Puzzled by Paper

[Loris Medici]

Loris, I forgot to ask- does the masa need an acid treatment?

No, it doesn't need any pre-treatment, you can use it out of the box. Test carefully to find the correct amnt. of sensitizer per area...

BTW, the thinness of the paper does provide an advantage; you can use backgrounds with different color to slightly change the "white balance" of the paper. (Normally it's almost bluish-cold bright white...)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Colin Graham]

That's great. I ordered 25 sheets to start, only around $1 a sheet even with shipping. Many thanks Loris, looking forward to trying it.

 

[sanking]

I just did a couple of quick tests using Lanaquarelle. Print were POP 100% palladium. Sorry, I forgot to include a step table so I can't report the actual dMax. The paper was from a watercolor block, not sheet stock, but I am assuming they are identical. The weight was 300gsm.

1. soaked for 3 minutes in 1.5% oxalic acid
- paper needed a higher drop count as it was more absorbent than
Platine and COT320
- Good exposure using my standard time. Tonal distribution matches
what I see on Platine and COT320
- Very smooth tones -- no visible graininess
- Paper does not clear as readily as Platine or COT320, but I got there
after 3 clearing baths.
- Paper does get blotchy when thoroughly wet and seems to soak up
more water than Platine and COT320. My test prints are still drying,
but the blotchiness did disappear when dried after the acid soak.

Based on this, I will probably use up the lana I have, but I don't see that this paper offers anything special to justify the hassle. It is very close in tone to COT320, Platine, and Artistico, but they don't get blotchy and clear more readily. Unless I found some *really* cheap, I don't think I would bother. I reserve the right to change my mind if I do more thorough testing

I just made a test with Lanaquarelle with Vandyke. I first did a pre-soak with 1.5% oxalic acid as did Phil, but for five minutes. The paper absorbed the oxalic acid soak very well and I did not see any blotches or spots.

When the paper dried I coated with my standard Vandyke method, which is double coating, but with the first coat one part sensitizer and one part 5% citric acid. Second coat is full strength. I used the standard 2 ml of sensitizer per coat for an 8X10 sheet.

When dry I exposed the Lanaquarelle to a 21 step wedge for six minutes with a BL tube bank, my standard time for printing vandyke. I then processed as normal for gold toned vandyke, with the following result.

1. Very good Dmax, about log 1.53.
2. Smooth grain and even tonal values.
3. Speed almost exactly equal to Weston Parchment.
4. Very low stain after development.

Overall this turns out to be a very high quality paper for vandyke with the oxalic acid pre-soak and my standard vandyke coating and processing procedures.

Sandy

 

[Loris Medici]

Thanks Sandy, why the oxalic acid BTW? Does this paper really need an acid pre-soak, or it was just to be compatible with Philips's testing?

Regards,
Loris.

 

[sanking]

Thanks Sandy, why the oxalic acid BTW? Does this paper really need an acid pre-soak, or it was just to be compatible with Philips's testing?

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

Lanaquarelle will work ok without an acid pre-soak, but it works much better in terms of Dmax with the pre-soak. I used oxalic acid because in order to piggy back on Phil's test. However, I am almost certain that citric acid would work as well for kallitype and vandyke.

It would be interesting if someone currently working with kallitype would test Lanaquarelle with the acid pre-soak , but my suspicion is that it would be hard to clear as Phil observed for palladium.

Sandy

 

[Colin Graham]

Loris,

Lanaquarelle will work ok without an acid pre-soak, but it works much better in terms of Dmax with the pre-soak. I used oxalic acid because in order to piggy back on Phil's test. However, I am almost certain that citric acid would work as well for kallitype and vandyke.

It would be interesting if someone currently working with kallitype would test Lanaquarelle with the acid pre-soak , but my suspicion is that it would be hard to clear as Phil observed for palladium.

Sandy

Sandy, in case you missed it I went over my results with kallitypes on oxalic-treated Lana on page 5 of this thread. The bullet points are-
-Easy to coat with minimal solution
-Development times the same as with FAEW and Arches
-Clears very easily, in fact came out of the developer cleared. I did notice a lot of bleeding from the overexposed borders during rinsing though.
-Tones slowly than other paper, needed at least 15 minutes to penetrate the shadows.
-The blacks were still excellent on drying, despite the apparent bleeding I saw during the post-development rinse.
-
FWIW, I tried citric acid before with grainy results, but then I've also tried oxalic and gotten bad results as well. Either the paper has changed somehow from those earlier batches, or I did something untoward in all of those tests. I suspect the latter. I can be an airhead, so I'd encourage anyone to test for themselves.

Also, I linked earlier to a known problem with the sizing on Lana watercolor blocks at the Handprint site, but that went unnoticed as well. If Phil has only tried the blocks and not individual sheets, that might likely account for the blotchiness he has observed in the paper. In my 2 years and several hundred sheets of Lana I've never seen a problem with the size, or had absorbency issues.

 

[sanking]

Sandy, in case you missed it I went over my results with kallitypes on oxalic-treated Lana on page 5 of this thread. The bullet points are-
-Easy to coat with minimal solution
-Development times the same as with FAEW and Arches
-Clears very easily, in fact came out of the developer cleared. I did notice a lot of bleeding from the overexposed borders during rinsing though.
-Tones slowly than other paper, needed at least 15 minutes to penetrate the shadows.
-The blacks were still excellent on drying, despite the apparent bleeding I saw during the post-development rinse.
-
FWIW, I tried citric acid before with grainy results, but then I've also tried oxalic and gotten bad results as well. Either the paper has changed somehow from those earlier batches, or I did something untoward in all of those tests. I suspect the latter. I can be an airhead, so I'd encourage anyone to test for themselves.

Also, I linked earlier to a known problem with the sizing on Lana watercolor blocks at the Handprint site, but that went unnoticed as well. If Phil has only tried the blocks and not individual sheets, that might likely account for the blotchiness he has observed in the paper. In my 2 years and several hundred sheets of Lana I've never seen a problem with the size, or had absorbency issues.

Colin,

Sorry but I was confused by one of your posts where you wrote that you tried Lana in 2% oxalic with bad results. What you write above (I assume that was with 1.5% oxalic with pre-soak of 3-5 minutes, and for kallitype?) is consistent with my tests with vandyke.

I too am concerned about the bleeding (I call it leeching) from the paper, but this appears to be only residual silver nitrate and not the image itself.

Sandy

 

[Colin Graham]

Yes, that was a little confusing. I did try a 2% bath earlier, last year I think, and did get bad results. I was inspired by Phil's test last weekend to try it again and got very nice results this time around. This time I did use 1.5% for 4 minutes. Last year's attempt of 2% for probably closer to 7 minutes.

I may have really messed something up with the earlier tests in citric acid and oxalic, or maybe gotten my untreated paper for carbon mixed up with the treated kallitype paper, or maybe there are subtle difference in the paper's ph from batch to batch that I otherwise wouldn't have noticed with a process like carbon, which is my main use for the paper. Sorry for any confusion. And thanks for the info about the leeching, that is reassuring.

BTW, I miswrote above- it should read exposure times the same as FAEW and Arches, not development.

Another note, the paper I'm using now is from a recent order from Stephen Kinsella, which they had on back order from Legion, so I suspect it's a relatively new batch.

 

[sanking]

That's probably right. It's hard to beat Artistico for price, handling, and overall quality, but I am always looking for new papers to test. It's nice to know I can use the Artistico for both platinum and carbon.

Do you get good Dmax with Fabriano Artistico with palladium? I just ran a test of ten different papers with vandyke, including Artistico that was pre-soaked with 1.5% oxalic acid, and the Artistico had by far the lowest Dmax of all papers tested. It had a reflected reading of log 1.24 compared to 1.55 for Weston Parchment (no acid pre-soak), 1.53 for Lana (1.5% acid pre-soak), 1.51 for Masa (no acid pre-soak), 1.54 for Arches Aquarelle (acid pre-soak), 1.45 for Cot 320 (no acid pre-soak), 1.45 for Stonhenge Rising (no acid pre-soak), and 1.55 for Platine (no acid pre-soak). Left out a few more that gave DMax of less than 1.35.

BTW, has anyone tested a current batch of Stonhenge Rising with any of the iron processes? The figures I gave below were for old stock Stonhenge that is several years old.

Sandy

 

[pschwart]

Loris,

Lanaquarelle will work ok without an acid pre-soak, but it works much better in terms of Dmax with the pre-soak. I used oxalic acid because in order to piggy back on Phil's test. However, I am almost certain that citric acid would work as well for kallitype and vandyke.

It would be interesting if someone currently working with kallitype would test Lanaquarelle with the acid pre-soak , but my suspicion is that it would be hard to clear as Phil observed for palladium.

Sandy

My ferric oxalate went bad, but I'll be trying more kallitypes with Lana when my new supply arrives. I may try a stronger citric acid soak, too.

 

[Ron-san]

Sandy-- I recently tried an acid pre-soak on a couple of papers to get them to yield a good Dmax. It worked for the Dmax, but the presoak also removed the sizing so the paper soaked up sensitizer like toilet paper. So, when you pre-soak, are you re-sizing afterword? Or does the sizing just stay put with the papers you are using? Cheers, Ron Reeder

 

[pschwart]

Do you get good Dmax with Fabriano Artistico with palladium? I just ran a test of ten different papers with vandyke, including Artistico that was pre-soaked with 1.5% oxalic acid, and the Artistico had by far the lowest Dmax of all papers tested. It had a reflected reading of log 1.24 compared to 1.55 for Weston Parchment (no acid pre-soak), 1.53 for Lana (1.5% acid pre-soak), 1.51 for Masa (no acid pre-soak), 1.54 for Arches Aquarelle (acid pre-soak), 1.45 for Cot 320 (no acid pre-soak), 1.45 for Stonhenge Rising (no acid pre-soak), and 1.55 for Platine (no acid pre-soak). Left out a few more that gave DMax of less than 1.35.

BTW, has anyone tested a current batch of Stonhenge Rising with any of the iron processes? The figures I gave below were for old stock Stonhenge that is several years old.

Sandy

The Artistico dMax looked OK, but I didn't measure. I will definitely measure for the next round of tests. I have some Stonehenge that is a few years old that I can test, too.

 

[pschwart]

Sandy-- I recently tried an acid pre-soak on a couple of papers to get them to yield a good Dmax. It worked for the Dmax, but the presoak also removed the sizing so the paper soaked up sensitizer like toilet paper. So, when you pre-soak, are you re-sizing afterword? Or does the sizing just stay put with the papers you are using? Cheers, Ron Reeder

The papers did need more sensitizer after presoaking. I didn't resize but I did add 1-2 drops of polyvinyl alcohol per 5x7. If I had to soak and resize it would have to be a really extraordinary paper for me to consider going to this much trouble.

 

[Loris Medici]

Sandy, may test acidified Artistico within a couple of days - will return here. But please note that I don't use oxalic acid, I much prefer HCl or acetic acid for the job...

BTW, a friend of me just finished calibrating Cot 320 (double coated & gold-thiourea toned), and he says he's getting log 1.55...

Regards,
Loris.

 

[pschwart]

Sandy, may test acidified Artistico within a couple of days - will return here. But please note that I don't use oxalic acid, I much prefer HCl or acetic acid for the job...

BTW, a friend of me just finished calibrating Cot 320 (double coated & gold-thiourea toned), and he says he's getting log 1.55...

Regards,
Loris.

What % acetic acid do you use?

Last week I was getting a dMax of log 1.56 for POP palladium on COT 320 and Platine(no double coating or toning). I actually don't spend much time chasing dMax. My usual is 1.4 - 1.45 and that is a pretty convincing black.

 

[sanking]

Sandy-- I recently tried an acid pre-soak on a couple of papers to get them to yield a good Dmax. It worked for the Dmax, but the presoak also removed the sizing so the paper soaked up sensitizer like toilet paper. So, when you pre-soak, are you re-sizing afterword? Or does the sizing just stay put with the papers you are using? Cheers, Ron Reeder

Ron,

I have also had that problem in the past with some papers but can not remember right now which ones. They way to avoid removing the size is, 1) keep the acid pre-soak fairly weak, say 1-2%, 2) use cool water, and 3) limit the soak to 2-3 minutes. Even with these precautions there are some papers that will probably lose the size but as best I can tell that did not happen with any of the papers I mentioned earlier.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

Sandy, may test acidified Artistico within a couple of days - will return here. But please note that I don't use oxalic acid, I much prefer HCl or acetic acid for the job...

BTW, a friend of me just finished calibrating Cot 320 (double coated & gold-thiourea toned), and he says he's getting log 1.55...
.
Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

I really don't think it matters a great deal which acid we use, so long as it does not break down the size. And that may vary a lot depending on what kind of size the paper has.

With a RH of 55% I was only able to get a reflected reading of 1.45 with double coated COT 320, with no acid pre-soak. What is the RH of the place where your friend works? If it is humid as you describe at the school that could explain the higher Dmax!

Sandyt

 

[Loris Medici]

Philip,

I use 5% (white vinegar strength). But I prefer HCl, I only used acetic once - didn't like the odor... Also, here acetic acid is more expensive than HCl; the former is ordinary household item - used to clean calcium residue in kitchen and bathrooms.

My dmax quote was for Vandyke, not pt/pd BTW, plus, I personally find log 1.35 also pretty convincing... OTOH, it's good to get more wherever possible.

Regards,
Loris.

What % acetic acid do you use?

Last week I was getting a dMax of log 1.56 for POP palladium on COT 320 and Platine(no double coating or toning). I actually don't spend much time chasing dMax. My usual is 1.4 - 1.45 and that is a pretty convincing black.

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Sandy,

I concur, but I have some reservations about oxalic. OTOH, since COT 320 or Artistico are very hard sized papers, I think its good to break some of the size - especially true for a process that uses hard-to-soak FAC sensitizer. (I just doesn't want to get in the paper - unlike sensitizers with FAO...)

It's the same place; hot and humid - as much as it can get... (27-28C, RH >=70-80%)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

I really don't think it matters a great deal which acid we use, so long as it does not break down the size. And that may vary a lot depending on what kind of size the paper has.

With a RH of 55% I was only able to get a reflected reading of 1.45 with double coated COT 320, with no acid pre-soak. What is the RH of the place where your friend works? If it is humid as you describe at the school that could explain the higher Dmax!

Sandyt

 

[pschwart]

Loris,

I really don't think it matters a great deal which acid we use, so long as it does not break down the size.
Sandyt

Apparently it does matter. I just tried POP palladium on Artistico and Lanaquarelle after a 3 minute soak in 5% acetic acid. Both images were very weak, grainy, and lost 3-4 steps at the highlight end of step tablet. The Lana gave very smooth tones, fine highlight separation, and a dMax of 1.5 after a presoak in oxalic acid. The papers soaked in acetic acid also resisted clearing.
And as Loris said, one tires of the smell pretty quickly.

 

[Loris Medici]

Philip, did you wash the paper after acidification? I always wash very well after acidification - because I do it in batches, therefore the paper may wait for a long time before printing/processing... HCl is cleaner in this aspect, because the small residue after washing - if any - will eventually evaporate.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[pschwart]

Philip, did you wash the paper after acidification? I always wash very well after acidification - because I do it in batches, therefore the paper may wait for a long time before printing/processing... HCl is cleaner in this aspect, because the small residue after washing - if any - will eventually evaporate.

Regards,
Loris.

No, I don't wash after the acid soak because I assumed this would actually raise the pH of the paper (but I haven't confirmed this by testing). Not washing produces a fine result with oxalic acid, so even if it improves the performance of other acids, oxalic still get my vote because it's quicker and less work.

 

[sanking]

No, I don't wash after the acid soak because I assumed this would actually raise the pH of the paper (but I haven't confirmed this by testing). Not washing produces a fine result with oxalic acid, so even if it improves the performance of other acids, oxalic still get my vote because it's quicker and less work.

I don't wash papers after the acid presoak either as my assumption has been that for best DMax it is best to leave the paper in an acid state.

I just ran a test in gold toned vandyke with a 2% citric acid presoak with four papers that I tested yesterday in 1.5% oxalic acid, Arches Aquarelle, COT 320, Fabriano Artistico and Stonhenge Rising. The RH here today is about 10% less than it was yesterday (55% yesterday compared to 45% today), temperature about the same. There are some slight differences in results but overall ES, DMax, and tonal smoothness appears to be just as good with the citric acid paper as with the paper soaked in oxalic acid.

Sandy King

 

[Loris Medici]

Phil and Sandy, you don't need an acid paper; the sensitizer itself is acid enough. You need non-buffered / de-buffered / neutral paper - which is also free from other contaminants that may damage the printing process...

Regards,
Loris.

 

[pschwart]

Phil and Sandy, you don't need an acid paper; the sensitizer itself is acid enough. You need non-buffered / de-buffered / neutral paper - which is also free from other contaminants that may damage the printing process...

Regards,
Loris.

Understood. For now, all I can say is that some papers provide fine POP palladium images after an oxalic acid soak, while acetic and citric acid soaks result in poor quality images on those same papers. I haven't tried any other processes yet.