kallitype vs Palladium printing an early journey

[MVNelson]

I got started learning how to do kallitype printing as a cheaper method of calibrating my workflow for making pt/pd prints using digital negatives and TrueBW RIP and a Canon iPF5000 printer. The the assumption was that making a kallitype print was easier, more economical and the results are transferrable to pure Palladium printing ( use the same negative) because of similar DR of process. Lastly I assumed that the kallitype aesthetically couldn't compare favorably to palladium print from the same source. What has my experience taught me thus far?

1) making a high quality kallitype compared to a palladium print is not easier or more "straight forward". A few more steps, more variables, and a little more work to get archival results.
2) more economical, a qualified yes. The coating solution is considerably cheaper (Ag-N03 vs Pd/Pt). This helps both form monetary and psychological points of view. I seem to be a whole lot more generous with redoing things especially while testing. Also more inclined to print a bit bigger. On the other hand toning is highly suggested for archival purposes so there is a cost for pt, pd or gold solutions. The cost of toner solutions a considerably less than using the same materials as coating solutions.
3) transferability is also a qualified yes. My DR for kallitype has settled out at 2.2. Digital negatives made for kallitype will "fall" on the pure palladium
coated paper quite well. The qualification is that it seems that kallitype is chemically more sensitive to paper characteristics and all papers suitable to Pd printing are not necessarily good for Kallitype. Also developers are somewhat transferable but it seems that "most" seem to use Pot. Ox. for Pd and Na. citrate for kallitype. I kinda like ammonium citrate at times for Pd . As an aside, recently someone "helped" me do a cleanup and accidentally dumped a liter of kalli-Black (Bostick&Sullivan) developer(Na-acetate) with a liter of ammonium citrate! I knew something was wrong when I now had 2 liters of milky grayish solution. Well, being curious, I used it in my last kallitype printing session. The prints are in the gallery. Not bad, not bad( for a newbie).

4) lastly, I was interested to see that my kallitype prints have begun to rival my Pt/Pd prints aesthetically and technically. In fact my palladium toned kallitypes look like ... well like palladium prints! Which would look better if I made 2 prints from the same digital negative? I don't know because I have not done that test.

My conclusion, kallitype printing can stand on its own. What started off as a cheap alternative has become a new tool in my chest for making expressive prints. Its fun too and the thought of using less costly coating metals enhances the experience for me.

Miles

sorry for the long winded diatribe but felt like writing this a.m. while paper is drying.

 

[Colin Graham]

Great post! I too started with kallitypes a few years back as a springboard to pt/pd, but I like the process so much I'm still with it.. I think it's a very 'undervalued' process in the hierarchy of alt printing, but the work you've been posting will certainly challenge those preconceptions.

 

[nevio presotto]

The solution I found for having a unique negative for pt/pd and Kalli is making a stochastic screen lith. You'll find that with the correct paper it's quite difficult to find difference between the two prints. First because a lith negative doesn't have the problems of an organic ink layered on a transparent filme and for second because when you treat a Kallitype print with a Pd/Pt/Au solution is not correct to say toning because "de facto" Pd/PtAu replaces the Ag from the print.

 

[Loris Medici]

Nice post Miles.

BTW, try VanDyke also; you may like the properties of a print out process. (It's different in the shadows.) It's simple (in the real "simple" sense); a single coating solution plus no developer (only wash/rinse). Toning is the same and should be definitely practiced for longevity.

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. Ooops I see that the original post is almost 6 months old!!!

 

[sanking]

Nice post Miles.

BTW, try VanDyke also; you may like the properties of a print out process. (It's different in the shadows.) It's simple (in the real "simple" sense); a single coating solution plus no developer (only wash/rinse). Toning is the same and should be definitely practiced for longevity.

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. Ooops I see that the original post is almost 6 months old!!!

OK, old but still an interesting topic. I have made many kallitypes with in-camera negatives and favor it over vandyke with this type of negative. However, I was recently asked to do an article for an on-line group and suggested vandyke with digital negatives. The vandyke process, which uses ferric ammonium citrate as the light sensitive agent, has virtually no contrast control, unlike kallitype which is based on ferric oxalate, like pt/pd.
However, contrast control is not a big issue when you can make digital negatives, so the POP process of vandyke in combination with digital negatives makes for interesting printing. You really can not go wrong as long as the negative has enough contrast for the process. If it has too much, you just expose longer.

Toning with vandyke is about the same as with kallitype. Do it before fixing and you avoid bleaching of the image.

Sandy King

 

[Loris Medici]

Yes, it could be better to work with digital negatives when printing Vandyke (agree completely) but OTOH there's this information (about your experience with Liam Lawless' method - and how to refine it) posted by you some time ago:
Dead Link Removed

Just for the records, for those who insist on using in-camera negs for alt-process printing...

Regards,
Loris.

BTW, Sandy when you're going to publish the article and where?

 

[sanking]

Yes, it could be better to work with digital negatives when printing Vandyke (agree completely) but OTOH there's this information (about your experience with Liam Lawless' method - and how to refine it) posted by you some time ago:
Dead Link Removed

Just for the records, for those who insist on using in-camera negs for alt-process printing...

Regards,
Loris.

BTW, Sandy when you're going to publish the article and where?

Loris,

I used the Liam Lawless reversal method for a while and it worked fine, though getting very precise control of contrast was very difficult and somewhat hit and miss. About that time I started to work more with ULF negatives and quite making enlarged negatives in the wet darkroom. Now the advantage of computer generated digital negatives is so great I could never go back to making enlarged negatives in the darkroom.

The article on vandyke will be published in a web site hosted by a camera group focused on alternative processes, and should be available in late February or early March. More details about the place later.

Sandy

 

[Loris Medici]

I wasn't referring to reversal method but the A + B sensitizer method.

Yes, digital negatives are soo convenient. I even suggested a LF shooter to look at digital negatives yesterday...

Thanks, I hope it will be a public article.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[sanking]

I wasn't referring to reversal method but the A + B sensitizer method.

Yes, digital negatives are soo convenient. I even suggested a LF shooter to look at digital negatives yesterday...

Thanks, I hope it will be a public article.

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

OK, sorry for the confusion. The A+B sensitizer method using a combination of ferric ammonium citrate and ferric citrate worked well, but finding a good source of ferric citrate was the problem. Most of the stuff I got was very difficult to get into solution, even with repeated re-heating and stirring.

And yes, my understanding is that the article will be available to anyone at the group web site.

Sandy

 

[Loris Medici]

Dear Sandy,

Maybe it was technical grade stuff? (Was it from "Jost"?)

For other parties interested:

I found this:
Iron(III) citrate tribasic monohydrate (purum p.a. / Fluka)
It's the monohydrate version of the salt. Percentage in solution can be adjusted by comparing molecular weights. It says "purum p.a." as grade and that means pure analytical grade...

I may have to include Vandyke in one of my future workshops so I'm interested with this diversion.

Regards,
Loris.

...
The A+B sensitizer method using a combination of ferric ammonium citrate and ferric citrate worked well, but finding a good source of ferric citrate was the problem. Most of the stuff I got was very difficult to get into solution, even with repeated re-heating and stirring.
...

 

[GumPrint]

I have used both kallitype and van dyke extensively, but not for at least five years. With kallitypes, the shadow areas were FAR darker. I used to double coat vandykes and then put the finished print in a drymount press to increase the dmax. It still didn't approach that of the kallitype.

Loris, in your experience, how does kallitype compare to vandyje with regards to the maximum black/shadow?

 

[sanking]

Loris, in your experience, how does kallitype compare to vandyje with regards to the maximum black/shadow?

My take on this is that with the right paper (and conditioning if necessary) one can get a reflective Dmax as high with vandyke as with kallitype. However, I have found that to get an equivalent Dmax vandyke is a bit more fussy about the paper than kallitype. For example, most papers that work well with pt/pd work very well with kallitype, which makes sense since the light sensitive chemistry for both is ferric oxalate.

However, vandyke does not get good Dmax with some papers that work very well with pt/pd. I originally assumed that it should work the same but experience showed otherwise.

Sandy King

 

[Loris Medici]

Keith, vandyke is a print-out process therefore you'll have difficulties in getting as strong dmax as kallitype, because exposure in shadows will get weaker and weaker as image forming progresses... (That's a disadvantage in terms of dmax but and advantage in terms of shadow detail; decide whichever you value most.) Indeed, for a comparable dmax you'll often need double coating (my standard practice anyway - it's not a great burden since I do the second coating within minutes of the first) with vandyke. OTOH, gold-toning greatly helps in obtaining strong dmax if you don't object the color change. (I could show you some of my gold toned vandykes that exhibit almost ink-black dark tones...) And you really need to tone both processes for adequate longevity.

Sandy, vandyke sensitizer incorporate ammonium iron(III) citrate, which doesn't get easily absorbed into paper. Maybe those papers that didn't work so well with vandykes were mostly hard/heavily sized papers? Adding distilled water into the coating solution and/or using a surfactant and/or moistening the paper before coating (for loosening fibers) may all help in better absorption, therefore getting a stronger dmax...

BTW, strong dmax depends much on moisture level in the paper, therefore it's best to expose vandyke as soon as it looses surface shine after coating / but not before it is dry enough to not stick to the negative...

Regards,
Loris.

 

[donbga]

I have used both kallitype and van dyke extensively, but not for at least five years. With kallitypes, the shadow areas were FAR darker. I used to double coat vandykes and then put the finished print in a drymount press to increase the dmax. It still didn't approach that of the kallitype.

Loris, in your experience, how does kallitype compare to vandyje with regards to the maximum black/shadow?

FWIW, I can get a DMAX with VDB comparable to the DMAX I see with kallitype.

As Sandy points out, VDB is a bit fussy with paper, I've had decent results with Cranes Cover 90. And like Loris I prefer to double coat and tone with gold solution.

And FWIW, I spot VDBs with Winsor & Newton VDB cake water color.

I've attached a image of a gold toned kallitype, though the image color isn't completely accurate. Made from a cropped 8x10 Tri-X negative. I've printed this as a palladium print as well and could probably print it as a VDB.

Don

 

[sanking]

Keith, vandyke is a print-out process therefore you'll have difficulties in getting as strong dmax as kallitype, because exposure in shadows will get weaker and weaker as image forming progresses... (That's a disadvantage in terms of dmax but and advantage in terms of shadow detail; decide whichever you value most.)
Regards,

Loris.

Precisely, and it is because of the POP effect that in order to get maximum Dmax you need a very high contrast negative that matched to the exposure scale of vandyke. If the negative is too low in contrast the highlights will print before the shadows have sufficient density, resulting in a mushy print with low contrast.

My experience is that the optimum negative for vandyke needs to have even greater contrast than an ideal one for pure palladium. I get good results with negatives that have a density range of about log 3.2. I am pretty sure that the poor shadow density and lack oif contrast we see in many vandyke prints is due tot he use of negatives that lack suffiicient contrast.

All of the iron processes need high RH to get maximum shadow density. My working procedure with all of these processes is expose the paper at a timed interval of 15-20 minutes after coating when it is dry to the touch.

Sandy King

 

[Loris Medici]

...
My experience is that the optimum negative for vandyke needs to have even greater contrast than an ideal one for pure palladium. I get good results with negatives that have a density range of about log 3.2. I am pretty sure that the poor shadow density and lack oif contrast we see in many vandyke prints is due tot he use of negatives that lack suffiicient contrast.
...

Definitely. You need a really serious negative for Vandyke. I think you nailed it down Sandy...

...
All of the iron processes need high RH to get maximum shadow density. My working procedure with all of these processes is expose the paper at a timed interval of 15-20 minutes after coating when it is dry to the touch.
...

Indeed, but with a single exception of pure pt printing and/or with pt/pd coating solutions with a considerable excess of pt; pure pt coating solutions are faster with dry paper and loose speed when paper have more water inside...

My usual procedure is wait for the disappearance of surface sheen then time 5 minutes before exposure. This is for normal working conditions of 20-22C temperature and 50-70 RH.

Regards,
Loris.