Na2 method: Pd prints, or Pd/Pt prints?

I use the "Na2" method for my printing, buying the solutions from B&S.

As described by B&S, the solution I use to coat the paper is made up of
“Palladium Solution No 3” (palladium hexachloropalladite, where Pd ion has a valence of +2).
“Ferric Oxalate Solution No 1” (ferric oxalate 27%).
“Sodium platinum (Na2)” 5 %, diluted from a 20% solution (gold hexachloroplatinate, where Pt ion has a +4 valence).

My question: Is the final image made entirely of palladium, or is there also some contribution from the platinum in the Na2? Tetravalent Pt {in dihydrogen hexachloroplatinate (IV)} was found by Willis to be very poor at creating an image, but does Pt contribute to the image in this case, even if in a very small amount? Basically, should my prints be described as "palladium prints", "Pt/Pd" prints, or "Pd/Pt prints"? Has anyone done XRF analysis of this type of print?

I understand that there is a discussion of this method in the second edition of the Arentz book, and perhaps this is covered there; but the book, being out of print, is frightfully expensive in Amazon and e-Bay.

The print will have some pt in it. If you have done pt prints and then make 'pure' pd prints in the same developer, chances are there will be some pt in your print.
It is the picking of nits, IMO
Just call them what ever you want. Just be consistent. If someone is interested, give them the run-down of your process. If someone says, "That aint a platinum print.", I would be ready with some colorful rejoiners.

I make prints using pd and Na2, and I make prints using a combo of 1/3 pt and 2/3 pd. I call them both platinum/palladium prints.

Many thanks for your answer, Vaughn. It just makes it all clearer. I like the idea that the thing that matters is being consistent in the description, and that, if needed, one can always elaborate with further details.
Thanks again.

Obviously not a 'hot' topic here! LOL!
This is also in-line from what I have heard from other platinum printers. American labeling laws usually require that in the name of a product, the most plentyiful ingredient is suppose to be named first. One exception is "Pork and Beans", however I do not think anyone will do the in-depth analysis to check our prints. There are some other look-alike processes that could be pawned off as, or confused with, platinum prints.

I did a ‘back of an envelope’ calculation recently:


This is an inconsequential amount of platinum. It’s still a palladium print.

Many thanks for your messages, Ian and Vaughn. Although my calculations (based on the molarities of the different cations in my mixture) don't exactly agree with Ian's, we can agree that the amount of Pt in the print will be, at best, small. Thanks you two for answering this almost philosophical question!

ernesto18 said:

... my calculations (based on the molarities of the different cations in my mixture) don't exactly agree with Ian's...

Click to expand...

There are a lot of assumptions about volumes and solution concentrations that may lead to different results.

The bottom line, of course, is that if you want platinum in your print then there is a much more efficient way to add it to your sensitiser.