Arches Platine

Colin Graham · Apr 2, 2011

I've been using arches aquarelle for 4 or 5 years now, the 90lb natural and the 140 bright white. Wonderful paper for kallitypes, ziatypes, cyanotypes. Haven't had a bad batch in all that time, always works with the same strength acidification. It can look a little odd during acidification- almost looks like the internal sizing is breaking down- especially in the 90lb weights- but it dries down normally, and only needs a modest amount of sensitizer to coat. Getting strong blacks is fairly easy, I actually backed off on base exposure because the blacks can get a little sooty, but I don't own a densitometer so I can't put a number to that.

Davec101 · Apr 2, 2011

PVia said:
David, I just made a small palladium print about a week ago on Arches 90# watercolor paper. I acidified in oxalic acid. It printed extremely well, no anomalies.

On the same day I printed the same neg on Stonehenge, also acidified and had great results.

The only comparison I coud make btw the two is that Arches is slightly slower and has a slightly less warm color than the Stonehenge (which is known for a warm tone with Pd).

Thanks for that I am going to order some next week and get testing.

Has anyone done a visual reference of how a single image performs on different papers? I know the Arentz book he has many papers compared but there it would be nice to have a visual guide somewhere. If there is not one its something i might do when i get a chance.

Davec101 · Apr 2, 2011

bob carnie said:
Dave I have been using it in my testing on a bunch of processes and I like the paper but as we are still at testing stage and have not tested a range of different papers my comments would be useless for you.
I have used this paper for inkjet printing and love the look but that will not help you.
This paper is definately on my hit list, just need to find out where it will fit in.

Good to hear your testing, will have to catch up with you sometime on various developments.

BTW i found some excellent reproductions/scans of some of Penn's prints that were displayed at the National Gallery in 2005.

National Gallery of Art -Irving Penn: Platinum Prints (1 of 17)

Use the zoom function, for me they show some of the subtle beauty of the prints that are not conveyed in the book reproductions or anywhere else on the net. You can even see some of the pencil marks in the corners of the prints, pretty damn hard to get rid of them if you forget to erase them.

Also check out here on the same site. It lists all the prints they have in their collection with very detailed inscriptions, which i found interesting.

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/tsearch?artistid=26709

For example, this is short version of the inscription, but I believe indicates the first layer was platinum and the second layer platinum/palladium, this specific information for each print is not indicated in the book.

Cigarette No. 86, New York, 1972,platinum/palladium print on Rives BFK paper mounted on aluminum, 1975

Rives Paper on Aluminum / Multiple coating and Printing / (1) Platinum / (2) Platinum-palladium /

Some follow this pattern with the platinum layer being first. Also there is reference to 'Single coating multiple printing' on some prints.

The majority of the prints using Arches are single layered and are of the 'street findings' series as suggested earlier. He must have had a system whereby he new through experience which particular platinum printing workflow combinations to use for each type/style of image. Quite clearly these are some of the most complex platinum prints ever created.

Anyway food for thought.

jkschreiber · Apr 2, 2011

Hi Dave,

I'm the guy who did most of the tests referenced in Arentz's book back in the mid-late 90's. I still have the test prints somewhere in my studio. I suppose I could scan them, or a selection of them (there are dozens), and post them on my website if there is any real interest. I think it would be mostly academic since most of the papers have certainly changed over the intervening 12-15 years. There is a text version of my contribution to the Arentz book on my website. Note also that this was prior to the discovery that acidification could make many of the marginal papers quite useable.

If there is enough interest I will do this, but I don't expect to have time until late this month.

~ Keith

Davec101 · Apr 3, 2011

Colin Graham said:
I've been using arches aquarelle for 4 or 5 years now, the 90lb natural and the 140 bright white. Wonderful paper for kallitypes, ziatypes, cyanotypes. Haven't had a bad batch in all that time, always works with the same strength acidification.

Thanks for this, what type of acidification and what time are you using. I think I will go for the 140.

Davec101 · Apr 3, 2011

jkschreiber said:
Hi Dave,

I'm the guy who did most of the tests referenced in Arentz's book back in the mid-late 90's. I still have the test prints somewhere in my studio. I suppose I could scan them, or a selection of them (there are dozens), and post them on my website if there is any real interest.
If there is enough interest I will do this, but I don't expect to have time until late this month.

~ Keith

Thanks Keith. I think it would be interesting to see the subtle visual differences if its not to much trouble.

I do think there needs to be an up to date detailed resource of current papers that are working well with platinum/palladium. Alternative photography did a large paper survey which identified a good number of papers here The Big Paper Survey – The results Paper And Artpaper AlternativePhotography.com . But is no where near as detailed as what you covered in the Arentz book which as you say was 12-15 years ago and things have changed.

I am happy to put some time into creating an up to date resource as I will be doing it anyway for myself over the coming months. I need to find an image that would be really good at highlighting specific traits of various papers. I have the 'Ole' image but would prefer somerthing else.

Keith, having tested many papers you might be able to shed light on the main problem I am experiencing with some of Penn’s papers. Its started to creep in the new batch of Platine too. If you look at the attached scan you will see this slight speckling, the paper is BFK Rives (acidified/humidified) and is rod coated. It’s as if the sensitizers is not being absorbed properly, this is also the case when using a few drops of tween. I suspect printing a second layer might resolve this however it should not be happening. Other than the speckling the image looks good for a single layer print. If i could solve this it could make the testing easier.

Thanks

PVia · Apr 3, 2011

David, is there any color to the speckling? I had a problem very early on with a sheet of Fabriano that had a gold-ish speckling, and it turned out I could see this in the paper itself before coating using a loupe.

Davec101 · Apr 3, 2011

PVia said:
David, is there any color to the speckling? I had a problem very early on with a sheet of Fabriano that had a gold-ish speckling, and it turned out I could see this in the paper itself before coating using a loupe.

It looks white to me. Cant see any problem with the paper before i coat.

Manuel G Teixeira · Apr 3, 2011

Davec said:
Keith, having tested many papers you might be able to shed light on the main problem I am experiencing with some of Penns papers. Its started to creep in the new batch of Platine too. If you look at the attached scan you will see this slight speckling, the paper is BFK Rives (acidified/humidified) and is rod coated. Its as if the sensitizers is not being absorbed properly, this is also the case when using a few drops of tween. I suspect printing a second layer might resolve this however it should not be happening. Other than the speckling the image looks good for a single layer print. If i could solve this it could make the testing easier.

Thanks

David,

I had exactly the same problem with the last batches of COT320.
I've tried to understand that phenomena, looking at those prints with a microscope. The emulsion looked as it has not been absorbed by the inner paper fibers.
Until those problems showed I used almost exclusively the rod, but afterward I gave priority to Magic brush (single layer) and that speckling issue disappeared.

Bob Carnie · Apr 3, 2011

Dave, do you have your rooms humidity controlled?

Davec said:
It looks white to me. Cant see any problem with the paper before i coat.

R Shaffer · Apr 3, 2011

Manuel G Teixeira said:
David,

I had exactly the same problem with the last batches of COT320.
I've tried to understand that phenomena, looking at those prints with a microscope. The emulsion looked as it has not been absorbed by the inner paper fibers.
Until those problems showed I used almost exclusively the rod, but afterward I gave priority to Magic brush (single layer) and that speckling issue disappeared.

+1 I'd agree with Manuel, try the brush. I've never encountered white speckling with brush coating.

I initially had big issues with clearing. And when I used 2% acidification, I would get some sort of reaction inside the paper while it dried. If I looked at paper backlit, I could see a heavy grain-like pattern shadow. It showed up even with the completed prints, but only when back lit. Odd, but those problems are behind me now.

Colin Graham · Apr 3, 2011

Davec said:
Thanks for this, what type of acidification and what time are you using. I think I will go for the 140.

I've always used citric acid, 5% for 10 minutes. I probably don't need that much, but it works so haven't messed with it. For some reason the paper seems to clear more easily for me using citric acid to neutralize the paper than oxalic acid. But Paul is having good luck with oxalic, so there might be something else going on with my workflow; I haven't tried DOP Pt/Pd yet though, just ziatypes and kallitypes.

I've heard that some printers don't acidify Arches at all. I can almost get away with it with kallitypes- the blacks are only slightly weaker and cooler toned, but ziatypes are very weak and grainy without acidification.

Forgot to mention that Arches is also a great paper for pigment/palladium combo prints. Very minimal dot gain, nice color and really fine detail, at least on my 3800. Doesn't need any additional sizing or coating.

Davec101 · Apr 3, 2011

Manuel G Teixeira said:
David,

I had exactly the same problem with the last batches of COT320.
I've tried to understand that phenomena, looking at those prints with a microscope. The emulsion looked as it has not been absorbed by the inner paper fibers.
Until those problems showed I used almost exclusively the rod, but afterward I gave priority to Magic brush (single layer) and that speckling issue disappeared.

Thanks Manuel for the suggestion, I shall give it a try tommorow. For ten years i have used glass rods. If it works i would prefer to lay down a nice smooth first coat with a rod then touch up using jiaban brush if i could get away with it solving the speckling. I think Kenro Izu uses just a jiaban brush and has created some of the finest platinum prints i have seen. You can see him coat here http://www.pem.org/izu/process.html, the paper he has there is Platine, some years ago though.

[EDIT, having looked at the video again it could be one of those really expensive wide 'Da Vinci' sable brushes!! ]

Out of interest can you get the richardson brush in 4 or 5 inches? I dont want to be using a small brush for 34x27" prints.

Davec101 · Apr 3, 2011

Colin Graham said:
I've always used citric acid, 5% for 10 minutes. I probably don't need that much, but it works so haven't messed with it. For some reason the paper seems to clear more easily for me using citric acid to neutralize the paper than oxalic acid. But Paul is having good luck with oxalic, so there might be something else going on with my workflow; I haven't tried DOP Pt/Pd yet though, just ziatypes and kallitypes.

I've heard that some printers don't acidify Arches at all. I can almost get away with it with kallitypes- the blacks are only slightly weaker and cooler toned, but ziatypes are very weak and grainy without acidification.

Thanks for this i will try with both citric and oxalic and see what difference it makes. For me strong blacks are important, am not really happy unless i am achieving +1.4. I have just got so used to it with the old Platine.

Colin Graham · Apr 3, 2011

Dave, Tsuyoshi of Project Basho was selling some hand stitched hybrid brushes that are supposed to be very nice. Looks like a traditional hake brush, but with the synthetic 'magic' fibers like the Richeson. There is a 6" version. I'm still saving my pennies- they're not cheap. I think he is a member here if want to contact him.

Here's an external thread about the brush- Large Format Photography Forum

donbga · Apr 3, 2011

Davec said:
For ten years i have used glass rods. If it works i would prefer to lay down a nice smooth first coat with a rod

Click to expand...

You are really shorting yourself continuing to use a rod, synthetic brushes are much superior to rod coating. The cost of a good synthetic brush is worth it.

Don Bryant

Bob Carnie · Apr 3, 2011

Don
When I first started a platinum lab 1998-2001 we used large rods and we used brushes and had excellent results with both. We honed into using rods and were getting excellent coating with rod coating.
Largest prints we coated were 16 x20 film sitting on a 20 x24 sheet
Those days we were using arches platine and our lab was humidity, temp, dust controlled which we felt was imperative for good alt coating.

Now that I am back into it I am going to try both again. this time we are working with 5 different processes , and the complications mount.
We have the registration workstation almost completed, the darkroom has been modified for alt as well as silver, humidity and temp control is in place and we are starting with the NUArk 26k testing.
Once we are balanced in, we have purchased a large Vacumn Easel and we will find a spot to hang lights for exposure.

Bob

Bob

Don Bryant said:
Davec said:

You are really shorting yourself continuing to use a rod, synthetic brushes are much superior to rod coating. The cost of a good synthetic brush is worth it.

Don Bryant

Click to expand...

Davec101 · Apr 3, 2011

Don Bryant said:
Davec said:

You are really shorting yourself continuing to use a rod, synthetic brushes are much superior to rod coating. The cost of a good synthetic brush is worth it.

Don Bryant

Click to expand...

To be honest Don I found the opposite to be true, laying down a coat up to 34x27 inches is much easier for me with a rod than a brush. This is the first time i have had problems with coating using a rod with papers i have never used before. I think both methods can yield excellent results in the right hands but i would not go as far to say one method is significantly superior to the other. I will try a 'hybrid' method using a rod and brush and see if that helps, if not i will try the brush on its own.

PVia · Apr 3, 2011

I use a DaVinci Cosmotop synthetic, a beautiful brush with good resilience and springback.

Not sure of the largest size offered...

Bob Carnie · Apr 3, 2011

I think the larger sizes Dave is working with requires the rod and maybe a bit of the brush, I have been scouring the internet on this issues as like Dave is doing, I want to make very large alt prints.

Davec said:
Don Bryant said:

To be honest Don I found the opposite to be true, laying down a coat up to 34x27 inches is much easier for me with a rod than a brush. This is the first time i have had problems with coating using a rod with papers i have never used before. I think both methods can yield excellent results in the right hands but i would not go as far to say one method is significantly superior to the other. I will try a 'hybrid' method using a rod and brush and see if that helps, if not i will try the brush on its own.

Click to expand...

jkschreiber · Apr 3, 2011

Don Bryant said:
Davec said:

Coating with a synthetic brush is always superior than coating with a rod.

Don

Click to expand...

That may be true in your hands, Don, but that doesn't make it so for anyone else. Personally, I use both methods, and have done so for a long time, and don't find either to be necessarily better than the other. I've never found anything particularly magical about synthetic brushes either.

No need to be so dogmatic about it.

donbga · Apr 3, 2011

jkschreiber said:
Don Bryant said:

That may be true in your hands, Don, but that doesn't make it so for anyone else. Personally, I use both methods, and have done so for a long time, and don't find either to be necessarily better than the other. I've never found anything particularly magical about synthetic brushes either.

No need to be so dogmatic about it.

Click to expand...

Woof, woof!

Manuel G Teixeira · Apr 3, 2011

Davec said:
Thanks Manuel for the suggestion, I shall give it a try tommorow. For ten years i have used glass rods. If it works i would prefer to lay down a nice smooth first coat with a rod then touch up using jiaban brush if i could get away with it solving the speckling. I think Kenro Izu uses just a jiaban brush and has created some of the finest platinum prints i have seen. You can see him coat here Kenro Izu: process video, the paper he has there is Platine, some years ago though.

[EDIT, having looked at the video again it could be one of those really expensive wide 'Da Vinci' sable brushes!! ]

Out of interest can you get the richardson brush in 4 or 5 inches? I dont want to be using a small brush for 34x27" prints.

David,

The experiences I had with Jiaban (or Hake ?) brushes were a real disaster. Perhaps I was not trying the best quality ones.
I'm using an Italian brand, with syntetic bristles, similar to Richardson.
I pre wet the brush with distilled water.Amazingly I'm using the same amount of emulsion as with the rod.I flush the brush with plenty of running water immediately after using it, to protect the ferrule from the intense corrosion caused the Pt/Pd emulsion.

I don't think Kenro Izu is using one Jiaban/Hake brush.
By the way, what is the difference between Jaiban and Hake brushes ?

Manuel G Teixeira · Apr 3, 2011

bob carnie said:
I think the larger sizes Dave is working with requires the rod and maybe a bit of the brush, I have been scouring the internet on this issues as like Dave is doing, I want to make very large alt prints.

Bob,

Look at Isabel Munoz (min 6:45) :
YouTube - Isabel Muoz [making off]

I've seen her amazing giant (43"x55")Pt/Pd's prints, some years ago in one private gallery, here in Portugal, near Oporto.

Davec101 · Apr 4, 2011

Having had a good look back at some old post on APUG and Hybrid regarding coating issues it seems that the overriding opinion is that what works with one paper may not necessarily work with another.

I think the key issue is having the knowledge to be able to adapt ones method to certain papers, so I thank you all for your suggestions. Am going to try and find a nice brush to work with to see if that solves my speckling issue with Arches and BFK papers.

Arches Platine

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency