Coming from Kallitype, I gotta say that Ziatype is a really nice process. Cleaner, more adaptable, and easier overall.
Cleaner because it is a printing out process and the clearing baths are a lot less harsh, and there’s no fixing or toning step required. Adaptable because there’s a wide range of tones available by varying the basic solutions. One area where it’s a little fussier is environmental factors- high humidity is helpful because a relatively damp coating is needed for decent D-max.
One thing I found interesting is that it prints well on Arches WC without acid treatment, which kallitypes would not do. On the other hand, Rives BFK does need acid treatment. I use a citric acid bath to acidify the paper, which is the recommended clearing agent for Ziatypes as well. COT 320 is fine straight out of the box.
It’s worth experimenting with the process, as some of the frequently recommended steps did not work for me. For instance, I’d read that separating the coated paper from the negative with Mylar is necessary to protect the neg from the damp coating and also to keep the coating from drying out during exposure. For me, even using very thin optic-grade Mylar resulted in a lot of highlight grain on the final print, so I was able to omit this step. I use digital negatives, so no real harm if the negative is damaged, but I have not damaged one yet. As long as the ink is well cured, digital negatives are pretty durable. Also, I did not loose any D-max from the coating drying out during exposure, even with exposures in the 12-minute range. I do use a vacuum press, so maybe this helps seal in the moisture somewhat.
With digital negative on a 3800, I found that I need a small ammonium dichromate boost to get the desired contrast. The Epson just isn’t able to put down enough ink without artifacts, but this profile works pretty well with a drop count of 10 each FAO and LiPd plus 1 each of tungstate and dichromate. Too much dichromate can result in print grain, but a drop of 2.5% solution is adequate. I also found that I need to add some sodium tungstate to warm up the print color a bit. It’s is really quite cold-toned with a straight lithium palladium/ ferric ammonium oxalate mix. But all this comes in the kit from Bostick and Sullivan, so it’s easy to experiment without having to purchase a lot of exotic chemical from different sources. I haven’t tried the process with cesium palladium, intended for warmer tones, which is available separately.
The print surface can be challenging to scan, it’s almost irridescent in a very subtle way, which can lead to some odd color variations when scanning.