|WikiProject History of photography||(Rated Start-class)|
|The content of Palladiotype was merged into Platinum print. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (March 2010)|
Name change to 'Platinum Prints'
Requested move to Platinum print
Merging in Palladiotype and changing name to Platinum and Palladium prints
Comparison of platinum print vs silver-gelatin print tonality
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
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.
...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 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)