good.

Basically, I am saying that in the end, the main purpose of an image is to be viewed, not to be explained. I am not saying that the explanation is unimportant; just somewhat peripheral, and sometimes/often distracting or manipulative. The details can enhance or take away from a picture's "value", but should not make or break the simple enjoyment of the reaction to the object itself.

 

[JBrunner]

First of all, I was somewhat joking around. Methods and processes are incredibly important; I totally agree. It is the difference between homemade strawberry shortcake from scratch with real shortbread and real whipped cream, and angel food shortcake with frozen strawberries and canned whipped cream!

But, I still want to make my basic point that the content of the picture should always come first, and that a picture need not be elevated to the level of art to be "successful" in some way, shape, or form. Sometimes that angel food shortcake is just the ticket!

I do not think that labeling a pt/pd print is deception, per se. If I were the buyer, however, I would want to know the medium as specifically as possible, though. Not because it would change whether or not I like the picture, but just out of curiosity and a general desire for detail and accuracy. That's just me, however.

I must disagree that an attempt to reinforce the basics of why we do what we do (making images that are to be viewed as images, not solely as displays of technique); to focus on content and concept before technique (not totally in place of) is a way to homogenize photography and increase the value of one's own work. It has nothing to do with one's own work. I think it is simply a way to learn to appreciate all images in their own way.

Basically, I am saying that in the end, the main purpose of an image is to be viewed, not to be explained. I am not saying that the explanation is unimportant; just somewhat peripheral, and sometimes/often distracting or manipulative.

I agree, and I think almost everybody feels the overall impact (or lack thereof) of a photograph as the primary interaction. I think, however that most platinum printers are comfortable about the content and concept of the work (well, as comfortable with it as an artist can be, for me that varies), and choose the process simply as a means to an end.

 

[2F/2F]

I was editing as you were posting...

 

[RobertP]

I thought it was a given, that a printing process cannot make a bad photo good. But process can contribute in giving the artist the aesthetic that meets their vision. A bad photo will suck no matter what medium is used. I don't think there is a photographer on this site that works in pt. and uses the process to elevate a mediocre photograph. I hear these comments about pt/pd all the time and they usually come from people that have never made a platinum print in their lives and view it as an elitist process that is used to cover up the shortcomings of the artist as a photographer. For instance, Ian's figure work would be beautiful no matter what process they were printed in. But he chooses pt/pd because it evokes a mood that meets his voice, his vision as an artist. Line , form, function, concept and content are all part of the foundation of making a good photograph. But process plays a large role in how the artist wants to convey that good photograph to the viewer. We are very fortunate today, to have available to us, every photographic process ever invented. From a daguerreotype to a giclee' we have a huge palette of aesthetics to choose from. So to dismiss process as being secondary to the final print is like putting a muzzle on the artist. It is all part of the whole.