Platinum Print Help?

[sanking]

Copied from a post at another forum.

S. King

I decided I wanted to do platinum printing, so I went out and bought a point-and-shoot digital camera. But when I put the pictures into Photoshop, I checked all the tool-bars and pull-down menus and couldn't find "platinum" anywhere. Do I have to buy special software to make platinum prints?

--Mark Sawyer, 2004-10-02 02:51 PM

 

[Mateo]

While trying to find information about printing with Uranium I found one Mr Mark Sawyer refered to as knowledgeable in that process in the late 1970s. They must have had more user friendly computer software back then.

 

[sanking]

While trying to find information about printing with Uranium I found one Mr Mark Sawyer refered to as knowledgeable in that process in the late 1970s. They must have had more user friendly computer software back then.

Clay responds,

yes. A special plug-in is required.

--Clay, 2004-10-02 14:52:50


Sandy

 

[wfwhitaker]

I saw the post on the other forum and I'm still confused. Or at least somebody is.

-Will

 

[Jorge]

It is a feeble attempt at a joke, you know, like the one about the guy being confused because the image was upside down and backwards in the GG.

I checked other posts by Mark and he seems to at least know that this does not work like that, at least I hope so, since he uses an 8x10.

 

[Mateo]

If you look at other posts by Mr Mark Sawyer, you'll figure out that it's all a nice Sat evening joke.

 

[clay]

Clay responds,

yes. A special plug-in is required.

--Clay, 2004-10-02 14:52:50


Sandy

And please note that i did not get specific about what was to be plugged in where! I think this was just a troll.

 

[sanking]

If you look at other posts by Mr Mark Sawyer, you'll figure out that it's all a nice Sat evening joke.

Maybe so.

But in a supplementary issue to Photo Techniques just out there is an article on making palladium looking prints with inkjets. The writer, Hugh Smith, states: "Today, however, palladium can be almost completely reproduced in a "light room" using a computer, a scanned image, a good inkjet printer, and heavyweight matte paper." He contrasts this marvel of current technology to the old days, when photographers coated their papers with a highly poisonous solution of platinum salts, "and then exposing the negative to sunlight for an inexact period of time. Mr. Smith adds, "The time required often took days?"

Now, if stuff such as this can be published in a national magazine, and presumably peer reviewed, why should we not expect to have a platinum plug-in with Photoshop ? Or better yet, just include it as one of the file saving options on the camera?

Sandy

 

[Ed Sukach]

I hear that "Platinum Plug-In" requires that the PC be disassembled, and all gold-plated contacts, between pc boards and connectors, etc., be replaced with solid platinum ones -- otherwise you will really only get gold-toned prints.

At least that is what the advertising copy for the Platinum-Print software says (in *very* fine print) ... and ads can't be wrong, con they??

.... I realize there is a "typo" in the above sentence ... "con" should have been "can" ... but, somehow - it is more appropriate "as is".

 

[Jim Chinn]

Mr. Hugh Smith probably has never seen a real platinum/palladium print in his life.

As far as his statements about the "old days", poisonous salts and days for exposures, the man is either totally ignorant or has an agenda of some sort.

But ultimately I hold the editors and publishers of Photo Techniques responsible for publishing such articles without checking the accuracy of statements made by the authors.

ALL the photo magazines continue to publish articles about dgital that bash traditional methods and the authors always try to get digs in about how much better it is to be out of a cramped, smelly darkroom.

I would suggest that they are to stupid or lazy to have had a good comfortable darkroom, or are to lazy to get the maximum out of their darkroom.

I for one have quit subscribing to magazines such as Photo Techniques because of this practice. I will sit an read them at the booksotre for some articles, but they can go out of business before I give them another penny.

If an article has a good cogent argument about advantages/ disadvantages regarding certain techniques and methods, that is fine. But please, enough of trying to justify switching to digital by tearng down what others still love.

 

[GreyWolf]

I guess some people just do not understand that it is the journey that counts... and not the final output. To some having a point, shoot, and click result to get a good "look a like" pt/pd print gives them something to do for a single evening while playing on the PC. Another evening wasted away in boredom while selecting menu options and quickly seeing the changes.

I personally am still looking forward to creating my first pt/pd print the traditional way. I have all the components for assembling my lightbox (had for four months now) and the kits to begin, just not the proper time for my busy schedule. Late this spring I changed careers and now am working fulltime in British Columbia while living in Alberta. The drive to work is very exhausting. (joke... 360 miles one way). Hopefully after this winter I will have everything settled into place, the house sold, the family moved and I can get back into the darkroom again.

Don't worry Mr. William Blunt... I most definitely will get there but it will just take a bit longer than I expected. Unfortunately I am renting a residence in BC and will only have my computer to fiddle on while I am there. I hope to use that time to learn to scan negatives and start to make good enlarged negatives for Pt/PD usage. Would rather have the darkroom...but I will make due with what is available.

Anyways at least I can come to Apug for solace and read about the fun the rest of you are having.

Kind Regards,

 

[wfwhitaker]

The line between reality and fiction is sometimes but a faint blur....