Learning from Master Platinum Printer Irving Penn

Ben Altman · Sep 12, 2010

That's a pretty solid increase, Dave. What's in your sensitizer?

I'd suggest doing a control test in which you double coat before exposure and expose once for the total time of your separate-double-coat-and-expose printing. That way you'll get a feel for how much is gained from the double work and registration hassle

Keep up the good work!

Ben

Loris Medici · Sep 12, 2010

Two coat-expose-process cycles will definitely give better results (in terms of dmax) than a single cycle by double coating, because printing out (which is present even in develop out pt/pd) will decrease the efficiency (in providing good dmax) of the double coat (kind of diminishing returns situation...), I mean it may (will) still be better than single coating but not as good as printing the same negative twice, in registration...

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. Also, double coating increase the emulsion contrast (shortens the ES), often affecting the ultra-smooth tonal transitions (especially in the highlights) we're after, when doing pt/pd...

P.S.2. I think Dave will have to use two separate negatives for the exposures, since tonal relations will change considerably (e.g. too dark midtones and such...) if he uses the same negative on every cycle...

Ben Altman · Sep 12, 2010

Loris Medici said:
Two coat-expose-process cycles will definitely give better results (in terms of dmax) than a single cycle by double coating, because printing out (which is present even in develop out pt/pd) will decrease the efficiency (in providing good dmax) of the double coat (kind of diminishing returns situation...), I mean it may (will) still be better than single coating but not as good as printing the same negative twice, in registration...

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. Also, double coating increase the emulsion contrast (shortens the ES), often affecting the ultra-smooth tonal transitions (especially in the highlights) we're after, when doing pt/pd...

P.S.2. I think Dave will have to use two separate negatives for the exposures, since tonal relations will change considerably (e.g. too dark midtones and such...) if he uses the same negative on every cycle...

Hi Loris, I'm sure you are right that the results are better but, due to my now-distant science background, my question is: how much better? If, say, log 0.14 of Dave's log 0.17 increase in d-Max is obtainable by double coating and extra exposure, it would not be worth the registration hassle. If the numbers are the other way around it might well be.

With digital negatives, couldn't one "simply" profile the whole process to one negative?

Best, Ben

Davec101 · Sep 12, 2010

Ben Altman said:
That's a pretty solid increase, Dave. What's in your sensitizer?

I'd suggest doing a control test in which you double coat before exposure and expose once for the total time of your separate-double-coat-and-expose printing. That way you'll get a feel for how much is gained from the double work and registration hassle

Keep up the good work!

Ben

Yeah I will try and get another test done next weekend as i am away all week. The mix is platinum/palladium 1/3. Potassium Oxalate Developer, paper is Arches Platine. I was going to apply a third coat today but have not had the time to get around to doing it.

As Loris says I think it will require separate negatives to see any worthwhile difference, either that or changing the exposure time for each layer. I was also thinking of maybe doing the first layer in platinum and then the second in palladium to see what aesthetic effect this might have.

I am more looking forward to applying gum layers and maybe incorporating cyanotype layers similar to the method Kenro Izu uses, I think he coats about 3-4 layers of cyanotype over the platinum print to achieve a really rich final print, although he has not elaborated much about his particular technique, I remember him saying the process takes 4-5 days, which kind of makes sense if its 4-5 layers, the final prints are on aluminum which alludes to the fact that he had the printing paper bonded to the alumiinum at the start of the process, however i am not 100% certain, but none of his other platinum prints made with Arches Platine are on aluminum

Still Life 960b, 2004
Cyanotype over Platinum-Palladium print
Size 20 x 14

Loris Medici · Sep 12, 2010

Well, can't speak for pt/pd, because I never (ever) tried to double coat - I was getting very smooth gradations and a dmax something around log 1.35 (which was perfectly satisfactory to me), since I had to import pd solution from abroad and importing chemistry into Turkey was (and still is) a real PIA, I opted to use my stock as economically as I could... I can't say double coating is economical in the case of pt/pd.

OTOH, I'm currently calibrating double coated and gold-thiourea toned vandyke. Double coating gives me about log 0.10 extra density over single coating. (Remember this is for gold-thiourea toned prints...) Given the fact that Vandyke sensitizer is cheap, and that I can source all precursor / raw chemicals locally, I don't bother with the idea of productivity and economy, whereas I find the extra log 0.10 worth the trouble(!)...

As for digital negatives and two coat-expose-process cycles; I couldn't find a way to adapt my current workflow (PDN) to that - after a short consideration. Maybe I should think a little more on this...

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Loris.

Davec101 · Sep 12, 2010

Ben Altman said:
Hi Loris, I'm sure you are right that the results are better but, due to my now-distant science background, my question is: how much better? If, say, log 0.14 of Dave's log 0.17 increase in d-Max is obtainable by double coating and extra exposure, it would not be worth the registration hassle. If the numbers are the other way around it might well be.

With digital negatives, couldn't one "simply" profile the whole process to one negative?

Best, Ben

Hi Ben

The registration should not be a problem if one bonds the paper to the aluminium correctly as the paper is not moving/sizing at all. If i read correctly Sandy said earlier in the thread that it should be possible to achieve a similar effect with a good digital negative.

For me really the end goal is not layering platinum on platinum rather an interesting experiment along the way at the moment, gum layers and layering other alt processes is more meaningful to me in the future, however I will keep testing this method to see where it takes me.

donbga · Sep 12, 2010

Davec said:
Hi Ben

The registration should not be a problem if one bonds the paper to the aluminium correctly as the paper is not moving/sizing at all. If i read correctly Sandy said earlier in the thread that it should be possible to achieve a similar effect with a good digital negative.

For me really the end goal is not layering platinum on platinum rather an interesting experiment along the way at the moment, gum layers and layering other alt processes is more meaningful to me in the future, however I will keep testing this method to see where it takes me.

Dave,

Since you have the paper fixed to aluminum to ensure dimensional stability of the paper but I'm curious how you keep the negative registration correct from printing to printing or did I miss that part?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Davec101 · Sep 12, 2010

Don Bryant said:
Dave,

Since you have the paper fixed to aluminum to ensure dimensional stability of the paper but I'm curious how you keep the negative registration correct from printing to printing or did I miss that part?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Hi Don

Just by using simple pins and marking the edges of the negative in pencil at the moment, for larger prints i will punch holes in the aluminum and use registration pins, you can see Penn used this method as the prints are still attached to the aluminum. The good thing about the fusion 4000 bond is its reversable, although i may just keep them attached.

Bob Carnie · Sep 12, 2010

The Penn prints I had here were still mounted on aluminum, paper both sides with notes on the back, registration punch holes still in the aluminum.

Paper all the way to the top, so paper both sides , aluminum all punched.

Reason :so that when doing multiple hits there are not gaps *air trap which could cause buckling and problems with registration.

I spent the better part of 10 years doing multiple photo comping and this is a critical issue , for good registration.
He punched on the short side rather than the long, I always punched on the long side so registration was easier or more precise.

Davec said:
Hi Don

Just by using simple pins and marking the edges of the negative in pencil at the moment, for larger prints i will punch holes in the aluminum and use registration pins, you can see Penn used this method as the prints are still attached to the aluminum. The good thing about the fusion 4000 bond is its reversable, although i may just keep them attached.

Davec101 · Sep 18, 2010

Here are the results from my tests of multilayering platinum prints. The dmax on the single coated print is 1.41 and the second is 1.58,mimicking the initial test results reported previously. The overall richness and three dimensionality of the multilayerd print to my eye is significant enough to warrant further research. I intend on printing using this method in the future as for me it adds another tool to the toolbox in achieving the type of platinum prints I have always wanted to create. Will be testing with multilayering three times as well as printing gum and cyanotype over platinum in the coming months and will post the results.

donbga · Sep 19, 2010

Davec said:
Here are the results from my tests of multilayering platinum prints. The dmax on the single coated print is 1.41 and the second is 1.58,mimicking the initial test results reported previously.

Hi Dave,

Whilst it appears you have achieved your goal of increased DMAX you have the added side effect of changing the overall contrast of the print. Although most iron based processes are self masking there are limits of that effect that we can depend on. Seems to me that at some point you will need to use contrast masks to control your print contrast range.

Don Bryant

Davec101 · Sep 19, 2010

Don Bryant said:
Hi Dave,

Whilst it appears you have achieved your goal of increased DMAX you have the added side effect of changing the overall contrast of the print. Although most iron based processes are self masking there are limits of that effect that we can depend on. Seems to me that at some point you will need to use contrast masks to control your print contrast range.

Don Bryant

I think your right Don, to gain control over the second layer, contrast masks could possibly be the way to go. Either that or i create a number of serperation negatives the way Penn did to achieve a really rich final print. Although as we have already discussed on this thread is this really necassary when we have all the control that one digital negative should give. I need to put some more time in to see what benefits are to be had. I have yet to try coating the first layer with Platinum and the second with Palladium to asses the effects. I remember reading that Penn also mixed in Iridium, anyone tried this?
At the moment i am more interested in trying other alternative processes over the platinum such as gum and cyanotype before i embark on further research into multilayered platinum prints and will post the results when i get a chance.

Bob Carnie · Sep 19, 2010

Dave

I think you are proving that additional hits can improve the overall look and density of the final print.
In years past I spent 8 solid years doing photocomp with multiple masks, I believe with PS and that past experience making multiple register masks will eventually be a piece of cake and have huge benifits.

Bob

Davec said:
I think your right Don, to gain control over the second layer, contrast masks could possibly be the way to go. Either that or i create a number of serperation negatives the way Penn did to achieve a really rich final print. Although as we have already discussed on this thread is this really necassary when we have all the control that one digital negative should give. I need to put some more time in to see what benefits are to be had. I have yet to try coating the first layer with Platinum and the second with Palladium to asses the effects. I remember reading that Penn also mixed in Iridium, anyone tried this?
At the moment i am more interested in trying other alternative processes over the platinum such as gum and cyanotype before i embark on further research into multilayered platinum prints and will post the results when i get a chance.

Davec101 · Oct 1, 2010

I wanted to create a more visual as well as empirical test to show the difference in maximum density by adding additional layers of platinum/palladium sensitiser. Up to three development cycles were used. The results are shown below :

Loris Medici · Oct 1, 2010

Dave, very impressive... (~ log 1.8 on matte paper!)

BTW, a suggestion: You may think about using tritone image mode (three inks but one color) in order be able to make three negative separations and use each one on a different pass. The downside of this workflow is the fact that tritone separations work only in 8bit...

Regards,
Loris.

Loris Medici · Oct 1, 2010

Try with the attached file, for instance...

It's not optimized for least possible ink consumption, just a crude separation - but tones are close enough to the original. In any case, you've got the idea, just fiddle with this or devise your own from scratch.

Hope this helps,
Loris.

How to use: Change the file to grayscale mode, then to duotone mode and load this tritone profile. Then change to multichannel mode and split channels. Treat each file as a single grayscale image and print a negative for each - by using the curve and other settings you had devised before for single-layer prints...

Davec101 · Oct 1, 2010

Loris Medici said:
Try with the attached file, for instance...

It's not optimized for least possible ink consumption, just a crude separation - but tones are close enough to the original. In any case, you've got the idea, just fiddle with this or devise your own from scratch.

Hope this helps,
Loris.

How to use: Change the file to grayscale mode, then to duotone mode and load this tritone profile. Then change to multichannel mode and split channels. Treat each file as a single grayscale image and print a negative for each - by using the curve and other settings you had devised before for single-layer prints...

Thanks Loris for the file, this is the type of testing i wanted to try. Which layer would you print first, the darkest or lightest?

Loris Medici · Oct 1, 2010

This new one is way better: It's still a tritone but two of the channels are exactly the same, therefore, you'll need to output only two negatives while you'll be using one, "twice" - in first two of the layers. (That's much more cost effective!) See the attached file...

I don't know about the order, BUT, I'd print for the highlights first and then the negative for the shadows...

Hope this helps,
Loris.

P.S. I'll try this with Vandyke, myself...

David Hatton · Oct 1, 2010

Loris,
can you find any cheap used dry-mount presses for sale in Istanbul?
David

Loris Medici · Oct 1, 2010

Hi David, I don't know. But if ever I find TWO, you'll be the first one to know!

Regards,
Loris.

Davec101 · Oct 13, 2010

Have had a bit of time in the studio today since retuning from Madrid. Loris I will try you methodology in the next few days. At the moment I am looking at masking techniques. Quite often I need to increase the density of the blacks in my platinum prints beyond what a single layer will give, whilst still retaining shadow detail. I made a quick mask today as an experiment to preserve the detail in a specific shadow area. Interesting it seemed to have opened up the shadow area I masked which I was not expecting, there must be an simple explanation for this. Will keep testing. Although its not right yet, i prefer the mulitlayered print as it has greater depth to it and it is what i was aiming for, its a bit like painting when you build up areas. May apply a third layer, tommorow.

Layer 1 print

Layer 2 Mask

Layer 2 print

PVia · Oct 13, 2010

Dave, is this your photograph? Beautiful...!

Davec101 · Oct 13, 2010

PVia said:
Dave, is this your photograph? Beautiful...!

Yes thanks it is, i took in the hotel i was staying in last week. Still needs some work on it in terms of the tonal range which should be smoother, however it was a good example to work with today to see if i could protect a shadow area whilst still increasing the overall depth of the print.

Loris Medici · Oct 13, 2010

Looks nice Dave. Do you get a substantial increase in the max. density? (And more punch?) And, how did you prepare the mask? (What understand from the images is that you practically re-exposed the negative excluding the upper right corner and the right edge - is that correct?)

Regards,
Loris.

Davec101 · Oct 14, 2010

Loris Medici said:
Looks nice Dave. Do you get a substantial increase in the max. density? (And more punch?) And, how did you prepare the mask? (What understand from the images is that you practically re-exposed the negative excluding the upper right corner and the right edge - is that correct?)

Regards,
Loris.

Hi Loris, yes you are correct about the mask and the negative used. There is the same increase in dmax that i reported before on the thread in the solid black areas of the image. If you look at the solid black staircase rail that was hit twice you should see a difference in dmax between the two scans.

Learning from Master Platinum Printer Irving Penn

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency