Bergger Cot 160

[thornhill]

Hi all.

I'm just starting out in Kallitypes, etc. The prices on this stuff can definitely get high, especially at my current position on the learning curve. Doesn't matter; I'm hooked.

I've been using Bergger Cot 320 and it's very nice when I get everything right. I'm wondering what it's like using the 160 version. It's half the price and I think it would work well in my work flow but I don't hear it get mentioned. I am typically using single tray developing for this as well as conventional fiber base from 11x14 and up. The papers don't get handled much. Cutting 16x25 down to 12.5x16 (or smaller) would make a nice size that's easy to deal with

So, anyone had any experience with the 160, good or bad? This is the first of what will probably be a series of somewhat bone-headed questions that I'm going to inflict on the group.

Derek

 

[nmp]

Hi all.

I'm just starting out in Kallitypes, etc. The prices on this stuff can definitely get high, especially at my current position on the learning curve. Doesn't matter; I'm hooked.

I've been using Bergger Cot 320 and it's very nice when I get everything right. I'm wondering what it's like using the 160 version. It's half the price and I think it would work well in my work flow but I don't hear it get mentioned. I am typically using single tray developing for this as well as conventional fiber base from 11x14 and up. The papers don't get handled much. Cutting 16x25 down to 12.5x16 (or smaller) would make a nice size that's easy to deal with

So, anyone had any experience with the 160, good or bad? This is the first of what will probably be a series of somewhat bone-headed questions that I'm going to inflict on the group.

Derek

Noticed awty recently posted a cynaotype on COT 160....may be you can ask him.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/self-portrait-in-wire.61418/

Looks like otherwise there are not many who use this paper. I would be interested too to know how it compares with the thicker paper, which I use. Do share your experience if you do end up using it.

 

[thornhill]

Noticed awty recently posted a cynaotype on COT 160....may be you can ask him.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/self-portrait-in-wire.61418/

Looks like otherwise there are not many who use this paper. I would be interested too to know how it compares with the thicker paper, which I use. Do share your experience if you do end up using it.

Well, I've got some on special order from B&H and I'll let people know how I'm making out.
Christina Z. Anderson seems to like it well enough, and she's done a lot of paper testing.

Derek

 

[awty]

Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag is the best paper I have ever used, unfortunately it has become too hard to get hold of any more for me and I havent managed to find anything near as good. If you have the opportunity to try some do so. Havent had any great results with Bergger 160 or 320, think it might be best suited for digital negatives where you can control the contrast better. A friend of mine prefers cot 160 over 320, he does Pl/Pa work.

 

[thornhill]

Noticed awty recently posted a cynaotype on COT 160....may be you can ask him.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/self-portrait-in-wire.61418/

Looks like otherwise there are not many who use this paper. I would be interested too to know how it compares with the thicker paper, which I use. Do share your experience if you do end up using it.

Niranjan,

You have some seriously beautiful images on your website. I recommend people to take a look.

Thanks for sharing them!

Derek

 

[thornhill]

Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag is the best paper I have ever used, unfortunately it has become too hard to get hold of any more for me and I havent managed to find anything near as good. If you have the opportunity to try some do so. Havent had any great results with Bergger 160 or 320, think it might be best suited for digital negatives where you can control the contrast better. A friend of mine prefers cot 160 over 320, he does Pl/Pa work.

Paul,

Thanks for your reply. As it stands, I expect that my negatives will stay digitally created for now, so it's all good.

Derek

 

[nmp]

Niranjan,

You have some seriously beautiful images on your website. I recommend people to take a look.

Thanks for sharing them!

Derek

So that was you who left me a nice message on the site...

I do appreciate your compliments. Now if only I can around to make some new work to put up...

:Niranjan.

 

[pmviewcam]

I've been using COT160 since it was first imported into Australia by Ellie Young at Gold Street. It has very good wet strength and it dries flat. It has handled salt, VDB, Mike Ware's New Cyanotype and Ziatypes well. I have found it easier to use, after years of Arches Platine and COT 320. It is perhaps a personal perception, but COT 160 doesn't "seem" to be as "grainy" as the 320 paper - heavier texture maybe?.

I haven't noticed any differences between in-camera and digital negatives other than, for me, a lack of tonal depth/range in the digital negative prints. I do use both, but usually prefer in-camera negs.

Peter.

 

[awty]

Just wish Ellie still sold Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag.

 

[thornhill]

I've been using COT160 since it was first imported into Australia by Ellie Young at Gold Street. It has very good wet strength and it dries flat. It has handled salt, VDB, Mike Ware's New Cyanotype and Ziatypes well. I have found it easier to use, after years of Arches Platine and COT 320. It is perhaps a personal perception, but COT 160 doesn't "seem" to be as "grainy" as the 320 paper - heavier texture maybe?.

I haven't noticed any differences between in-camera and digital negatives other than, for me, a lack of tonal depth/range in the digital negative prints. I do use both, but usually prefer in-camera negs.

Peter.

Thanks for the comments. The 160 sounds good.
In-camera negatives could be tempting but my current LF only goes to 4x5. If I weren't already swamped in
excess kit I might consider making the jump, but those 8x10's look like they take up a lot of living space.

Derek