Plat/pal has measured # of drops...VD and cyanotype, I just dip a brush
and go! Also, cyanotype and VD chemistry is much less expensive.
Kallitype uses a similar chemistry to VD, but adds a development/toning
step that does complicate it a bit more than the other two, but is still
held up as the poor man's plat/pal. Palladium salts are certainly
cheaper than platinum, but iron is cheaper still. The trade-off is tonal
range, though. However, Mike Ware apparently has a cyanotype formula
that addresses this.
On 9/28/11 6:11 AM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
Hmmm. Maybe there's a big difference between the usual palladium
processing and the (seemingly) simpler Ziatype method introduced by
Sullivan (of Bostick and Sullivan). Could you elaborate some
regarding "more involved and expensive" ? The chemistry and paper
coating is much simpler, at least. No?
-yoram
On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
By iron-based, I'm speaking of cyanotype, vandyke, and kallitype.
Trust me that palladium is much more involved and expensive!
On 9/27/11 9:35 PM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
Trevor's comment is the first time I heard of an iron-based process,
so I googled and found this
<http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/alt-proc/alternative-process-photography-and-science-meet-at-the-getty>.
Fascinating, but too much to read in a month!
I'm glad the alternative process I'll use most is much less
complicated -- making palladium prints. . . . [skip] . . .
-yoram
