Arches Platine

Ron-san · Jan 24, 2011

Friends--

With Arches Platine lost in "reconfiguration" purgatory, I have been trying to learn how to work with other papers. In the process I have made a minor discovery on the use of glycerol (new to me at least, maybe you folks knew this all along).

Following lots of suggestions in threads on the Hybrid Site, I have come up with the following protocol.
1) Soak paper in 1.25% oxalic acid for five minutes, hang up to dry.
2) Coat with the following palladium solution:
LiPdCl 5 grams palladium chloride 1.00 milliliter
3.5 grams lithium chloride
50 ml water

ferric oxalate 13 grams FeOx in 1.00 milliliter
50 ml water

1.5% oxalic acid in 25% glycerol 0.25 milliliter

2% NA2 0.05 milliliter

3) Dry under a cool fan until emulsion does not stick to the negative and expose (for my "normal" exposure time when using platine).

4) Develop in saturated potassium oxalate. Then directly into 5% citric acid (no water rinse), followed by two EDTA/Na Sulfite baths and several water soaks.

I first tried acid pretreatment of the paper and putting acid in the emulsion -- but could never get a decent black. But some of the test prints looked like they were solarizing (getting lighter with added exposure) which in the past has been a symptom of not enough moisture in the emulsion. So, I added some glycerol to the mix and VOILA deep heavy blacks (Dmax between 1.3 and 1.4). So with this protocol I get good blacks and the prints clear nicely.

So far I have tried this approach with Fabriano Artistico, Rising Stonehenge, Strathmore 400, Somerset Velvet and Rives BFK. I have seen one problem. On some papers (Fabriano especially) the glycerol makes the paper slightly sticky to the negative. And if I dry to the point where it is not sticky, it is easy to overdry and end up with solarization. But on other papers this is not a problem.

Thanks for everyone's tips and advice. I still hope platine makes it back from the grave.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

PVia · Jan 24, 2011

Is glycerol the same as glycerin?

Answer: Yes

pschwart · Jan 24, 2011

The lithium palladium chloride is the metal salt used for Ziatypes; it is very hygroscopic. You might try eliminating the glycerin and just using a waterproof backing sheet (I use an old sheet of OHP) to help retain moisture during exposure. I regularly achieve log 1.45 with POP palladium on acidified Rives BFK and Fabriano Artistico without glycerin. You could also try adding a couple of drops of distilled water to the drop count.

Ron-san said:
Friends--

With Arches Platine lost in "reconfiguration" purgatory, I have been trying to learn how to work with other papers. In the process I have made a minor discovery on the use of glycerol (new to me at least, maybe you folks knew this all along).

Following lots of suggestions in threads on the Hybrid Site, I have come up with the following protocol.
1) Soak paper in 1.25% oxalic acid for five minutes, hang up to dry.
2) Coat with the following palladium solution:
LiPdCl 5 grams palladium chloride 1.00 milliliter
3.5 grams lithium chloride
50 ml water

ferric oxalate 13 grams FeOx in 1.00 milliliter
50 ml water

1.5% oxalic acid in 25% glycerol 0.25 milliliter

2% NA2 0.05 milliliter

3) Dry under a cool fan until emulsion does not stick to the negative and expose (for my "normal" exposure time when using platine).

4) Develop in saturated potassium oxalate. Then directly into 5% citric acid (no water rinse), followed by two EDTA/Na Sulfite baths and several water soaks.

I first tried acid pretreatment of the paper and putting acid in the emulsion -- but could never get a decent black. But some of the test prints looked like they were solarizing (getting lighter with added exposure) which in the past has been a symptom of not enough moisture in the emulsion. So, I added some glycerol to the mix and VOILA deep heavy blacks (Dmax between 1.3 and 1.4). So with this protocol I get good blacks and the prints clear nicely.

So far I have tried this approach with Fabriano Artistico, Rising Stonehenge, Strathmore 400, Somerset Velvet and Rives BFK. I have seen one problem. On some papers (Fabriano especially) the glycerol makes the paper slightly sticky to the negative. And if I dry to the point where it is not sticky, it is easy to overdry and end up with solarization. But on other papers this is not a problem.

Thanks for everyone's tips and advice. I still hope platine makes it back from the grave.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

Davec101 · Jan 25, 2011

Got word today in the U.K that they are indeed printing a batch of Platine as we speak, I was told around about 4 weeks to go before till delivery, when they will be sending samples out. Fingers crossed its a good batch. John Purcell are getting in 1000 sheets of Imperial size.

Like you Ron the problems with Platine have made me find new papers which I actually really like, they need oxalic acid but once you get used to the pre-wash its not to much of a hassle if you get a run going.

Ron-san · Jan 25, 2011

pschwart said:
The lithium palladium chloride is the metal salt used for Ziatypes; it is very hygroscopic. You might try eliminating the glycerin and just using a waterproof backing sheet (I use an old sheet of OHP) to help retain moisture during exposure. I regularly achieve log 1.45 with POP palladium on acidified Rives BFK and Fabriano Artistico without glycerin. You could also try adding a couple of drops of distilled water to the drop count.

Philip-- It seems clear that my problem is a lack of sufficient humidity in the emulsion. Despite the fact that I am purposefully using hygroscopic lithium salts and adding extra water (with the oxalic acid I put into the emulsion). And I do not doubt for a minute that you and others are able to get good blacks without the glycerin (glycerol). But, results do vary, and I have not been able to do so.

I suppose I could go to extra effort to humidify my papers (build a humidity chamber, whatever) but I am beginning to think that the glycerin is a really easy and effective way to keep the humidity without going to all that trouble. So, if you already get good blacks, you do not need it. But if you are having trouble like me, you might find it an easy fix to the problem.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

Bob Carnie · Jan 25, 2011

Dave when you get the paper and test would you let us know your thoughts.

Davec said:
Got word today in the U.K that they are indeed printing a batch of Platine as we speak, I was told around about 4 weeks to go before till delivery, when they will be sending samples out. Fingers crossed its a good batch. John Purcell are getting in 1000 sheets of Imperial size.

Like you Ron the problems with Platine have made me find new papers which I actually really like, they need oxalic acid but once you get used to the pre-wash its not to much of a hassle if you get a run going.

pschwart · Jan 25, 2011

Ron -
I'll give it a try. It's always good to have solutions at the ready.

Ron-san said:
Philip-- It seems clear that my problem is a lack of sufficient humidity in the emulsion. Despite the fact that I am purposefully using hygroscopic lithium salts and adding extra water (with the oxalic acid I put into the emulsion). And I do not doubt for a minute that you and others are able to get good blacks without the glycerin (glycerol). But, results do vary, and I have not been able to do so.

I suppose I could go to extra effort to humidify my papers (build a humidity chamber, whatever) but I am beginning to think that the glycerin is a really easy and effective way to keep the humidity without going to all that trouble. So, if you already get good blacks, you do not need it. But if you are having trouble like me, you might find it an easy fix to the problem.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

donbga · Jan 25, 2011

1) Soak paper in 1.25% oxalic acid for five minutes, hang up to dry.

Okay.

2) Coat with the following palladium solution:
LiPdCl 5 grams palladium chloride 1.00 milliliter
3.5 grams lithium chloride
50 ml water

About a 15% solution of palladium salts. I assume the lithium is used to produce a more neutral tone.

ferric oxalate 13 grams FeOx in 1.00 milliliter
50 ml water

Okay - 26% solution of FO.

1.5% oxalic acid in 25% glycerol 0.25 milliliter

Why is the oxalic acid used here?

I first tried acid pretreatment of the paper and putting acid in the emulsion -- but could never get a decent black.

Did you try brushing a 5% solution on the paper surface prior to coating?

So, I added some glycerol to the mix and VOILA deep heavy blacks (Dmax between 1.3 and 1.4). So with this protocol I get good blacks and the prints clear nicely.

1.4 DMAX is what I consider a good typical value though I've measured 1.5 when printing in very humid weather.

So far I have tried this approach with Fabriano Artistico, Rising Stonehenge, Strathmore 400, Somerset Velvet and Rives BFK. I have seen one problem.

Have you tried Lana Aquarell <sp?> Pretty paper. Sandy King has finessed it for printing beautiful gold toned VDBs. About the same price as Platine.

Don

pschwart · Jan 25, 2011

The lithium is hygroscopic, so that should help counter the low RH that Ron is experiencing. I also didn't get the 1.5% oxalic acid in 25% glycerol 0.25 milliliter, but Ron has found a solution that works, so that's good. Next time I print I'm going to add glycerin to my drop count (no oxalic acid) to see what this does to my dmax I have used glycerin for brush development where I think it acts as a restrainer but I have never added it to my sensitizer.

Don Bryant said:
Okay.

About a 15% solution of palladium salts. I assume the lithium is used to produce a more neutral tone.

Okay - 26% solution of FO.

Why is the oxalic acid used here?

Did you try brushing a 5% solution on the paper surface prior to coating?

1.4 DMAX is what I consider a good typical value though I've measured 1.5 when printing in very humid weather.

Have you tried Lana Aquarell <sp?> Pretty paper. Sandy King has finessed it for printing beautiful gold toned VDBs. About the same price as Platine.

Don

Ron-san · Jan 25, 2011

Don and Philip-- The lithium is there because you need some co-salt to get the palladium chloride to dissolve and I long ago started using lithium chloride as the co-salt since I had some Ziatype kit chemicals laying around. I never found a reason to change -- and as Philip points out, the hygroscopic nature of the lithium would seem to be an advantage.

I presoak the entire paper in oxalic acid and then hang it up to dry. Seems a better protocol than just brushing the acid on. But then, to have both belt and suspenders, I read that Sandy was adding some oxalic acid to some of his emulsions and I thought, a little more acid cannot hurt. Have not methodically tried leaving it out on various papers.

To tell the truth, though, even if I can now get several papers to work, I have not found a paper I like as much as the old platine.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

pschwart · Jan 25, 2011

I also soak instead of brushing, but I haven't found a paper that is so special (or inexpensive) that it is worth the trouble so I almost always use either COT320 or Platine, and on rare occasions, kozo.

Ron-san said:
Don and Philip-- The lithium is there because you need some co-salt to get the palladium chloride to dissolve and I long ago started using lithium chloride as the co-salt since I had some Ziatype kit chemicals laying around. I never found a reason to change -- and as Philip points out, the hygroscopic nature of the lithium would seem to be an advantage.

I presoak the entire paper in oxalic acid and then hang it up to dry. Seems a better protocol than just brushing the acid on. But then, to have both belt and suspenders, I read that Sandy was adding some oxalic acid to some of his emulsions and I thought, a little more acid cannot hurt. Have not methodically tried leaving it out on various papers.

To tell the truth, though, even if I can now get several papers to work, I have not found a paper I like as much as the old platine.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

clay · Jan 25, 2011

I have never had a problem getting a nice rich print with a good dmax on Rives BFK that has been pretreated by soaking in a 2-4% solution of oxalic acid for 10 minutes or so and then allowed to dry. It is relatively inexpensive, available everywhere and comes in a crazy-making variety of colors and weights. The only knock on it, in my opinion, is the slight texture of the paper surface when compared to a paper like COT 320.

I think that satisfactory dmax on any paper is a combination of chemistry and coating technique. For instance, with BFK, I coat with an added drop of polyvinyl alcohol per 1 ml of solution. I coat with a brush, let it rest for about a minute, then dry it with a hairdryer. Then I let the paper rehumidify to my normal ambient humidity of 35-45% by letting it rest in the dark under a cool fan for usually 10-15 minutes. Never had a problem getting a Dmax of around 1.4 using this procedure. COT320, on the other hand, seems to do better by coating and allowing it to completely air dry under a cool fan with no intervention with a hairdryer.

When I get a new paper, I mess around with some of the procedures, keep an eye on the humidity of my workspace, and usually can figure out something that will work in a few tries. I try double coating, double coating with the first coat cut 50/50 with distilled water, using polyvinyl alcohol and not using polyvinyl alcohol, forced hot air drying immediately, forced hot air drying after a brief rest, and no forced air drying at all. I test all the papers with a pH pen, and if it is not neutral or acidic, I will acidify it with oxalic. If prints are anemic, I will increase the oxalic % up to 10 percent and the soak time up to an hour. Taking a few hours to figure out a new paper is totally worth the effort in the time and material savings realized down the road.

Davec101 · Jan 26, 2011

bob carnie said:
Dave when you get the paper and test would you let us know your thoughts.

Sure, if it works i will get as much as i can afford this time, as it has been a good paper in the past.

Davec101 · Feb 25, 2011

Just spoke to my paper supplier, another 3 weeks until its supposed to arrive, apparently they are having problems making it! Thank goodness i have found alternatives.

Bob Carnie · Feb 25, 2011

I will all ears to hear your thoughts Dave.

Davec said:
Just spoke to my paper supplier, another 3 weeks until its supposed to arrive, apparently they are having problems making it! Thank goodness i have found alternatives.

PVia · Feb 25, 2011

Ron-san said:
...because you need some co-salt to get the palladium chloride to dissolve...

I mixed up a large batch last year before my old supply ran out, and I used sodium chloride (pure sea salt, no additives) and now my prints are much more neutral than the previous batch, which was a stock solution from B&S.

Still slightly warm, but not as warm as before...almost like the pot oxalate developer is acting like an amm citrate one. Still nice, but different...

PVia · Feb 25, 2011

Also, regarding papers: I acidified some Arches hot press 90# this afternoon, along with a sheet of Stonehenge white. I noticed that the bulk of the Penn Small Trades show was printed on "Arches", so I thought I'd try it, albeit those were printed from 1967-87, but the smoothness of the paper surface attracted me.

I've always been extremely happy with Fabriano (except for "those" batches) but felt like playing this week...also have been printing on Masa.

Colin Graham · Feb 27, 2011

Not sure why but I've always had better luck with citric acid than oxalic for pretreating Arches. The 90# is nice for POP platinum and kallitypes. Doesn't seem to really need the prebath for kallitypes, but ziatypes are pretty weak without it. Not sure about DOP platinum.

The paper does seem to have a very slight red bias though, not as neutral as BFK or FAEW, even the 140lb bright white Arches. I've wondered if that tint has something to do with the citric acid. If you have any luck with oxalic and this paper I'll be very interested in it.

Manuel G Teixeira · Mar 3, 2011

Davec said:
The paper is being reconfigured and is nothing to do with the company hand-over from my understanding. The recent paper batches have not been consistent and cannot be relied on.

Hi David,

Which Batch are you referring to? #5214/1 ??

Exactly one year ago was kindly asked by Bergger to test their new COT320 batch (almost for sure #5214/1) and the results were really bad with the coating rod.

It would be very useful to have those batches references.

Thanks

Davec101 · Mar 4, 2011

Manuel G Teixeira said:
Hi David,

Which Batch are you referring to? #5214/1 ??

Exactly one year ago was kindly asked by Bergger to test their new COT320 batch (almost for sure #5214/1) and the results were really bad with the coating rod.

It would be very useful to have those batches references.

Thanks

Hi Manuel

Sorry i did not take down the batch numbers of the bad Platine, it was at the very end of the last batch that was imported to the U.K. The Bergger that i have is a good at the moment, the size is 22x30 inches (Batch #5207) looks like i have an older batch than you, the size i have is less popular than the smaller size sheets. Thanks for the heads up. What size Cot 320 were you testing and are you using a platinum rich sensitiser?

Manuel G Teixeira · Mar 5, 2011

Hi David,

You're lucky, the #5207 is a good batch. I've printed many sheets from that one.
Bergger sent me 16x20 sheets but I cut them down to smaller sizes and use 20x25 negatives for testing. Of course that the coating area was larger to have room for the Stouffer Tablet and PDN charts.
The emulsion had more Pd than Pd, as follows: 14-3-10-1(Na2_2.5%), PotOx Devel.

With this formula and using the COT batch you are using now I could easily reach a 1.50 DMax, using the rod.
Concerning the last COT320 batch produced by Bergger(??) I can update the info I wrote in the last post.
They are already selling the #5214/2 (I did't test it,yet) batch. So the new upcoming batch you were talking about must be the #5214/3 ?

Ben Altman · Mar 5, 2011

I have an unopened box of the big size, lot 5213 - anyone know if it's good or bad??

Thanks... Ben

Manuel G Teixeira · Mar 5, 2011

Ben Altman said:
I have an unopened box of the big size, lot 5213 - anyone know if it's good or bad??

Thanks... Ben

Ben,

Thats the one I'm using most now. In my opinion is quite good(#5212 was better), with a smooth surface, nevertheless I'm getting a much more even emulsion spread with brush than with rod. I know that George Tice likes the paper (Cranes Kid Finish) "bone dry" before the exposure, but COT needs, at least with my procedures, and environment, to have the right amount of humidity. I try to have that factor very carefully quantified and controlled .
I'm getting a 1.50 Dmax very easily.
The #5214/1 is a completely different beast.

Ben Altman · Mar 5, 2011

Phew! ... Thanks, Manuel!

Ben

Davec101 · Mar 6, 2011

Manuel G Teixeira said:
Hi David,

You're lucky, the #5207 is a good batch. I've printed many sheets from that one.
Bergger sent me 16x20 sheets but I cut them down to smaller sizes and use 20x25 negatives for testing. Of course that the coating area was larger to have room for the Stouffer Tablet and PDN charts.
The emulsion had more Pd than Pd, as follows: 14-3-10-1(Na2_2.5%), PotOx Devel.

With this formula and using the COT batch you are using now I could easily reach a 1.50 DMax, using the rod.
Concerning the last COT320 batch produced by Bergger(??) I can update the info I wrote in the last post.
They are already selling the #5214/2 (I did't test it,yet) batch. So the new upcoming batch you were talking about must be the #5214/3 ?

I checked the last 20x16 batch i bought, that was 5207 too. From my undestanding CoT 320 is made by Arches, Bergger than market it.

I find Cot 320 very similar to Platine, (the later being less off white) so with the bad batches of Platine flying around it would not surprise me if some of the latest Cot 320 batches might be effected.

Arches Platine

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency