Canson XL Bristol Recycled for CT’s

After reading multiple articles on paper choices yesterday I stumbled upon Christina Anderson’s paper test article on the Alt Photo website. She mentioned that Canson paper worked well “out of the box.” Today I bought a pack at Michaels for general experimentation.

I used a foam brush to apply this coating and this is what happened. I also coated a sheet with a glass rod and though the fiber tear up wasn’t as bad, there were still some specs.

is this normal? Did I apply too much sensitizer? What can I do if anything to mitigate it?

Canson makes a number of paper products -- is that the exact one Ms. Anderson called out? I wouldn't normally expect Bristol to work well compared to, say, watercolor paper.

Yes.

http://www.alternativephotography.c...sic-cyanotype-process-1613-research-for-free/

Papers that work well “out of the box”

The next category includes papers that work well “out of the box.” Buffering may or may not be present—often manufacturers do not state this outright—but in my tests they were keepers.

• Arches Aquarelle (also, can pre-acidify with sulfamic acid; gorgeous deep blue)
• Canson Bristol Recycled (the whitest paper of all, sort of day-glo, and cheap)
• Canson XL Watercolor (prints deep black-blue, better if pre-acidified, unique striated texture)
• Hahnemühle Cezanne (mini-bumpy, textured surface, deep, velvety blues)
• Hahnemühle Lanaquarelle (smooth watercolor paper good for multiple coat cyano-plati)
• Legion Rising Drawing Bristol (remarkably beautiful even if it is buffered)
• Strathmore 500 Series Bristol (for me, one of the few suitable Strathmores)

Click to expand...

Those specs are normal for Bristol paper. At least in my experiences.

The best way to mitigate that is to not use Bristol paper. That's just going to be the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. They're too delicate, in my opinion, for alternative processes. Especially since there are better alternatives.

Try a matte coated inkjet photo or premium presentation paper. That's the best paper I've found for cyanotypes, assuming you're not going to tone them afterwards. And I imagine they'd tone fine if you can find one thick enough to stand up to multiple soaks.

Just because it works for her doesn't mean it is going to work for you. I didn't have much luck with Canson Bristol, but I used the regular, not the recycled. Recycled paper is basically made with whatever. I wouldn't use it.

I think foam brushes create too much friction. If you don't want to spend money on a good brush you can get taklon brushes at Michaels. They have a three pack of different sizes that I've used and they worked just as good as my Richeson. I think I paid like $4 for them. They look just like the brushes Bostick and Sullivan sell now.

If you want to make good cyanotypes you need to generally stick to cotton papers. If you want to save money then stick with thinner cotton papers. If you want to use cheap papers then you need to acidify them. i personally think that all papers should be acidified from my experience. It never hurts, only helps.

Some pure speculation... Michaels sells mostly low to mid quality products to a customer base that is price sensitive. In that market, manufacturers may change product specifications to meet a price point without changing the product name. In other words, you'll never be sure what you got is the same as what was previously tested. This is, to my mind, a good reason to stick to the better grades of paper.

I've recently tried a bunch of papers and will, when time permits, make a post about them. However, one I will recommend off the top of my head is Stonehenge Light... very reasonably priced, 100% cotton and works well as it comes for traditional cyanotypes. It is fairly lightweight at 135 gsm but for small prints it works. The heavier (250 gsm) Stonehenge papers also work well and are reasonably priced. I'm partial to the "warm" version, but also use the "white".

Another thought... get yourself a real brush. Foam brushes have their place, but they are not the best tool for hand coating paper in my experience. The quality of foam brushes is all over the place. Some are very coarse and abrasive and are not suited at all for coating paper. Others work just fine. These also, are sold in a very price sensitive market and the suppliers are not consistent in what they provide... you might get a brush that is well suited but the next one you buy even from the same store, may well be very different.

So I've made a few test prints with it, mostly a calibration chart and some other stuff. The first actual print is under the UV now.

I've found that I think I actually prefer it to Bergger. It prints a different darker blue than the Bergger paper, and I found the Berrger paper actually provides more texture than the smooth side of the Canson. It works better, for me, with a glass rod application though. I can also tell that there is more of a tonal range on the Canson, than there is with the Bergger. This may just be my uneducated I, but I like it.

BAM!!!

ChristopherCoy said:

BAM!!!

View attachment 247441

Click to expand...

Nice print!!!

I'm glad that you are getting things worked out. The learning process is all part of the adventure and fun.

ChristopherCoy said:

. It works better, for me, with a glass rod application though.

Click to expand...

Consider getting a Hake brush or two... they are not expensive and if treated well they last a long time.

I ordered these (in July 2016, according to Amazon) for a workshop and they are still going strong, although they did not get much use until a few months ago. Mine just have a bit of blue staining on them... don't know where that came from! ;-)

fgorga said:

Nice print!!!

I'm glad that you are getting things worked out. The learning process is all part of the adventure and fun.

Click to expand...

i could seriously do kartwheels right now. The adrenaline rush from this print is strong!!!