Platinum and what is "not enough contrast"

[Skiwi]

I'm looking for some thoughts people might have.

I've been making pictures with film since my dad set up a darkroom in our bathroom when I was 12. I went the usual route via scanning negatives and inkjet printing and a decade or so ago picked up an LRPS along the way (more of which later). After emigrating to NZ three years ago I decided to move properly to Platinum printing after having dabbled some years ago, and set up a room for the purpose.

I set things up, sourced paper and have a lot of support from a well-established Platinum printer in the US (including tutoring via Skype). I've printed on Stonehenge and Cranes brushed with Oxalic acid, moved from rods to the fabled magic brush, and played with Na2 and good old solutions 1 and 2. I've struggled with weak blacks and muddy highlights and finally, after many many sheets of paper and copious amounts of precious metals, settling on Platine, a humidifier and hygrometer, I get prints that consistently have black blacks and white whites (without becoming flat) and a smooth tonal range in-between. They may not be great photographs, but technically they basically work and I like them (so does my partner, but she may be biased). But they are Platinum prints, so put them alongside my old inkjets they are softer tonally and appear to lack a degree of contrast (even though the blacks are definitely black and the whites definitely white - at least as white as the paper goes).

So against my better judgement I put 15 prints in for an ARPS - the feedback, all twenty words or so, was basically not enough contrast and I was advised to put the prints under the UV light longer. I did complain, but the reply told me they were experts and they'd never heard of me so I was wrong.

I've previously had issues with the RPS approach of "we're experts, we were appointed by experts which makes us experts, and if your pictures don't look like ours they aren't good", but was persuaded to persevere with the LRPS a decade or so ago and managed to swallow my arrogance and produce pictures they liked.

The problem I have is this. I don't really know how to get reliable input. I don't think feedback suggesting, essentially, that my prints don't have enough contrast will help, and suggesting more time under UV as a "solution" really is nonsense. I also like my pictures - I'm on a journey and want to develop (excuse the pun) but I prefer the work I do now to anything I've done in my 30-odd years as a photographer. It may still be rubbish, I know that, but I do have strong ideas about what I think I want my pictures to be. The photographer I've been getting advice from suggested I should rely on my own judgement and the relationship between inkjet/silver to platinum is like oil painting is to watercolour, a totally different aesthetic. I can't help feeling a bit bruised by the dismissive RPS folk though and I think I really need some good input, but I really don't know where best to go.

Anyway, if anyone has read to the end of this I really would welcome thoughts )

 

[Ian Leake]

It's hard to judge the Dmax and contrast of prints online. If you have densitometer then you can measure these easily enough. Dmax of 1.2-1.3 is fairly easy to get with Pt/Pd. You can get Dmax of 1.4 in certain circumstances.

If you want to post something to Switzerland then I'll happily give you some real world feedback.

Regarding 'experts' of any kind, RPS or otherwise. 'Experts' rarely like to be challenged - it's not good for their self esteem

 

[Skiwi]

Thanks, I would really appreciate that. I do have a dirty secret though, in that although I shoot on film and print on Platinum, from time to time I do use negatives that are ... ahem ... not analogue ...

 

[Ian Leake]

although I shoot on film and print on Platinum, from time to time I do use negatives that are ... ahem ... not analogue ...

So do many people ;-) The negative technology has very little to do with Dmax and contrast. That's all in the printing.

 

[pschwart]

Thanks, I would really appreciate that. I do have a dirty secret though, in that although I shoot on film and print on Platinum, from time to time I do use negatives that are ... ahem ... not analogue ...

- seek out fine pt/pd prints that you can view up close so you can see what is possible and have a context for evaluating your own work
- making fine digital negatives adds additional layers of complexity. Take that discussion to dpug.
- a densitometer can be incredibly useful for calibrating alt process workflows. It can also provide objective measurements that are helpful in a discussion like this.

 

[jerrybro]

I have a different view. If you are happy with the technical quality of the print, screw the experts and start working on the content. I found that I was concentrating so hard on producing what, for me, was the perfect print that once I got there I stopped. Everything. I had lost my "mojo" and forgotten why I was doing all this to begin with. I am still working on getting my vison back.

 

[mitch brown]

you wanted input and Ian who has written the book so to say has offered to look at some of your prints and give advise I recommend that you take him up on it I know I would. no one cares if you used digital neg or not
Mitch

 

[Bob Carnie]

you wanted input and Ian who has written the book so to say has offered to look at some of your prints and give advise I recommend that you take him up on it I know I would. no one cares if you used digital neg or not
Mitch

Plus one on Ian.

He has been extremely helpful with my journey into Pt Pd,

 

[cowanw]

The next time you submit to ARPS, submit a platinum print of a Stouffers step tablet, Then you can argue contrast with them

 

[Jim Noel]

I have printed and taught the process since the 1960's and have never been hung up on having a maximum black in every image. As far as that is concerned, I don't always have a paper white either. Each image has it's own needs in this area. If the prints are pleasing to you, forget the comments of others in this regard and concentrate your mental and physical energies on organization of the image itself. When you see a need for more density, you will do it.
The density range of the image begins with the negative, as it does with all processes. If the negative is lacking in range there is no practical way to get it in the print consistently. If I viewed a few of your negatives I could rather quickly advise you on your needs. It begins with film choice, then exposure and development. If any of these are lacking, so too will probably be the DR in the print.
If you don't have it get a copy of "The New Platinum Print", by Sullivan and Weese. It is not the only good text,but it is perhaps the most easily understood complete discussion of the process. It is available from Bostick& Sullivan in Santa Fe. http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/

Good luck and enjoy the process.
Jim

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have printed and taught the process since the 1960's and have never been hung up on having a maximum black in every image. As far as that is concerned, I don't always have a paper white either. Each image has it's own needs in this area. If the prints are pleasing to you, forget the comments of others in this regard and concentrate your mental and physical energies on organization of the image itself. When you see a need for more density, you will do it.
The density range of the image begins with the negative, as it does with all processes. If the negative is lacking in range there is no practical way to get it in the print consistently. If I viewed a few of your negatives I could rather quickly advise you on your needs. It begins with film choice, then exposure and development. If any of these are lacking, so too will probably be the DR in the print.
If you don't have it get a copy of "The New Platinum Print", by Sullivan and Weese. It is not the only good text,but it is perhaps the most easily understood complete discussion of the process. It is available from Bostick& Sullivan in Santa Fe. http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/

Good luck and enjoy the process.
Jim

Actually, the "New Platinum Print" book is out of print and has been for some time. I'm one of the lucky ones who got a copy before they ran out. I pester them about it from time to time and the last time I spoke to them they still didn't have plans to re-print it, let alone come out with a (much needed) second edition. The fundamentals of the book have not changed at all, but some of the materials mentioned are no longer available (certain papers like Socorro- RIP!) and the mention of making digital negatives is woefully out-of-date, if it even exists. If you can find a used copy, I would HIGHLY recommend it, but also get something like Dick Arentz' book, Ian Leake's book if you want to stick to in-camera/analog enlargement, or the Ron Reeder or Peter Mrhar books if you want to do digital enlargements.

 

[Bob Carnie]

The next time you submit to ARPS, submit a platinum print of a Stouffers step tablet, Then you can argue contrast with them

What is ARPS?

 

[pdeeh]

This I expect http://www.rps.org/distinctions/about-distinctions

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

What is ARPS?

It's one of three levels of distinctions or honors bestowed by the Royal Photographic Society in England. The ARPS is the second of three tiers (Licentiate, Associate, and Fellow). The Fellow is regarded in some circles as the equivalent of an advanced degree for teaching purposes.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ahh - is this like all the PPA and PPOC master photographers that wear ribbons on their chest.. I try to avoid these people as all costs.

 

[Doc W]

Ahh - is this like all the PPA and PPOC master photographers that wear ribbons on their chest.. I try to avoid these people as all costs.

Bob, this is the problem when folks use terms as if they were obvious. Someone suggested I submit work to the ARPS, which I did. It turns out that the Amherst-Pelham Regional Public School District knows nothing about photography and couldn't care less.

Harumph.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm looking for some thoughts people might have.

I've been making pictures with film since my dad set up a darkroom in our bathroom when I was 12. I went the usual route via scanning negatives and inkjet printing and a decade or so ago picked up an LRPS along the way (more of which later). After emigrating to NZ three years ago I decided to move properly to Platinum printing after having dabbled some years ago, and set up a room for the purpose.

I set things up, sourced paper and have a lot of support from a well-established Platinum printer in the US (including tutoring via Skype). I've printed on Stonehenge and Cranes brushed with Oxalic acid, moved from rods to the fabled magic brush, and played with Na2 and good old solutions 1 and 2. I've struggled with weak blacks and muddy highlights and finally, after many many sheets of paper and copious amounts of precious metals, settling on Platine, a humidifier and hygrometer, I get prints that consistently have black blacks and white whites (without becoming flat) and a smooth tonal range in-between. They may not be great photographs, but technically they basically work and I like them (so does my partner, but she may be biased). But they are Platinum prints, so put them alongside my old inkjets they are softer tonally and appear to lack a degree of contrast (even though the blacks are definitely black and the whites definitely white - at least as white as the paper goes).

So against my better judgement I put 15 prints in for an ARPS - the feedback, all twenty words or so, was basically not enough contrast and I was advised to put the prints under the UV light longer. I did complain, but the reply told me they were experts and they'd never heard of me so I was wrong.

I've previously had issues with the RPS approach of "we're experts, we were appointed by experts which makes us experts, and if your pictures don't look like ours they aren't good", but was persuaded to persevere with the LRPS a decade or so ago and managed to swallow my arrogance and produce pictures they liked.

The problem I have is this. I don't really know how to get reliable input. I don't think feedback suggesting, essentially, that my prints don't have enough contrast will help, and suggesting more time under UV as a "solution" really is nonsense. I also like my pictures - I'm on a journey and want to develop (excuse the pun) but I prefer the work I do now to anything I've done in my 30-odd years as a photographer. It may still be rubbish, I know that, but I do have strong ideas about what I think I want my pictures to be. The photographer I've been getting advice from suggested I should rely on my own judgement and the relationship between inkjet/silver to platinum is like oil painting is to watercolour, a totally different aesthetic. I can't help feeling a bit bruised by the dismissive RPS folk though and I think I really need some good input, but I really don't know where best to go.

Anyway, if anyone has read to the end of this I really would welcome thoughts )

To get back on track to the original question - at least somewhat...

If the feedback from the ARPS committee was that you didn't give them what they want, if you feel you really need the ARPS credential, then do what they want in order to check the checkbox, then move on with your life and continue to make work the way you know is best. If the effort to obtain the credential is more than it will benefit you from having the credential, then ignore it entirely and move on.

 

[Skiwi]

Thanks for all the responses, very much appreciated.

I am indeed taking Ian up on his kind offer )

I think approaching the RPS process was actually helpful in making me get my finger out and put together 15 prints I was happy with. The feedback just told me that what I'm trying to do isn't what they're looking for so I don't think it's an avenue to pursue further.

I'm quite comfortable keeping pushing at the technical side of the prints to see what that does, but at the same time I think the suggestions I need to concentrate more on content feel right. I'm happy with my blacks as being right for my images, and indistinguishable from coated areas of paper that are exposed but not covered by film. That said, maybe I'd like it if I had heavier blacks and should work more with a densitometer? I dunno.

I think part of the issue is that on the one hand I'm happy with the pictures I'm producing (mostly) in Pt/Pd, particularly after more than a decade of inkjet printing, but on the other hand it is important to take into account how others see them. And, often the others available don't know Platinum and may be criticising technical aspects based on what you might want to achieve in, say, inket or silver prints. I also want to get my pictures out to a wider viewership - but not until I'm sure in my own mind that they are good enough...

I do remember feedback I got once about some prints I'd done - the feedback was essentially that the prints I thought were best were technically excellent, but the ones I thought were less strong technically, and in terms of composition, were much more engaging. Which fits with what pictures of other people I tend to like to look at ...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have to check what forum I am on to reply , This is APUG therefore I will discuss how to increase DMax in terms allowed here but understand I make digital negatives for what I am explaining.

2.Make a large positive of the image.
3.Make a contact negative to work best with you Pt Pd routine.
3. Separate the large positive to make a shadow negative or dmin only negative this is showing only the very dark areas of the image.

Register the contact negative and the shadow negative to the positive via punch system
Mount your receiving paper to aluminum and punch for register

Make your normal pt pd print with register pins on your exposing system
Make a Gum over the print using a pigment using the shadow negative.

Immediate effect is increased dmax for your blacks with the beautiful highlights rendering from your pt pd coating.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[pentaxuser]

What is ARPS?

It is what the angels play if they lived in the east end of London while on the earth

pentaxuser

 

[Bob Carnie]

It is what the angels play if they lived in the east end of London while on the earth

pentaxuser

Ahh good one pentaxuser.

 

[calebarchie]

Not entirely sure what the OP is asking here, but in the case of increasing Dmax if you ever wanted to there are a few ways.

The gum over platinum outlined above, using fumed silica and I. Penn's multi layered platinum technique.
There was a member here from the UK no longer with us sadly who experimented with this technique. His results were the best I have ever seen, although can be very costly!

 

[mdarnton]

I went and checked out the RPS site's gallery. I think the farther you can get from those people, the better your chance of turning into a photographer. It reminds me very much of the amateur camera clubs in the 50s in the US.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Not entirely sure what the OP is asking here, but in the case of increasing Dmax if you ever wanted to there are a few ways.

The gum over platinum outlined above, using fumed silica and I. Penn's multi layered platinum technique.
There was a member here from the UK no longer with us sadly who experimented with this technique. His results were the best I have ever seen, although can be very costly!

Are you talking about David Chow btw, I was working on something with him and sadly he left us.