Paper comparisons with Simple Cyanotype

I've done some comparisons with four papers after fully calibrating my Simple Cyanotype process for digital negatives. The four papers are:

- Canson XL 9x12 (pre-acidified), the cheapest at $.30 per page
- Arches aquarelle hot press 9x12 (pre-acidified), at $1.58 per page
- Bergger COT 320 8x10, at $1.00 per page
- Hahnemühle Platinum Rag 8x10, at $1.60 per page



Canson XL was super contrasty, with most of the highlights washing out. I was very disappointed with HPR as I had heard many good things about it, but in my case, there were a lot of spots and blotchiness and quite bad really. COT 320 and Arches were both pretty good, COT320 was less contrasty and more grainy, and Arches less grainy and a bit more contrasty, although there was a greenish tint to it.

I really wanted CT320 to be my go to paper to avoid the extra pre-acidification phase, but looks like I will be using both COT 320 and Arches aquarelle and ditching Canson XL and Hahnemühle Platinum Rag.

Love to hear others' experiences with these paper.

Thanks for sharing!

HPR printed well for me (non 'simple' cyanotype). My only problem was too much run-off (and staining) in the first bath. Is it possible HPR would look better if you humidified it more before coating? It can really make a difference.

And maybe COT 320 also will be less grainy if you humidify it more? I've made really smooth cyanotypes with it (non 'simple' version).

I've also found that HPR needs a bit more Tween than many other papers. How much did you use?

Is Canson XL the Aquarelle variant? I didn't like it much for cyanotypes. But you seem to get good density. Maybe you could extend the scale by developing in 2-5% acetic acid in the first bath. That's helped me with other cheap buffered papers.

So my experience is also with the classic - early on I did a comparison with the same papers except HPR.

1. From Dmax perspective, my results were fairly consistent with the above. XL had the highest, while other two lagging. Where Dmax goes, I go. So XL became the standard for me. Price helps when you are just playing around (by the way $0.03 per sheet seems to be a typo - should be more like $0.30.)

2. Graininess would be expected in XL as it is cold-pressed while the other two are the smoother hot-pressed kind. I can't tell which side you are using on XL but one is significantly rougher (the top) than the other. If you are using the top side, try the back side. Once printed, I found very negligible graininess on that side. It was also harder for sensitizer to be absorbed in my experience so tween was needed.

3. You will find differing opinions on this, but mine regarding pre-acidfication is that you don't need it for the classic (or by extension perhaps to SImple? or may be the jury is still out on that one.) It is mandatory for the New cyanotype as I understand, but not for the others. Did you try straight paper and found to be lacking in some way before deciding to neutralize the buffer?

4. XL contrast and the blown-out highlights can be overcome by tweaking the digital negative - was the same negative used for all papers or did each have their own correction curves? For digital negatives, I would rather have a contrasty paper/process so paper whiles can be achieved easier with less burden on the UV density of the printer ink. So I wouldn't give up on the XL as yet.


Regarding the HPR paper, I recently bought some to try on cuprotypes as it was reported to work very well on them. My first impression, unfortunately, was similar - very grainy and blotchy, just overall not very good looking. I tried the other side (rougher) and it was even worse. Basically I was so disappointed that I didn't even try to troubleshoot. Perhaps it does require tween unlike COT which in comparison was far superior in terms of coating quality. May be I will try again to ascertain why it is that it performed so different from its reputation. May be it was something I was doing. May be they do better job at marketing. I personally have always liked COT 320 and was relieved when recently their stock seems to have come back on the shelves.


:Niranjan.

FotoD said:

HPR printed well for me (non 'simple' cyanotype). My only problem was too much run-off (and staining) in the first bath. Is it possible HPR would look better if you humidified it more before coating? It can really make a difference.

Click to expand...

I had also tried Classic before with more or less same results with excessive run-off in the first bath. I didn't do anything specific regarding humidifying, I only waited about an hour after coating before exposing. One of my goals in this exercise was to come up with a workflow with minimum overhead, even eliminating the pre-acidification of paper, so I'm trying to avoid an additional humidifying phase, especially since there are other papers that don't require it. Plus, HPR is the most expensive.

FotoD said:

I've also found that HPR needs a bit more Tween than many other papers. How much did you use?

Click to expand...

I've tried varying amounts, 1-2 drops of 10% tween-20 per 8x10 sheet.

FotoD said:

Is Canson XL the Aquarelle variant? I didn't like it much for cyanotypes. But you seem to get good density. Maybe you could extend the scale by developing in 2-5% acetic acid in the first bath. That's helped me with other cheap buffered papers.

Click to expand...

I used the Canson XL watercolor variant. I used a slightly acidic first bath, pH of ~4-5. I will try a stronger bath, thanks.

nmp said:

1. From Dmax perspective, my results were fairly consistent with the above. XL had the highest, while other two lagging. Where Dmax goes, I go. So XL became the standard for me. Price helps when you are just playing around (by the way $0.03 per sheet seems to be a typo - should be more like $0.30.)

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, a typo. It's $0.30 per 9x12 sheet. You're also right that Dmax is better on XL, but I started using Simple because I needed the wider tonal range and XL negates that for me. Can't beat the price though.

nmp said:

2. Graininess would be expected in XL as it is cold-pressed while the other two are the smoother hot-pressed kind. I can't tell which side you are using on XL but one is significantly rougher (the top) than the other. If you are using the top side, try the back side. Once printed, I found very negligible graininess on that side. It was also harder for sensitizer to be absorbed in my experience so tween was needed.

Click to expand...

I used the smoother side of XL (which is still not even close to the smoothness of hot press). I'm using 1-2 drops of 10% tween-20. I can try adding more.

nmp said:

3. You will find differing opinions on this, but mine regarding pre-acidfication is that you don't need it for the classic (or by extension perhaps to SImple? or may be the jury is still out on that one.) It is mandatory for the New cyanotype as I understand, but not for the others. Did you try straight paper and found to be lacking in some way before deciding to neutralize the buffer?

Click to expand...

Some years ago, when I did a lot of testing for pre-acidification with Classic, I came to the conclusion that I get better results (especially on XL). I haven't done any comparison with Simple on this yet.

nmp said:

4. XL contrast and the blown-out highlights can be overcome by tweaking the digital negative - was the same negative used for all papers or did each have their own correction curves? For digital negatives, I would rather have a contrasty paper/process so paper whiles can be achieved easier with less burden on the UV density of the printer ink. So I wouldn't give up on the XL as yet.

Click to expand...

Yes, the same negative was used for all. I see your point on optimal compensation for each paper type and less burden on UV blocking.

nmp said:

Regarding the HPR paper, I recently bought some to try on cuprotypes as it was reported to work very well on them. My first impression, unfortunately, was similar - very grainy and blotchy, just overall not very good looking. I tried the other side (rougher) and it was even worse. Basically I was so disappointed that I didn't even try to troubleshoot. Perhaps it does require tween unlike COT which in comparison was far superior in terms of coating quality. May be I will try again to ascertain why it is that it performed so different from its reputation. May be it was something I was doing. May be they do better job at marketing. I personally have always liked COT 320 and was relieved when recently their stock seems to have come back on the shelves.

Click to expand...

At the price point of HPR, I don't see any point trying to trouble shoot it. COT 320 is at a much more reasonable price point and is performing very well.

Here's another comparison between the four papers using a 21-step wedge:




The strips are aligned on their Dmax to show the tonal range properly.

Paper	Dmax exposure	Tonal range (half steps)	Tonal range (stops)	Tone quality
Canson XL watercolor	16min	9	4	scratchy, grainy
Hahnemühle Platinum Rag	22min	14	6.5	scratchy, grainy, blotchiness
Bergger COT 320	22min	18	8.5	somewhat grainy, good gradation
Arches Aquarelle	16min	17	8	smooth, greenish, fewer highlights

Once the negative has been matched for the paper, hard to beat Hahnemuhle PR.

Nice comparison.

If HPR printed like that for me, I would pour hot tap water in the sink and hold the paper over it for 40s-2m just before coating. And I would ty coating the verso which has been less grainy for me.

COT320 and Arches look good.

Andrew O'Neill said:

Once the negative has been matched for the paper, hard to beat Hahnemuhle PR.

Click to expand...

You don't care about the defects? Or do you have some way to overcome them?

:Niranjan

zuluz said:

Here's another comparison between the four papers using a 21-step wedge:


View attachment 334875

The strips are aligned on their Dmax to show the tonal range properly.

Paper	Dmax exposure	Tonal range (half steps)	Tonal range (stops)	Tone quality
Canson XL watercolor	16min	9	4	scratchy, grainy
Hahnemühle Platinum Rag	22min	14	6.5	scratchy, grainy, blotchiness
Bergger COT 320	22min	18	8.5	somewhat grainy
Arches Aquarelle	16min	17	8	smooth, greenish, fewer highlights

Click to expand...

When did you buy the HPR? I wonder if this problem is a particular batch. I bought in early December - Batch # X001TDO3K1.

:Niranjan.

nmp said:

When did you buy the HPR? I wonder if this problem is a particular batch. I bought in early December - Batch # X001TDO3K1.

Click to expand...

Mine is a few years old, I'd say 3-4 years maybe, not quite sure. I got my HPR and COT320 at the same time.

nmp said:

You don't care about the defects? Or do you have some way to overcome them?

:Niranjan

Click to expand...

Ooh I missed those in the example! I think those blotches are because the paper is too dry as working space RH too low. This happened to me when I kept my work space really dry for carbon printing... A quick soak in a tray of water, then as soon as dry, coat. I also put a few drops of Tween or Photo-Flo in the sensitiser. I avoid using a blow dryer.

nmp said:

When did you buy the HPR? I wonder if this problem is a particular batch. I bought in early December - Batch # X001TDO3K1.

:Niranjan.

Click to expand...

I'll check my batch number, too. I bought my big roll around then... I've never had any issues with whatever my batch is, though...

Andrew O'Neill said:

I'll check my batch number, too. I bought my big roll around then... I've never had any issues with whatever my batch is, though...

Click to expand...

Rolls might be different from sheets. In any case, I reserve my judgement until I do some more testing, but out of the box it looked ugly. Moisture may have played a role, but COT 320 never complains. Perhaps HPR has more surface sizing which gets finicky in absence of moisture - may be the secret to it not requiring pre-sizing for gum as I have seen being reported.

:Niranjan.