Revere Platinum - WINNING!

[Ebbs]

Just a minute here gentlemen. Isn't this paper called Revere Platinum? Is it or is it not being marketed as a paper specifically tailored to the needs of the Platinum printer? Why is it gelatin coated? Why is it alkali? Why all this hoop jumping? I think someone somwhere is pulling somebodys leg somehow...
David

I think most here would like to see this paper work. I agree it should perform as well as the other platinum papers. I know for how I work I am with Phillip in that I won’t jump through many hoops to make a paper work when what I already am working with is doing the trick. Hopefully Magnani is taking notes and if they want to be a player in this market they will continue their involvement and do their part to help find a solution.

Matt

 

[Davec101]

Dave, have you tried Stan's suggestion yet?

Not yet, will try tommorow.

 

[Davec101]

Fair questions. My expectation is that the paper should perform *at least* as well as COT320 or Platine. For me, those provide a dmax of 1.4-1.6, coat easily with no Tween, and don't require acidification or any fancy humidification regime in my workspace which is typically 50% RH.
My paper is still on order but my takeaway thus far: it would have been desirable to solicit more testing so the paper could have been exposed to lots of workflows in a lot of different environments. I'll bet we all would have jumped at the opportunity to test and report if we had been provided with 10 8x10 sheets or even had the opportunity to purchase 25 sheets of 8x10.

Francesco: it's not too late to double back and do this kind of testing.
We would sure like to see this paper get it right ...

I would have to agree with this posting, it should at least perform as good as cot 320 or the old platine (both marketed as platinum/alt process papers) without any addition of tween or acidification. I think many of us would be happy to work with Magnani to make this paper perform consistantly. The door at 'Arches' is firmly closed as far as i can tell.

 

[costelvis]

Just a minute here gentlemen. Isn't this paper called Revere Platinum? Is it or is it not being marketed as a paper specifically tailored to the needs of the Platinum printer? Why is it gelatin coated? Why is it alkali? Why all this hoop jumping? I think someone somwhere is pulling somebodys leg somehow...
David

I really want anybody mislead the point. Nobody said Revere Platinum is coated. Should you read this somewhere or somebody told you this is pulling your leg. For sure.
As it concerns me, I wrote the paper has an internal sizing and a surface sizing, exactly as all the paper you mentioned here, except Rives BFK which has only the internal one. Also our Revere Printmaking range is similar to BFK. All the others, Platine included, has a surface sizing. If Arches doesn't tell you, I do.
Surface sizing differs completely from coating. You make a surface sizing through a part of the paper machine named size-press where you put a solution (3-4% in water) of sizing material. Paper passes through this bath and gets sized on surface. This allows a better strongness of paper when kept in water.

The paper we developed (first batch on march 2011) would like, as I wrote, to be tailored for these particular users. To do that we need, as tailors, take the measures.

I explain with an example: to me, as a papermaker, having a ph 7.3 means a neutral ph. I'd like to know if for you is the same. If not I can guarantee that next batch ph will be lower. I am here with maximum respect to understand everybody's position.
And, of course, I will accept any opinion and thank for that. Moreover, I never guarantee that this paper is better of any other. To me, as I wrote, is a work in progress and what I had as a feed-back (from many other first users) is quite promising. But we know we need to improve the product and having a great result with the maximum users.
Kindest regards
Francesco Natali

 

[costelvis]

Fair questions. My expectation is that the paper should perform *at least* as well as COT320 or Platine. For me, those provide a dmax of 1.4-1.6, coat easily with no Tween, and don't require acidification or any fancy humidification regime in my workspace which is typically 50% RH.
My paper is still on order but my takeaway thus far: it would have been desirable to solicit more testing so the paper could have been exposed to lots of workflows in a lot of different environments. I'll bet we all would have jumped at the opportunity to test and report if we had been provided with 10 8x10 sheets or even had the opportunity to purchase 25 sheets of 8x10.

Francesco: it's not too late to double back and do this kind of testing.
We would sure like to see this paper get it right ...

Dear Philip, I really don't know if you were part of the testing community and how much paper you have been provided with. I can tell you that we supplied Legion paper with something like 1000 big sheets for this purpose. Other were sent to JPP in England and to other distributors throughout the world.

What you suggest is worthwhile. On our side anybody here can ask the mill with 10 8x10 sheets. We will be glad to send you. Send me an e-mail with your datas

 

[Davec101]

I really want anybody mislead the point. Nobody said Revere Platinum is coated. Should you read this somewhere or somebody told you this is pulling your leg. For sure.
As it concerns me, I wrote the paper has an internal sizing and a surface sizing, exactly as all the paper you mentioned here, except Rives BFK which has only the internal one. Also our Revere Printmaking range is similar to BFK. All the others, Platine included, has a surface sizing. If Arches doesn't tell you, I do.
Surface sizing differs completely from coating. You make a surface sizing through a part of the paper machine named size-press where you put a solution (3-4% in water) of sizing material. Paper passes through this bath and gets sized on surface. This allows a better strongness of paper when kept in water.

The paper we developed (first batch on march 2011) would like, as I wrote, to be tailored for these particular users. To do that we need, as tailors, take the measures.

I explain with an example: to me, as a papermaker, having a ph 7.3 means a neutral ph. I'd like to know if for you is the same. If not I can guarantee that next batch ph will be lower. I am here with maximum respect to understand everybody's position.
And, of course, I will accept any opinion and thank for that. Moreover, I never guarantee that this paper is better of any other. To me, as I wrote, is a work in progress and what I had as a feed-back (from many other first users) is quite promising. But we know we need to improve the product and having a great result with the maximum users.
Kindest regards
Francesco Natali

Thanks for explaining this Francesco. Can i ask you what you believe this problem some of us are having is? I would be happy to send you samples of the sheets i have coated that have the spotting/clumps together with my coating formula. I cant speak for everyone but i would imagine that the majority of people who would like to use this paper would be coating using a palladium rich formula as opposed to platinum rich. As Clay pointed out a ph of 7.3 regarded as more basic than most platinum printers would prefer.

 

[costelvis]

Thanks for explaining this Francesco. Can i ask you what you believe this problem some of us are having is? I would be happy to send you samples of the sheets i have coated that have the spotting/clumps together with my coating formula. I cant speak for everyone but i would imagine that the majority of people who would like to use this paper would be coating using a palladium rich formula as opposed to platinum rich. As Clay pointed out a ph of 7.3 regarded as more basic than most platinum printers would prefer.

Difficult to say. I am not a technician and I reported to them your problems. As soon as I will have even an idea of an answer will report here. First thing I got in mind when I saw your pictures was "iron in water".
Regarding ph I have to say that we tried to be the most neutral possible with the elements we had. And cotton works good in a basic ambient. We added no chemicals (just sizing, as I said) and that's the result. Of course we have a wide choice of elements to lower that.

 

[jkschreiber]

Francesco,

I think the gelatin that David Hatton mentioned was in reference to what you said in post #69: "surface sizing is vegetal gelatine. Mass sizing is Aquapel." He probably meant to say sizing rather than coating.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you suspect "iron in water" as a possible source of problems. Pt/Pd is an iron-based process, the sensitizer is Ferric Oxalate, so by it's nature there is iron in the water. If you mean, iron in the tap water used for washing and possibly clearing, I think that is irrelevant since the problem manifests itself at the coating stage.

Finally, thanks for participating in this discussion. I'm sure we all want to find reasonable solutions to the issues that some of us are having with this new paper. There are at least 2 or 3 here who don't seem to be having any of the problems that some of the rest of us are having, and without resorting to extreme measures, so I think there is a good chance of success.

~ Keith

 

[costelvis]

Francesco,

I think the gelatin that David Hatton mentioned was in reference to what you said in post #69: "surface sizing is vegetal gelatine. Mass sizing is Aquapel." He probably meant to say sizing rather than coating.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you suspect "iron in water" as a possible source of problems. Pt/Pd is an iron-based process, the sensitizer is Ferric Oxalate, so by it's nature there is iron in the water. If you mean, iron in the tap water used for washing and possibly clearing, I think that is irrelevant since the problem manifests itself at the coating stage.


Finally, thanks for participating in this discussion. I'm sure we all want to find reasonable solutions to the issues that some of us are having with this new paper. There are at least 2 or 3 here who don't seem to be having any of the problems that some of the rest of us are having, and without resorting to extreme measures, so I think there is a good chance of success.

~ Keith

Sorry, I did not specify. I meant iron in our water, therefore iron in the paper.
From what you write I guess that it was a stupid idea anyway.
I am surprised from the fact that there is so much difference in performing the paper. Anyway our aim must be to have a more friendly paper.
I am eagerly waiting to see a lot of feedbacks here on Kerik's suggestions. The forum's goal is to spread suggestions and solution. On my part I can point out only some paper characteristics in order to see if there may be anything wrong. One was discovered tonight: ph.
Thank you everybody.
Francesco

 

[jkschreiber]

Sorry, I did not specify. I meant iron in our water, therefore iron in the paper.
From what you write I guess that it was a stupid idea anyway.
...
Francesco

Oooooh! You mean in your water at the mill. I thought you meant at the users end. That may not be a stupid idea at all.

Iron impurities in the water used in the papermaking process that remain in the paper could well be the cause of the dreaded black (spot) plague that most if not all Pt/Pd printers have experienced at some time going all the way back to the invention of the process. I have had a few black spots so far in my testing of this paper, but nothing too alarming.

But I doubt that it is the cause of the main issue of these measles-like spots that some of us are experiencing. To me, this seems much more likely to be a sizing issue.

~ Keith

 

[clay]

For what it is worth, the absolute best paper for pt/pd that I have in my flat files is some long ago discontinued Whatman's cold press printmaking paper that has a pH of around 6. No pre-treatment is necessary. I get super rich blacks with a single coat. Now, if only I could get that paper in a smooth hot press finish, I would be in printing heaven!

 

[Loris Medici]

Something about the gelatin issue: I think "vegetable gelatin" is not the same stuff as (animal) "gelatin", I personally took it as agar agar or starch... Francesco can you please clarify? Plus, why two different compounds for internal (mass?) and surface sizing?

TIA,
Loris.

(BTW, If it's agar agar or starch, I don't think it would be detrimental to the - real / pure - platinum process. OTOH, animal gelatin is definitely not recommended for pure platinum.)

 

[costelvis]

Something about the gelatin issue: I think "vegetable gelatin" is not the same stuff as (animal) "gelatin", I personally took it as agar agar or starch... Francesco can you please clarify? Plus, why two different compounds for internal (mass?) and surface sizing?

TIA,
Loris.

(BTW, If it's agar agar or starch, I don't think it would be detrimental to the - real / pure - platinum process. OTOH, animal gelatin is definitely not recommended for pure platinum.)

For surface sizing we use a product similar to starch that comes from sugar cane.
Surface sizing is used to provide a light protection to paper when kept in water. It is not a protection like kymene or melamine, used for security papers.
Mass sizing provides a minimal strongness to paper. A minimum quantity is in every paper except tissue paper. But you can't print on it

 

[Loris Medici]

OK, thanks much. Probably Dave's samples have something problematic about their surface sizing. I personally don't think a pH value of 7.3 is / will cause a problem; the pt/pd sensitizer is pretty acidic (something around 2-3 IIRC...) and we know papers with a pH around 7.5 still work well with each and every iron process. (An example would be Buxton; the stated pH value of the paper is 7.5, and you can print even the most finicky processes - such as argyrotype and new cyanotype - on it without any issues...) Pre-coating with water, extending the coating solution with water and/or (inert) alcohol are all good suggestions and will hopefully solve Dave's problem. (Please keep us updated Dave.)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[David Hatton]

Francesco,

I think the gelatin that David Hatton mentioned was in reference to what you said in post #69: "surface sizing is vegetal gelatine. Mass sizing is Aquapel." He probably meant to say sizing rather than coating.
~ Keith

That's exactly correct and I apologise for my error.

I don't mind having to acidify or whatever in order to prepare a 'new' paper for platinum printing. We are all constantly looking for the 'Holy Grail'. However when a paper is marketed as a platinum printing paper I don't expect to have to go through those processes which should have been done in the factory in order to make it print satisfactorily. It seems also that you've adopted microsofts (and apples) sales model in that you are charging people perfect money for an imperfect product. Platinum is expensive. Too expensive I fear to do Magnanis Rand D for them. Or amI being pedantic?

 

[Manuel G Teixeira]

My wife is a chemist and yesterday I've asked her to make a test in her lab, concerning the pH of Revere Platinum 300gsm.
The preliminary results showed that the paper has acidic tendency.
The test was made immersing the sample in Millipore water and the measurement made with a professional pH meter previously calibrated for linearity, of course.
To quantify exactly the pH of this revere sample is more difficult because we are not aware of the exact definitions to calculate that. Nevertheless, what is important here is that these Revere samples are not alkaline.
The results are different from the ones I've got with Abbey pH Pen that showed a nearly neutral reading.

Yesterday I've printed again with that paper and the results were great with a dMax of 1.56.
Not any pre-tratment was applied, only a slight humidification and tuned for my usual values. Brush was used,no Tween.

 

[Ebbs]

Yesterday I've printed again with that paper and the results were great with a dMax of 1.56.
Not any pre-tratment was applied, only a slight humidification and tuned for my usual values. Brush was used,no Tween.

Goot to know. Thank your wife from us. Glad you are getting good prints.

Matt

 

[Davec101]

My wife is a chemist and yesterday I've asked her to make a test in her lab, concerning the pH of Revere Platinum 300gsm.
The preliminary results showed that the paper has acidic tendency.
The test was made immersing the sample in Millipore water and the measurement made with a professional pH meter previously calibrated for linearity, of course.
To quantify exactly the pH of this revere sample is more difficult because we are not aware of the exact definitions to calculate that. Nevertheless, what is important here is that these Revere samples are not alkaline.
The results are different from the ones I've got with Abbey pH Pen that showed a nearly neutral reading.

Yesterday I've printed again with that paper and the results were great with a dMax of 1.56.
Not any pre-tratment was applied, only a slight humidification and tuned for my usual values. Brush was used,no Tween.

Are you testing the pre-production Revere or the 1st full production? The vast majority of paper out there at the moment is the full production paper. I have tested both and they indicate a neutral to basic reading which is similar to the reading that Francesco quoted of 7.3 which the mill was aiming for from what i understand. I dont think that this is the main issue at the moment as other papers with similar readings do not manifest the spots/clumps. As others have suggested I am more inclined to believe this could be a sizing issue.

 

[John Sarsgard]

I'm just starting to test this paper, calibrating my digital negative process with it. One thing I haven't seen mentioned in any of the posts...has anyone tried the same tests on both sides of the paper? The side with the watermark showing properly....B&S note says use this side...has slightly more texture. "Reverse" is a little smoother, somewhat similar to the front/back of Stonehenge, to me. So far, everything going well for me. Excellent blacks at 60% RH and no Na2, just a little Tween.

 

[pschwart]

I just received some 11x14 cut sheets from Bostick & Sullivan. I have only made two prints so lots
more testing to do but here are some preliminary comments. The prints were 100% palladium POP (Ziatypes) not
DOP; the environment RH was 54% and the paper was coated using a brush.

- paper coated easily using only ammonium ferric oxalate and standard lithium palladium chloride
No distilled water, no Tween or other additives or paper pretreatment.
- I saw severe spotting/mottling on one side of the first print as soon as the emulsion hit the paper.
This was a cluster of dark and well-defined spots that were the color of the sensitizer.
- I got smooth tones at my standard printing time. Image tone was warmer than COT320 or
Platine. Perhaps more red than yellow, maybe a result of the starch sizing?
- The paper did not clear in EDTA+sodium sulfite unless soaked in citric acid first.
- The initial spots never cleared or disappeared from the first print, and there was other blotchiness
in the image -- ill-defined areas of higher density. In the wash I could also see distinct blotchiness
in the paper when held up to the light. It certainly looks like water is being unevenly absorbed.
This strongly suggests a sizing problem.
- The second print was cut from the SAME 11x14 sheet as the first print but coated without
spotting. The inconsistency is troubling; the prints were coated and exposed 30 minutes
apart. I did see some of the same blotchiness when this print was held to the light. I will
look for the blotchiness again after the prints are dry.

Update: made a third print with paper cut from the same sheet as the first two. Added 2 drops of Tween to the drop count. Paper coated easily with no visible defects. Print still shows mottling in a couple of areas.
This appears as areas of less density which are also warmer in tone.

I'll be printing some step tablets to check the dmax. The image tone is
pretty warm, so I'll be testing some additives like palladium and gold to
see how the paper behaves when I try to cool it down.

 

[sklimek]

I finally got around to testing some of the new Revere paper.

The paper I received was from the new batch via Bostick-Sullivan and Legion. I had some old tried and true Platine lying around and used it first on a known 8X10 image that I was familiar with for a comparison print.

My coating, exposing and clearing was the same for both papers and with this particular negative for the Platine and Revere it went like this:

12(ferric oxalate) 1(20%Na2) 14(Pd) 2(tween stock)
T he magic brush
5 min set up
blow dry
10 min 75% humidity
halide expose 2.5K
develop potassium oxalate, room temp - 2.5 min
clear

Side by side comparison: I did notice a few problems but before I mention them here are some of the differences between the two:

Platine Dmax in the darkest area of the correctly exposed print = 1.30
Revere = 1.37

Platine is bright white
Revere is slightly (but pleasantly) off white.

Platine image tone is slightly warmer than Revere with potassium oxalate at 70 degrees.

Platine is faster for correct exposure - 17.5X
Revere - 20.5X

Platine has less contrast as compared to Revere with the same drop + restrainer count:

Platine has less sheen in the blackest black than Revere.

Revere coats well with a brush and appears to be more forgiving than Platine in coating mistakes (streaks).

Both papers clear well.

I believe there maybe a sizing issue with the Revere. With both prints in the final water wash I noticed on the Revere a type of 'measles' effect that was slightly obvious in the wash on the surface with a light shining down. I am not sure how the surface size is applied but say for an example if it is applied on a production line it would be time to clean the nozzles, this was 'sputtering' effect it gave. When I pulled it out of the wash and held it up to a light for backlighting the measles effect was very apparent. I have seen this before with Artistico but not to this extent. I held the Platine as well to the light and it was not visible. When the Revere dried down, it disappeared and the print showed no ill effects.

I was curious to what happened to David and his example. I did not get any spots but on one of my Revere print I noticed staining on the of the image where I lay down my bead for brushing - it could only be seen back lighted by a soft white fluorescent 'daylight' balanced bulb, the light able or incandescent would not show it and it disappeared when I turned off the backlight. My personal thoughts for this stain are that you need to lay down that bead of solution and brush quick and evenly, no dilly dallying around.

Another issue was a slight pattern I was seeing in the dark mid-tones to the blackest blacks. After careful inspection I discovered it was a bit of the texture of the back coming through, the rougher texture on the back matched the toned patterns on the front in these areas. It is very hard to see them but nevertheless that were there on my two examples.

I'm not sure how printmaking paper texture is created but I suspect that the hot press is subject to some type of heat/pressure for this smoothness and perhaps this could be a relative easy fix. Or in retrospect, I use a commercial grade compressor with my vacuum table and perhaps the 10 minutes of pre exposure minutes of humidity is creating the problem for this Revere paper by making it to supple in the vacuum frame?

I like the paper! It has a great black, coats up well, nice Zen and believe it is on its way to becoming a fine paper after a few issues get ironed out.

Oh and last but not least - it is a big honking watermark!

Best - Stan

 

[pschwart]

quick update: I did three separate tests for dmax. All I was able to achieve was log 1.29-1.32.

Ziatype, 100% palladium, brush coated
1 - just AFO + lithium palladium chloride
2 - as above, but brushed paper with a few drops of distilled water before coating
3 - paper got an acid soak of 1.5% oxalic acid for 3 minutes, then dried and coated

 

[cabestan]

Revere Spots Problem

Revere Spots Problem

I ordered 100 sheets of Revere Platinum 300 gsm from Bostick-Sullivan and I'm experimenting the same problem that Davec.

With some sheets - not all of them - many brown spots suddenly appear just at the end of my coating session (lesser than a minute).

My sensitizer is : 20 drops ferric oxalate, 20 palladium, 5 oxalic acid 10%, 4 tween 20. It's the same solution I use with Arches and Bergger without a problem. I use a Richeson brush.

I noticed also a strange thing : my solution makes bubbles when I coat (with or without the oxalic acid 10% solution I use to dilute a bit my sensitizer). Is this paper chalk buffered?

With a bad Revere sheet, I experiment :
- lot of spots
- the paper is much slower (underexposed with my usual time)
- it doesn't clear well (EDTA, citric acid, sodium sulfite)

With a good sheet :
- no spots
- perfect exposition
- clears quick and well

On the final print, the brown spots became like pale yellow-green greasy spots. Just awful (take a look at the pictures).

I'm sad because this paper looks very nice. :-(

Some pictures :

Coating :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-01.jpg
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-02.jpg

Final print, with sun behind :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-03.jpg

Bad Revere sheet :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-04.jpg

Good Revere sheet :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-05.jpg

 

[donbga]

Revere Spots Problem

I ordered 100 sheets of Revere Platinum 300 gsm from Bostick-Sullivan and I'm experimenting the same problem that Davec.

With some sheets - not all of them - many brown spots suddenly appear just at the end of my coating session (lesser than a minute).

My sensitizer is : 20 drops ferric oxalate, 20 palladium, 5 oxalic acid 10%, 4 tween 20. It's the same solution I use with Arches and Bergger without a problem. I use a Richeson brush.

I noticed also a strange thing : my solution makes bubbles when I coat (with or without the oxalic acid 10% solution I use to dilute a bit my sensitizer). Is this paper chalk buffered?

With a bad Revere sheet, I experiment :
- lot of spots
- the paper is much slower (underexposed with my usual time)
- it doesn't clear well (EDTA, citric acid, sodium sulfite)

With a good sheet :
- no spots
- perfect exposition
- clears quick and well

On the final print, the brown spots became like pale yellow-green greasy spots. Just awful (take a look at the pictures).

I'm sad because this paper looks very nice. :-(

Some pictures :

Coating :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-01.jpg
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-02.jpg

Final print, with sun behind :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-03.jpg

Bad Revere sheet :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-04.jpg

Good Revere sheet :
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-05.jpg

Thanks for the report. Sorry to hear of your problems, your technique certainly looks spot on.

Has B&S responded to this problem?

Perhaps Dana will post here. I certainly hope these problems get straightened out as I want to try this paper. Perhaps not being an early adopter has had it's advantages.

Don Bryant

 

[Davec101]

Thanks Larent for the report and images.

Francesco I have a few questions,

Can you tell us what your policy is on refunds with people who have ordered large amounts of the Revere, it would seem to me this paper has problems and they are not going away.

Have you spoken to people within your company as to what they believe the problem is and how it can be rectified in the next batch?

When is the large batch of Revere going to be made?

Thanks