Arches Aquarelle?

ronlamarsh · Apr 6, 2011

Has anyone used this 140lb paper for Salt or cyanotype? If so how did you like it?

paulie · Apr 6, 2011

nice for cyanotype, small grain nice colour.

van dyke , doesnt work well for me so i guess salt is the same

Matthew Rusbarsky · Apr 6, 2011

Best paper I've found for cyano.

David William White · Apr 6, 2011

I've used it for salt prints recently. That's the hot pressed 140lb in blocks. No extra sizing necessary. The 'rough' variant takes more solution to coat. Beautiful paper.

samuelingram · Apr 12, 2011

I have the cold pressed right here (I'm actually resting my laptop on the block as I type this.) I'll be doing a bunch of cyanotype tests on it tomorrow and I'm pretty excited. Expensive though.

Hexavalent · Apr 12, 2011

My experience with a few different batches is that it is highly variable - inconsistent sizing, pH all over the place. This may be a bad lot that ended up in stores around here - YMMV.

samuelingram · Apr 13, 2011

I conducted my first tests today. They were awful.

I think the fact that, after a week or so of sunburn-inducing weather, the sun decided to go behind the clouds didn't help me but...

The application of sensitiser was brilliant, the paper went a beautiful, even, banana yellow with no marks. Then I put the stuff in the 'sun' and instead of going blue it turned a nice dark green. Lovely colour but not great for cyano. I washed it out anyway and the green vanished, but the contrast is horrible, blurry and absolutely no detail, and loads of green blotches appeared in it.

My guess is that this is from the glue that holds the watercolour block together. When I tried Canson Monteval, my prints were great, just with some streaks of these through the middle. I think that the glue melts a little in the solution, and is dragged along the paper with it. I'll cut this off before application of the sensitiser tomorrow. I'm trying to use the whole paper because it costs so much, so I'm going right up to the edges.

Having this and a green exposed image, even if it did wash out to blue, isn't desirable. I also treated the paper with acid, which I find blurs detail in the final print. The green development would suggest that the paper needs acid, but I hate actually applying it. The blues that I did get were nice though. Shame the actual image was horrible.

So far, I wouldn't advise getting it. Hexavalent might be right in saying that it's variable. I bought mine from a very well known art supply chain in Soho, New York if that helps. If I were to get it again, I wouldn't get it from there just in case they got a bad batch.

I'm not about to write it off just yet, but I'm also about to buy some Herschel and Buxton. I'd recommend either getting the Aquaralle in sheets, not on a block, or just getting the dedicated paper from Ruscombe if the postage wont hurt your wallet too much.

David William White · Apr 13, 2011

Samuel: Cyanotypes are green after exposure, only turning cyan-blue after development in water, so don't discount your Arches paper on that account.

You didn't say if you've successfully done the same negative with the same A+B solutions on a different paper, but you want to make sure you've got a negative of sufficient contrast. You said contrast was low, and cyanotyping requires contrasty negatives. That, and the chemistry, I think, would be stronger lines of investigation.

For the 'loads of green blotches', that sounds a little like precipitate in your FAC solution. Also, I don't think the block binder is water soluble, so I'm not sure that could be responsible. About the blurriness -- did you wait till the print was dry? The fibres tighten up.

In general, I think the Arches paper in block is a very nice paper, and I would expect that the company is about as rigorous as any in maintaining consistency.

That said, Arches paper is expensive overkill for a beginner cyanotyper (-typist?), and far from necessary for making nice prints.

samuelingram · Apr 13, 2011

I didn't realise that the cyanotype should be, or are usually green after exposure. I've made about 40 so far, with varying results, and none of them have ever been green. They have all been a darker version of the blue that eventually composes the image. In fact, I am pretty sure that I have read that any change towards green indicates impurities in the paper.

I was attempting to do my first scientific tests to determine which variables produce the best overall image with the Arches, as I thought that given its reputation it would perform reliably. I used negatives that worked well with Canson Monteval, and had varying levels of success with other papers.

I use the Fotospeed pre-mixed sensitiser, which is the only way of getting the Mike Ware cyanotype (Or a slightly altered version of it) in the UK, as dichromates are highly regulated here. If the green blotches are precipitate in the FAC, then I suppose I could have gotten a bad batch. I'm not sure how common that is.

Like I said. The Arches was my first step in to more pricey paper, after getting mostly undesirable results with cheaper or beginner papers and so far I am having more trouble with it than I did with those. Perhaps I'll have better luck tomorrow.

David William White · Apr 13, 2011

Okay. From this and your other posts, it just sounds like paper is the lesser of your problems. Keep it simple, try traditional KFC + FAC, get calibrated on your negatives, and you'll be able to cyanotype any paper. Good luck!

David William White · Apr 14, 2011

So, just for fun, here's a cyanotype made this morning from the same negative of the salt print I posted to the gallery a couple of weeks ago. Both were on Arches hot press 140lb paper.

Keep in mind that this composition & negative were never destined for cyanotyping, as it was shot on blue-sensitive copy film, so the sky is non-existent. Yes, aesthetically, it's crap; but technically, it shows that cyanotyping on Arches does indeed work. (I may go ahead and coffee tone it to make it go down easier.)

Also bear in mind that salt printing has an incredible tonal range -- arguably the longest of all processes -- whereas cyanotypes have a much shorter range.

The paper was coated last night with 3-year old KFC and FAC traditional solutions (and I noticed there was something growing in the FAC), and applied with an eyedropper and cheap brush with no special care.

Okay, not the best example around, but hopefully acquitting the paper somewhat.

Matthew Rusbarsky · Apr 14, 2011

samuelingram said:
Then I put the stuff in the 'sun' and instead of going blue it turned a nice dark green.

When I expose, my highlights stay yellow, midtones go kelly green, shadows are olive. The fully exposed emulsion beyond the edges of the negative go past green to a steel grey. Nothing should be blue until it hits the water bath. Toned cyano on Aquarelle:

David William White · Apr 14, 2011

That's nice, Matthew. What's the toner?

Matthew Rusbarsky · Apr 15, 2011

Thanks David. Bleached with sodium carbonate and toned with tannic acid (both highly diluted).

David William White · Apr 15, 2011

Okay, so following Matthew's lead, here is that cyanotype now toned in coffee. This looks a helluva lot better.

Details: Drinking-strength Melitta dark roast, about 1/2 litre, about 3 hours.

degruyl · Apr 15, 2011

David William White said:
Okay, so following Matthew's lead, here is that cyanotype now toned in coffee. This looks a helluva lot better.

Details: Drinking-strength Melitta dark roast, about 1/2 litre, about 3 hours.

That does improve it, but it still lacks the shadow detail of the salt print.

Do you think that toning actually reduced the scale? It seems like it might have (the highlights seem to have darkened).

Do you just soak the print in the coffee and rinse, or is other chemistry involved?

David William White · Apr 15, 2011

Yes, true. But a little heavy-handed as there was a more dry-down than I expected. Kicked a little drama into it, though.

Yes, just a wash after the coffee. Nothin' fancy.

sarahfoto · Apr 15, 2011

Arches Aquarelle is my favourite paper for Cyanotype, Salt print and Van dyke. I have bought it for years from a couple of art-supply shops and it always gives good results.

samuelingram · Apr 16, 2011

I spent all of yesterday practicing. I switched from a glass rod to a foam brush to give me a little more control, and it feels more natural coming from a watercolour painting background.

With the loss of the glass rod, the odd dirty green marks also vanished. I used it again for a few small prints out of curiosity at the end of the day and they came back straight away. I'm not sure why the glass rod would do this, but I'm certain that that is what is causing it. When I first bought it (mail order) I thought the quality was awful for what I paid for it, but I assumed it would be fine.

My only idea is that using a foam brush mixes the solution up somewhat and allows any precipitate to dissolve, whereas the glass rod just picks it up and spreads it.

Edit: Matthew, I'd love to see what the negative looks like from that image of the factory. If you could post it then I'd be really grateful. If you have the time of course.

Nevertheless, the prints I made on the Arches (And pretty much every other paper I had lying round) are beautiful. Not perfect, but I made a lot of progress yesterday. I take back pretty much all of my panicking earlier in this thread. Arches is great, I'll definitely buy some more when this batch is up.

Matthew Rusbarsky · Apr 16, 2011

samuelingram said:
Edit: Matthew, I'd love to see what the negative looks like from that image of the factory. If you could post it then I'd be really grateful. If you have the time of course.

I'm happy to, but if you want more info, PM me and we will have to move it over to DPUG.

original image from 35mm neg:

paper negative from the above:

cyano before bleaching and toning:

samuelingram · Apr 17, 2011

Amazing.

I've managed to get some prints done this morning. They're pretty good and I'll post them later.

Quick question, what do people think of drying the coated and exposed papers with a hair dryer? Does it make any difference to the final image at all?

heespharm · Jul 5, 2011

Matthew Rusbarsky said:
I'm happy to, but if you want more info, PM me and we will have to move it over to DPUG.

original image from 35mm neg:

paper negative from the above:

cyano before bleaching and toning:

How did u make the paper neg from 35mm? Print it the contact print the print?

grzybu · Jul 5, 2011

I really like this paper. Texture is nice and photos looks very different than those from ink printer.
And finally I've managed to get nice flat sheets after drying. No more curly sheets
Kallitype from tonight:

Jason Pliler · Jul 5, 2011

I have been trying this paper, and I am not happy with it. I am using Ware's cyanotype formula and I can not get the yellow to completely was out of the paper. This is not a problem with the other papers I have been using. I have not tried to pre-soak the paper in a citric acid solution before coating. This is something I am going to try tonight most likely.

Matthew Rusbarsky · Jul 6, 2011

heespharm said:
How did u make the paper neg from 35mm? Print it the contact print the print?

Negative scan printed to drafting vellum.

Arches Aquarelle?

ronlamarsh

paulie

Matthew Rusbarsky

David William White

samuelingram

Hexavalent

samuelingram

David William White

samuelingram

David William White

David William White

Attachments

Matthew Rusbarsky

David William White

Matthew Rusbarsky

David William White

Attachments

degruyl

David William White

sarahfoto

samuelingram

Matthew Rusbarsky

samuelingram

heespharm

grzybu

Attachments

Jason Pliler

Matthew Rusbarsky

Arches Aquarelle?

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency