On Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 04:12 PM, Bob Shell wrote: > I did some platinum printing ages ago, so not from digital negs. I > made negs on some sort of Kodak film designed for the purpose. I don't > recall the name. Anyway, platinum printing is for rich masochists in > my opinion. > > Try gum bichromate. It's MUCH cheaper. Hmmm. Interesting. Not having done either, I am keen on trying the alternative processes out - because the B&W stuff I take with my Rolleis and get back from the local labs is lousy to say the least, and I just don't have enough space in my home for a dedicated darkroom. I was thinking, either Piezography or Platinum/Palladium would be the solution for me. Piezography done by a lab in Toronto (see <http://www.tbw99.com/>) is frightfully expensive, and so is the Piezography kit for a dedicated Epson of Canon printer (which I don't have anyway, and thus would have to buy). I read that in contrast it would cost me only about $(US)15 or so in chemicals and paper, tops, for each 11x14 inch platinum/palladium print if I did it myself, sandwiching the negative and the coated water-colour paper between two glass plates, and using duct tape ("the handyman's secret weapon") to bind them together for exposure to the Sun. The cost of getting a large digital negative made would then be my only major expense, and once made, the same negative could be used for many prints, over and over. I was thinking, I might get a local lab to make the digital negs, paying them the same as, or maybe a little more than, I'd pay them to get a paper print of the same size made: and that's just (CAN)$15 plus 15% tax for an 11x14 incher. That's quite affordable, since I wouldn't be making more than half a dozen prints in a month anyway, and in some months, none at all. So I don't have to be a rich masochist if I do this - do I? I was wondering if anyone on this forum has ever gone this route, and with what results? Cheers