Talk:Platinum print

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History of photography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of History of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


[1] --Stone 23:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent source for detailed technical info to expand article:

David Condrey log talk 06:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Name change to 'Platinum Prints'[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose changing the name of this article to Platinum Prints since that is the standard name listed in the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus. If there are no logical objections raised by the end of this week, I'll make the change. Lexaxis7 (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I support that change. - PKM (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay for me, if the reference to 'Platinotype' stays in the article, because it was the original-historical way to describe it. --Rxke (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed the name again per WikiPedia:Manual of style (only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized). I also tweaked the "Photographers" subhead, as MOS recommends that the article title not be included in subheads. Please fell free to tweak further - I am not entirely happy with my wording. I'll fix the platinotype redirect to the new title.
And it should be singular, but Platinum print already exists as a redirect, so it will take an admin to sort out. - PKM (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move to Platinum print[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closed. Old discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Platinum printsPlatinum print — My request for a speedy deletion of Platinum print so this page can be moved to its singular form has been declined [2], so I'm trying the slow route. The singular form is the correct lemma in my opinion, and would be in line with Albumen print, Carbon print, Contact print, and others... Rror (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - A bad admin decision, IMHO. Chris (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging in Palladiotype and changing name to Platinum and Palladium prints[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No action. A merge was done and there is no consensus here for a page move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Platinum printPlatinum and Palladium prints — The Palladiotype article is a stub and I feel it should be merged with the Platinum prints article--Robert Treat (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC).

  • Comment why is this pluralized? (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment merges are not covered under the WP:RM process, you should use WP:PM for that. (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment mergeto and mergefrom templates are now in place; i see no reason to rename/move the article, since the palladiotype article mentions that it is a variant of the platinum print. -TinGrin 08:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comparison of platinum print vs silver-gelatin print tonality[edit]

This is a good article, and it would benefit from being more factually precise in places where it currently refers to unverifiable statements, statements about illusions (rather than facts) and somewhat effusive artistic feelings, making those sound as if they were a factual, absolute statement. For example, this statement does not quote the supplied reference, but instead subtly rephrases that source and so it makes the "artistic viewpoint" sound like a scientific fact:

The platinum tones range from warm black, to reddish brown, to expanded mid-tone grays that are unobtainable in silver prints.

while the quoted reference only says that:

Platinum photo processing is still highly regarded from an artistic standpoint, Klimek said, because it captures the range of shades between black and white better than silver-based processing.

I would suggest that either no reference is made to "unobtainable" tones, unless the author of that statement, or someone else, can specify what tones exactly are unobtainable and can quote a reputable source. Alternatively, it might be better to replace the entire statement with the verbatim quote from the currently used source, as it is much clearer in that form, than as currently published.Rafal Lukawiecki (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues with this article: essay tone, lead, references[edit]

Much of the content of this article seems useful to me and rings true, however the overall tone is much more like a school essay, or perhaps a section of a book on alternative photography or photographic history, in either case filled with an author's opinions. There is much of unnecessary editorialising in this article, instead of stating of the facts, and, unfortunately, the editorial/opinion phrases are not even supported by references. Overall, this article feels more like an advert for the advantages of a platinum print, to be given to a prospective buyer, than a serious and factual reference on what a platinum print is.

For example:

...characteristics of a platinum print include:...An absolutely non-reflective surface of the prints, unlike more typical glossy prints.

what does absolutely mean here, there is no hard reference to anything that is measurable, such as reflectance etc? This should be rewritten more in line with Wikipedia style.

Or: "No notable advances were made during the 1860s, no doubt due to the rapid rise in the popularity of other processes."

this sounds like an opinion, especially with words such as "no doubt". Usually, there is always doubt, so why is there no doubt in this case? It would be better to state it in a more factual, and less opinionated way.

The lead section of this article seems too long in comparison to the rest, and it jumps straight into mentioning the proposed advantages of a platinum print, rather than summarising the sections. It needs to be more succinct, less editorial and more factual.

There are also several questionable facts in this article, which have no references to support them, like "Platinum prints are the most durable of all photographic processes". It is claimed that carbon prints are even more durable—I am not in position to know which is more durable, but the making of such a strong statement without any references is likely to mislead readers.

See the remaining inline comments, and Talk discussion about print tonality.

A key reference also seems to be a dead link.

Overall, it might be good to rewrite this article, but if none of the authors or editors come forward I will attempt some of the edits in the near future, though I would not like to upset anyone.Rafal Lukawiecki (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


The statement Platinum prints are the most durable of all photographic processes is quite an absolute one. However, carbon print also makes the claim to be very durable. Further, any print durability claim, especially the later one It is estimated that a platinum image, properly made, can last thousands of years needs to be clear about the durability of the paper on which the print has been made. There are few examples of paper that has lasted thousands of years, not to speak of prints made on them. I would suggest that this statement should be toned down, and the quoted reference ought to emphasize, or at least explain, that the durability is merely estimated. Otherwise, these statements sound like a biased advert.˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafal Lukawiecki (talkcontribs) 22:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Platinum prints or Platinum Palladium prints - this is the most popular printing method due to high price of Platinum, will not corrode in the same way a silver print will[1][2]. They are also impervious to the majority of chemical reactions occurring in every day situations, strong UV sunlight for example. If the paper used to coat the emulsion onto is 100% cotton for example Arches Platine the permenance of the image is also greatly improved.

Another advantage of this process is that a conservator can clean a print with paper stains (the paper can become stained, foxing for example) by processing the print to remove stains or overall discoloration. The image itself should not become weakened by this type of restoration. Provided the print is made on the correct type of paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Axon (talkcontribs) 04:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tonal Range[edit]

I searched extensively for a quality reference to substantiate the first sentence of this article which reads as: Platinum prints, also called platinotypes, are photographic prints made by a monochrome printing process that provides the greatest tonal range[clarification needed] of any printing method using chemical development.[citation needed]

The best I was able to find in support of this statement was from a book titled Coming Into Focus: A Step-by-Step Guide to Alternative Photographic Printing page 13 [3] which itself references an obscure Willis and Clements advertisement (which i found here in the original journal from 1921)[4] promoting platinotype as being of superior quality.

My conclusion is that this advertisement does not constitute a quality reference for the factual accuracy of this statement and I am removing this statement from the article after having failed to prove the accuracy of the statement.

In opposition further; this reference from Getty Images[5] nor this extensively detailed technical analysis from NASA[6] makes no differentiation in tonal ranges of types being better or worse, only different.

David Condrey log talk 06:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)