Revere Platinum - WINNING!

[Davec101]

Sorry that last question should read, when is the 'next' large batch of Revere being made.

 

[cabestan]

Origin of the spot problem

Hello,

I found the origin of my spot problem. I made some experiments and I can tell it is definitively related to the Tween 20.

Most of the sheets have a strange reaction when Polysorbate 20 is used. Two drops of Tween 10% in a 40 drop solution are sufficient to obtain the reaction.

I made a test with a blue colored water (to rule out a reaction with the pt-pd chemistry).

On this picture,
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-06.jpg
you can see on the left the coating with the water, and on the right, with two added drops of Tween 10%.

With Tween, spots start to appear after 20 seconds of brush coating. The solution makes also little bubbles when it is spread on the paper surface.

http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-07.jpg

The solution seems to open little holes in the surface sizing (corn starch?), sucking into the fibers the colored particles. I never saw this phenomenon before.

The strangest thing is that some sheets do not have this reaction.

Previously, awful result with palladium printing:
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-03.jpg

So, if you do not want to loose some paper and precious metal, do not use Tween 20 with Revere Platinum.

Laurent.

 

[Davec101]

Hello,

I found the origin of my spot problem. I made some experiments and I can tell it is definitively related to the Tween 20.

Most of the sheets have a strange reaction when Polysorbate 20 is used. Two drops of Tween 10% in a 40 drop solution are sufficient to obtain the reaction.

I made a test with a blue colored water (to rule out a reaction with the pt-pd chemistry).

On this picture,
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-06.jpg
you can see on the left the coating with the water, and on the right, with two added drops of Tween 10%.

With Tween, spots start to appear after 20 seconds of brush coating. The solution makes also little bubbles when it is spread on the paper surface.

http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-07.jpg

The solution seems to open little holes in the surface sizing (corn starch?), sucking into the fibers the colored particles. I never saw this phenomenon before.

The strangest thing is that some sheets do not have this reaction.

Previously, awful result with palladium printing:
http://galerie-cabestan.com/images/revere-problem/revere-platinum-03.jpg

So, if you do not want to loose some paper and precious metal, do not use Tween 20 with Revere Platinum.

Laurent.

Laurent, if you look back at page 7 of this thread you will see that we identified the fact that Tween 20 exacerbates the problem but did not resolve it as when tween is not used the problem still exists. Have you read the whole thread?

Quote from my own post three weeks ago:

‘I think i spoke to soon, on dry down it looks that even the prints i have made without tween exhibit the problem but the a lesser extent. For some reason my tests have shown that the tween exacerbates the problem.’

 

[Mike Ware]

Can this obvious inhomogeneity in the paper sheet be due to inadequate beating of the pulp before the sheet is formed? Does it use a mixed furnish?

 

[donbga]

Can this obvious inhomogeneity in the paper sheet be due to inadequate beating of the pulp before the sheet is formed? Does it use a mixed furnish?

Shouldn't your questions be sorted out by the paper manufacturer not the end users? I mean how would the consumer know this?

 

[Mike Ware]

I understand that the paper manufacturer is watching this list.

 

[cabestan]

David, I saw your previous posts, but I speak about my own experience. I have not encountered any problems in my few tests without tween. I'll made more tests this weekend.

About inhomogeneity, Francesco Natali told us that there is "no difference in mechanical features, chemical, ph, fibres refining and mostly surface sizing". But, there is an obvious one when we are testing. Quite strange. I guess it should not be easy to determine the cause of this problem for a paper manufacturer. From my point of view, I think it's a problem with the paper sizing.

When the paper "works", my results are almost similar to those I get with Arches Platines / COT320. And I love the surface and the feel. If the light is shed on this problem, it will become a great paper at a reasonable price.

But today, it is like "Beta testing".

Laurent.

 

[Davec101]

David, I saw your previous posts, but I speak about my own experience. I have not encountered any problems in my few tests without tween. I'll made more tests this weekend.

Laurent.

Fair enough, however i do feel we are going over 'old' ground in relation to Tween's effect on Revere.

 

[pschwart]

So exactly where do we stand with this paper? Enough problems have been reported to know they are
not isolated or anomalous. Does the manufacturer have a plan? The paper is still being sold, so for the
moment it is caveat emptor ...

 

[Doug K]

I have to say, this makes me chuckle, and is typical of the community. The usual story arc is:
1: I've tried this new thing, it's the best ever OMG it's awesome!!! You don't even need talent and things come out like art.
2: People try it.
2(a): OMG this is awesome!!!111!!! The greatest EVER!
3: Hmm this is OK, but my art doesn't look like art. And, there's weird stuff.
4: Hmmm it worked for me, but I have to do this.
5: NO, you are stupid!
6: So, is this a miracle, or just another thing?
7: OK, it's not a miracle folks, we're back to where we were. Sorry. Carry on.

I've seen this with paper, developer, etc ad naseum.

It's funny, as "alternative process" folks we expect a certain amount of anomalies due to our process, but god forbid if any one part of our process causes any anomalies. "It was the paper!!!" There's a certain amount of voodoo, and paper, which is apparently an alternative process of it's own, has plenty of. When I first started out I looked at what people were using. I primarily do cyanotypes, which are fairly forgiving, but paper is very important. Should I use the Buxton that Mike Ware recommends? Holy moly at 20 bucks a sheet, that's a lot for a beginner who is just learning, and bound to make a lot of mistakes. Luckily I found Stonehenge Rising paper. Works great, domsetic for us yanks, and inexpensive. Predictable and consistent too even. I've had inconsistent results with the more "serious" papers like Arches etc. (I've not tried Buxton since the price doesn't warrant my talent level, which is low). I think the hyperbole needs to be toned down in general around this stuff. That and people need to understand that their process will affect the outcome. People using tap water without checking the chemistry is an obvious sign of lack of control over a process. As a brewer, I know for a fact that water here changes chemistry with the season. So there are a million variables.

So, has anyone tried this paper with cyanotypes? It'd be great if a paper could turn my obviously mediocre photographic skills into art.

Oh, and carry on.

 

[donbga]

I think the hyperbole needs to be toned down in general around this stuff.

I don't think Kerik's initial comments about the paper was hyperbole. This isn't the first time paper batches have had anomalies. I don't think B&S would have bothered announcing the paper if they didn't genuinely believe that paper is a great product. I don't associate voodoo with Dana Sullivan or alt. processes for that matter. Just about all papers that work well for palladium printing will work fine for cyanotype printing.

So I don't know where you are coming from about toning down the discussion since all of the comments have been anything but hyperbole and very civil.

 

[cabestan]

Hello,

I made new tests, this time without polysorbate 20. I had several time trouble getting a smooth coating and, in this case, results were not good (small white dots, uneven blacks).

In addition, I met a new problem. With some sheets, the developer seems to enter the paper by the edges of the sheet, and form yellow spots in the margins (uncoated areas) deep inside the paper, very visible by transparency and almost impossible to remove. Has anyone ever seen this?

In my opinion, all these problems come from the sizing.

 

[cabestan]

It's funny, as "alternative process" folks we expect a certain amount of anomalies due to our process, but god forbid if any one part of our process causes any anomalies.

I guess I'm not in the "alternative process folks", since I'm always in the quest of the perfect print, and I do not expect inconstancies from my paper.

 

[pschwart]

Yes, I saw what appeared to be blotchy sizing from water soaking into the paper along the edges, and also the yellow spots. I also concluded the paper has sizing problems. I still have 25 11x14 sheets; if I can't get the paper to work consistently for palladium, I will gelatin size them and use for carbon transfer.

 

[Mike Ware]

Should I use the Buxton that Mike Ware recommends? Holy moly at 20 bucks a sheet, that's a lot for a beginner who is just learning, and bound to make a lot of mistakes.

Very sensible not to. I expect everyone following this thread understands what "hand-made" means and implies.

 

[Kerik]

I think the hyperbole needs to be toned down in general around this stuff.

"hyperbole: 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as to wait an eternity.

Well, according to this dictionary definition, you're wrong on both counts. What I presented at the start of this thread were facts and observations about my testing of this paper. And my observations are based on 20+ years of platinum/palladium printing. Clearly, subsequent users have demonstrated there are inconsistencies with this paper. We're here to share and learn from each other's experience. Perhaps you should go back to making beer.

Carry on.

 

[Doug K]

Kerik, sorry you felt insulted by my comment, it was not directed at you personally, but rather it was meant to warn people to tone down the rhetoric about new things in general since nothing is going to be a panacea. Like it or not, your opinion is highly respected, and your expertise is not questioned. Your prints speak for themselves. The title you chose for this thread is "Revere Platinum: WINNING" (emphasis yours). Your testing was based on a sample given to you for you to evaluate of a product that not many here have access to: a pre-production run of a new paper. I didn't realize from your first post that it was just a sample. The rest of this thread documents the actual product, and it looks like it didn't live up to the winning expectation. I've purchased other papers based on other folks experiences, as I mentioned, and got some good and bad results. This particular lot of Revere Platinum looks like it has it's challenges. I was planning on buying a test batch of this paper based on your evaluation, but I'll hold off based on the experience of others. I already have a batch of blotchy Arches Aquarelle, and don't need something else to add to it.

Perhaps you're right, I should go back to making beer (I never really quit with 25 + years brewing at home, school and industry). But, I hope you'll appreciate as a teacher that I'll continue to attempt to learn from people like you who are obviously talented and skilled, and may eventually want to participate in a class you teach. I imagine you've based your opinion on what I have made available online, and that's fair.

Carry on.

 

[John Sarsgard]

Repeatable success!

Initially I loved this paper, then started having the same problems as many others. I've tried several things to make it work well, because I love the look and feel and price. But not the spots!

What works FOR ME: I keep my darkroom at about 60% RH and store the paper in the room. Before coating, I give the paper a distilled water mist...one squirt from a home depot bottle at about 2 feet. The water beads on the paper...sizing. I paint the whole sheet with a moist magic brush several times. It "smears" the sizing I think.
Wait until dry to the touch...just a few minutes. Coat wuth magic brush as usual, no tween. Wait until matte dry, 30 minutes or so. Expose develop clear as usual. Works every time FOR ME.

I hope others will try this. I want this paper to succeed!

 

[pschwart]

Initially I loved this paper, then started having the same problems as many others. I've tried several things to make it work well, because I love the look and feel and price. But not the spots!

What works FOR ME: I keep my darkroom at about 60% RH and store the paper in the room. Before coating, I give the paper a distilled water mist...one squirt from a home depot bottle at about 2 feet. The water beads on the paper...sizing. I paint the whole sheet with a moist magic brush several times. It "smears" the sizing I think.
Wait until dry to the touch...just a few minutes. Coat wuth magic brush as usual, no tween. Wait until matte dry, 30 minutes or so. Expose develop clear as usual. Works every time FOR ME.

I hope others will try this. I want this paper to succeed!

This paper appears to have sizing issues. Until the mill acknowledges the problem and takes steps to fix it, I'm not going to buy any more. I don't so much mind that the paper needs tweaking, but the silence is deafening.
I see spots only occasionally, but the sizing is almost always blotchy. Brushing with distilled water was one of the first things I tried but the dmax was only around 1.3. I don't fixate on the dmax, but I can consistently get 1.45 on Platine, COT320, and on papers I prepare with an acid soak, and these don't have sizing problems.

 

[Davec101]

I will repeat my questions that I posted a month ago for Francesco as he may have missed them.

-----------------------------------------

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 next large batch of Revere going to be made?

Thanks

 

[Mike Ware]

So, has anyone tried this paper with cyanotypes?

Only with my New Cyanotype process, which is notoriously intolerant of inferior papers. The previously reported dark spots (in both sensitized coat and final image) are visible on some sheets, and seem to correlate with tiny clumps of fibre, proud of the surface. Printout is very blotchy too. Worse, there is massive runoff of image Prussian blue in the wet processing, suggesting that the sensitizer has not penetrated the cellulose fibres adequately, (despite using Tween), but is just sitting in the pores or on the surface sizing.
It's useless, I'm afraid, and not worth wasting palladium on. By contrast, another inexpensive paper, Weston Diploma Parchment, works quite well with New Cyanotype.
Mike

 

[gmikol]

Thanks for this report, Mike. My primary interest in this paper has been with regards to New Cyanotype. I'm not comfortable enough with the process to be willing to spend the money on Platine. So I guess I'll stick with my Stonehenge stock until the issues with the Revere get straightened out.

--Greg

 

[John Sarsgard]

I Love This Paper!

When I hold prints made from Revere Platinum in my hand, I smile. This is a gorgeous paper. I don't have a densitometer, but the blacks are very convincing to me. I want to see this
paper succeed. Once I started spraying it well and brushing the surface, I have had no further problems with it. I do think there's a sizing issue, but spraying and brushing solves it for
me.

It soaks up sensitizer very slowly. I'd love it to be thirstier.

Please don't give up on it. This is (hyperbole!) good stuff. Nothing we have is perfect.

 

[John Sarsgard]

One more thing

See above. I am a Pt/Pd printer.

 

[Kerik]

Good to hear someone else is having success. I'm curious what you mean by "Once I started spraying it well and brushing the surface""