Puzzled by Paper

John Lockhart · Jun 17, 2010

I am wondering if other folks have had a similar experience. I have been printing kallitypes, that I gold and platinum tone, for a few months. At first I used Stonehenge Rising. The kind you can get at an art store. Many folks recommend it. However, the results were really mixed. The prints were very often grainy with spotty coverage. One day on a lark I picked up a package of Arches Aquarelle. Again it was nothing special I bought it at a local art supply. It was like night and day. The prints on the Arches were smooth with nice blacks and great highlight detail. They were really beautiful.

After a while I thought I would try a higher end paper. So, I ordered some Lana Aquarelle from Bostick and Sullivan. Its got great body and holds up well in water. However, the prints were not that much better than the Stonehenge. I could tell the second I put the paper in the developer that the Lana was going to disappoint me.

Is there any rhyme or reason why some papers that come highly recommend just fail while others you never considered are wonderful? My process is simple. I just use a foam brush and thats it. The humidity is always the same indoors with air conditioning.

Follow the link below for an example of the same image on two papers. Keep in mind that I was using:

1. The same negative
2. The same developer
3. The same exposure time
4. Same coating procedure

The only difference is that I did put the one on Lana Aquarelle in gold toner for a minute. However, I know that is not a factor since you could see the difference in the prints well before they were toned. The Lana looks similar to what I was getting with Stonehenge.

Dead Link Removed

Any thoughts? I guess it bothers me that the one thing that has made the greatest difference in my printing was a totally random paper selection. Am I not doing some things I could to make the premium papers work better? I really love the way the Lana held up in water and dried flatter, but the end result looked mediocre.

Thanks,

- John

pschwart · Jun 17, 2010

John Lockhart said:
I am wondering if other folks have had a similar experience. I have been printing kallitypes, that I gold and platinum tone, for a few months. At first I used Stonehenge Rising. The kind you can get at an art store. Many folks recommend it. However, the results were really mixed. The prints were very often grainy with spotty coverage. One day on a lark I picked up a package of Arches Aquarelle. Again it was nothing special I bought it at a local art supply. It was like night and day. The prints on the Arches were smooth with nice blacks and great highlight detail. They were really beautiful.

After a while I thought I would try a higher end paper. So, I ordered some Lana Aquarelle from Bostick and Sullivan. Its got great body and holds up well in water. However, the prints were not that much better than the Stonehenge. I could tell the second I put the paper in the developer that the Lana was going to disappoint me.

Is there any rhyme or reason why some papers that come highly recommend just fail while others you never considered are wonderful? My process is simple. I just use a foam brush and thats it. The humidity is always the same indoors with air conditioning.

Follow the link below for an example of the same image on two papers. Keep in mind that I was using:

1. The same negative
2. The same developer
3. The same exposure time
4. Same coating procedure

The only difference is that I did put the one on Lana Aquarelle in gold toner for a minute. However, I know that is not a factor since you could see the difference in the prints well before they were toned. The Lana looks similar to what I was getting with Stonehenge.

Dead Link Removed

Any thoughts? I guess it bothers me that the one thing that has made the greatest difference in my printing was a totally random paper selection. Am I not doing some things I could to make the premium papers work better? I really love the way the Lana held up in water and dried flatter, but the end result looked mediocre.

Thanks,

- John

Paper chemistry -- especially sizing and buffering -- can have a huge impact for some alt processes. This can affect the ability to form an image, graininess, and even image color. Beware: paper formulas can also change over time, so a paper that once worked well can become unusable. Papers that work well for platinum should make nice kallitypes. I have tried the papers you mention for platinum prints but much prefer COT-320 or Platine. Maybe someone else on the forum can tell you if these work well for kallitypes.

John Lockhart · Jun 17, 2010

I guess I will have to spring for some Plantine. If it's really the best, for that kind of process then I guess it would be a great benchmark for me. Bostick is always sold out of the COT.

The Arches Aquarelle is really awesome. I was getting really frustrated until I tried it. It may not be the best, but it renewed my faith in this kind of process at a very low point.

- John

PVia · Jun 18, 2010

Try acidifying your paper...a 1-3% solution of oxalic acid for 3-5 minutes, let it dry, then use it.

John Lockhart · Jun 18, 2010

What effect does the acid have?

Marco B · Jun 18, 2010

John Lockhart said:
What effect does the acid have?

It breaks down the often present calcium carbonate buffer added to a lot of papers.

Alkaline conditions are not suitable for iron based processes like your kallitypes, as they essentially ruin your light sensitive iron sensitizer by hydrolisis:

http://www.mikeware.co.uk/mikeware/Argyrotype_Process.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis

As the Wikipedia page says:
"Hydrolysis tends to increase as pH rises leading, in many cases, to the precipitation of an hydroxide such as Al(OH)3 or AlO(OH). These substances, the major constituents of bauxite, are known as laterites and are formed by leaching from rocks of most of the ions other than aluminium and iron and subsequent hydrolysis of the remaining aluminium and iron."

If I understand this right, it means that some or a large part of the Fe3+ cations from the photo sensitizing solution, that are necessary as an electron donor for reducing the silver cation Ag+ to Ag and your silver image, are lost because they precipitate as an insoluble hydroxide.

Hence: bad image quality of your kallitype.
If you don't have oxalic acid, citric or acetic acid should do the same.

Loris Medici · Jun 18, 2010

As a note: IMHO, oxalic acid not the best choice for the purpose. (Not meaning it doesn't work!)

I'd use dilute (1% - 2%) acetic or hydrochloric/muriatic acids. The reaction products are highly soluble leaving nothing but pure cellulose behind. Oxalic will leave spiky (= may cause mechanical damage...) crystals of calcium oxalate reaction product IN the paper...

OTOH, I don't think B&S will sell a paper which needs neutralization to work, stating "good for Pd"; the problem should be somewhere else...

Regards,
Loris.

R Shaffer · Jun 18, 2010

Your Kallitypes are looking really good John.

Paper for iron processes could be a field of study all by itself and opinions vary widely. As you have discovered, some papers work better than others due to how the paper is made and I agree with the comments so far. My experience with papers for kallitypes

COT 320 - This is an excellent paper. It has a hard smooth surface that will produce sharp detailed images. It's not as absorbent as watercolor paper and needs a little less sensitizer. Very consistent batch to batch. Very good blacks. Many would consider this the benchmark.

Plantine - Similar to COT, but not quite as hard. For me it coats a little easier. I have had a bit of inconsistency batch to batch, but mostly all good. Good blacks with single coat. Excellent choice for kallitype.

Aquarella - Only tried this a couple of times. Has more surface texture, which I like. I did not get as deep of blacks, but a nice tone.

Rives BFK - My current favorite, BUT I like doing gum over kalli and tri-color gums. It has a very soft surface and lovely texture. So it does not get as good a black or as much detail as COT or plantine. I do pretreat the paper ( shrink & acidify ) with a 30min soak in hot water with 1% oxalic acid, but many like it without pretreat ( for kallitype ). I usually resize the paper after dried so that I can do multiple layer prints. I size with either a gelatine soak or brushed on PVA size.

So certainly keep trying different papers until you find the ones that fit the style of print you are after. And keep lots of notes, I write on the back of the print all the important info like paper, pretreatments, exposure, sensitizer, curve if digital negative, ect.

John Lockhart · Jun 18, 2010

Great advice. I will try neutralizing the Lana paper, see what results I get, and post something up.

Marco B · Jun 18, 2010

Loris Medici said:
I'd use dilute (1% - 2%) acetic or hydrochloric/muriatic acids. The reaction products are highly soluble leaving nothing but pure cellulose behind. Oxalic will leave spiky (= may cause mechanical damage...) crystals of calcium oxalate reaction product IN the paper...

Thanks Loris, always good to hear these kind of "details" no-one usually writes about.

John Lockhart said:
Great advice. I will try neutralizing the Lana paper, see what results I get, and post something up.

Actually, you're not "neutralizing" it (in the sense of establishing a neutral pH), but even acidifying it somewhat.

Marco

John Lockhart · Jun 21, 2010

I will definitely try some Plantine and COT on my next order. Unfortunately B&S always seems to be sold out of COT.

I will also post up some results if the acid treatment makes a difference in the Lana paper that prompted me to ask the initial question.

Thanks,

- John

Colin Graham · Jun 22, 2010

I never had much luck with Lana, acidified or not. It's my favorite paper for carbon transfers and I really wanted to make it work for kallitypes.

I agree arches aquarelle is great for kallitypes, both the natural and bright white. If you haven't already tried it Fabriano extra white also works well for kallitypes with a light acid bath. The only thing that bugs me about Arches and Fabriano are the large intrusive watermarks, but some people like that sort of thing.

Platine is a great trouble free paper, but a little cardboard-ish for me, and anyway it never seemed different enough from aquarelle to justify the extra expense.

sanking · Jun 23, 2010

As Phile noted earlier the papers are always subject to change from variations in the formulas and manufacturing. COT 320 and Platine are quite consistent because they are reallly made for pt/pd printing, and almost any paper that works well for pt/pd will work well for kallitype.

Something must have changed with Arche's Aquarelle because when I tried it in the past I never could get good Dmax. I have not tried Lanaquarelle with kallitype but it does not work well with vandyke as the image tends to leech from the paper. I get a real good Dmax at first but then with time in the water it just disappears.

My coating method with all of the iron processes is similar. I double coat, but the first coat is a 1:1 dilution of the sensitizer + a 5% solution of citric acid. I allow this to dry for about five minutres, then coat again with full strength sensitizing solution.

I used to prefer kallitype over vandyke because of the lack of contrast control with the latter. However, when printing with digital negatives vandyke is by far the least complicated of the two, and results are just as good in terms of tonal range and Dmax.

Sandy King

Loris Medici · Jun 23, 2010

sanking said:
...
My coating method with all of the iron processes is similar. I double coat, but the first coat is a 1:1 dilution of the sensitizer + a 5% solution of citric acid. I allow this to dry for about five minutres, then coat again with full strength sensitizing solution.
...

Sandy, what are the specific reasons of your preference for this practice?

TIA,
Loris.

donbga · Jun 23, 2010

sanking said:
I used to prefer kallitype over vandyke because of the lack of contrast control with the latter.

However, when printing with digital negatives vandyke is by far the least complicated of the two, and results are just as good in terms of tonal range and Dmax.

Click to expand...

Sandy King

This is why I've started to print with Agyrotype, though I think the DMAX maybe a little better, with a toned Agyrotype.

I have a slew of in camera 8x10s to print and test with. So far I've been pleased with my results.

Don

sanking · Jun 23, 2010

Loris Medici said:
Sandy, what are the specific reasons of your preference for this practice?

TIA,
Loris.

Loris,

I get higher Dmax with this method. I compared it to, 1) single coat, and 2) straight double coat, and the double coat with 1 part acid water and 1 part sensitizer gave higher Dmax.

The Dmax I am getting with vandyke on the Weston paper and on Platine is quite impressive, on the order of log 1.58, sometimes over 1.6.

I should have mentioned that my RH is pretty high at this time, around 532% - 55% so this is very good for Dmax. And I forgot to mention that I always time exposure after sensitizing to 30 minutes, and I dry with a gentle draft from a fan.

Sandy

Loris Medici · Jun 23, 2010

Ok, thanks much Sandy. I'll pass this info to my people... log 1.6 is definitely very very impressive!

Regards,
Loris.

R Shaffer · Jun 24, 2010

Loris Medici said:
Ok, thanks much Sandy. I'll pass this info to my people... log 1.6 is definitely very very impressive!

Regards,
Loris.

Yes I would agree that is impressive indeed!! I'm pretty thrilled when I can get my d-max up around 1.35

I would be curious to know, Sandy, if you think the acid in the sensitizer helps with the clearing? I have had a hard time getting double coated papers to completely clear. Also, does adding the acid cause any precipitate to form?

Loris Medici · Jun 24, 2010

Sandy, that figure is for prints gold toned to completion right?

Robert, the acid won't cause precipitation and it's compatible with the AFC sensitizer. (Remember, it's a citrate...) OTOH, I remember Mike Ware writing something about silver nitrate and acidity; that they aren't much compatible in our context:

"...Without exception all the iron-silver processes to date have used the most commonly available soluble salt of the metal, namely silver nitrate. But nitrate is an oxidising anion, and tends to dissolve the colloidal image silver during wet processing, especially under acidic conditions..." (See here, under the sub-section "An Alternative Silver Salt".) Sandy do you experience increased bleeding? (Maybe this is not the best method for hard sized papers...)

Anyway, acidity, to my knowing, increases the light sensitivity of AFC considerably. (That's good for 1.5x strength coating, eventually...)

Regards,
Loris.

sanking · Jun 24, 2010

R Shaffer said:
Yes I would agree that is impressive indeed!! I'm pretty thrilled when I can get my d-max up around 1.35

I would be curious to know, Sandy, if you think the acid in the sensitizer helps with the clearing? I have had a hard time getting double coated papers to completely clear. Also, does adding the acid cause any precipitate to form?

I believe the acid may help but so far I have not specifically tested the concept.

If your double coated papers do not clear you may want to cut back on the sensitizer in both coats and increase the amount of water, say instead of 5 parts FO + 5 parts SN try 4 parts FO + 4 parts SN + 2 parts water, or 3 + 3 + 4.

Sandy

sanking · Jun 24, 2010

Loris Medici said:
Sandy, that figure is for prints gold toned to completion right?

Robert, the acid won't cause precipitation and it's compatible with the AFC sensitizer. (Remember, it's a citrate...) OTOH, I remember Mike Ware writing something about silver nitrate and acidity; that they aren't much compatible in our context:

"...Without exception all the iron-silver processes to date have used the most commonly available soluble salt of the metal, namely silver nitrate. But nitrate is an oxidising anion, and tends to dissolve the colloidal image silver during wet processing, especially under acidic conditions..." (See here, under the sub-section "An Alternative Silver Salt".) Sandy do you experience increased bleeding? (Maybe this is not the best method for hard sized papers...)

Anyway, acidity, to my knowing, increases the light sensitivity of AFC considerably. (That's good for 1.5x strength coating, eventually...)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

Yes, the high Dmax is for gold toned vandykes toned to completion.

So far as I know you can not substitute FAC for FO with either vandyke or kallitype. When you mix FAO with SN an ugly precipitate is formed.

I don't believe the double coating with acid water causes bleeding, at least it does not with most papers. But I do get a lot of bleeding with lanaquarelle so will check to see if that might be the problem.

Sandy

Loris Medici · Jun 25, 2010

Dear Sandy,

Ok, thanks much. In any case (toned or untoned), log 1.6 is definitely outstanding!

I don't understand your comment about FO and AFO, can you please elaborate? What's the relevance? (There aren't any references to both in my posts and quotations...)

Regards,
Loris.

sanking · Jun 25, 2010

Loris Medici said:
I don't understand your comment about FO and AFO, can you please elaborate? What's the relevance? (There aren't any references to both in my posts and quotations...)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

There is no relevance. I simply mis-read a previous message and made a comment that belonged to another thread and another time.

Sorry.

Sandy

John Lockhart · Jun 29, 2010

I took the Lana Aquarelle and tried the technique of soaking the paper in an acid. I just used a fresh batch of the 3% citric acid I use to clear the prints. It's what I have on hand. For the last two I didn't rinse them off at all. I just let them soak for about 10 minutes and hung them up to dry. The results are much better than what I got from the Lana without the acid. However, still not quite what I want. I will try the acid in sensitizer technique next. The scans of the prints lost some of the contrast, particularly the one of the cross, I didn't have time to monkey with the scan. However, they are clearly much better. The images are smoother and sharper with noticeably better blacks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhart1969/4742219182/in/set-72157624169743355/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhart1969/4741592683/in/set-72157624169743355/

Loris Medici · Jun 30, 2010

Looks nice (but still a little bit grainy - is it due the digital negative?), you my try to add a little oxalic acid into the iron solution too. Soaking + drying sounds like an extra step in the already - relatively - complex kallitype workflow...

OTOH, definitely try Weston paper too (if you aren't going to be put back by the off-white base), it holds sensitizer very well and works well with most iron processes...

Regards,
Loris.

Puzzled by Paper

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency