Sulfamic Acid for Paper Acidification

[Herzeleid]

I can report one of my favorite and more difficult papers to print on now is predictable, easy coating and a great black. Rives BFK a paper from the printmaking world as opposed to the watercolor world. I have only experimented with the 175 gsm but I have some 300 gsm coming in. But very happy that as far I can see at this point it will probably jump to the start of preferred papers for Pt/Pd. This was from using the 20/20 10% sulfamic technique. Thank you for sharing your testing.

Hi Stan,

It is great to hear from you again and it is good news for Pt/Pd enthusiasts (unlucky me, I can't afford pt/pd yet ).
Well, I will note that paper down for myself, there can be no doubt about the quality of the paper imo. It is great to have the contribution of such master printer.

I will soon (a few days, need to do some tests) include some shortcomings of the SA itself, it is not concerning the de-alkalizing procedure.
It is likely that after treating 20-25 full sheets(56x76cm), the reactions times would get longer (depends on the paper buffer).
It is not about the capacity of the acid, or the de-alkalizing procedure, but the nature of sulfamic acid.
I will elaborate on the subject later.

Best Regards,
Serdar

 

[jakobb]

A short update about sulfamic acid treated Zerkall book paper: I did some cyanotypes (traditional and Mike Ware's process) and I got very smooth mids (in contrast to palladiotypes) and good Dmax.

 

[Herzeleid]

That is very good to hear. You might consider using 1M SA, I mentioned that I would post some extra info on SA but I can't do it at the moment. I hope to make it in a week's time.

 

[Herzeleid]

Trouble in paradise?

Hi All,

I was supposed to make an update on the issue of de-alkalizing papers with sulfamic acid but I was not able to gather my mind and write something. Things were and still are a bit hectic in Turkey so sorry for the delay.

As I have passed halfway the capacity of 1M 3lt (%10) of SA solution (3 months old), I have realized that the time required to remove the chalk from the papers almost increased %50. I was worried if I made a mistake calculating the capacity of the solution. A quick inquiry lead me to this information: “aqueous solutions of sulfamic acid are much slower in action and require heating to remove scale. The sulfamic acid solution is heated to a temperature in the range of 54 to 71°C (130 to 160 °F) to obtain the same fast cleaning time that is achieved by using hydrochloric acid at room temperature.”

Apparently the slow acting nature of SA might be the reason why SA treated papers prints better than the papers treated with equally acidic HCl solution. Probably due to slow acting of SA, the fibers of the paper are less damaged by acid.

Anyway, due to its slow reaction speed at room temperature using halfway exhausted SA solution the time required to de-alkalize paper increases more than expexted imo. As always, the actual time depends on the paper and the buffer. Yet, I have not observed any irregularities or loss of d-max with the papers treated for 30mins in SA. And, as the information I have found suggests heated SA solutions react faster, but washing the papers in hot solutions is not a good idea. (30-35C might be acceptable but maintaining the temperature is also another issue)

At any rate, I wanted to point out that the time required to clear the papers’ buffer might increase as the SA solution gets used, but that is nothing to worry about. The previous molar calculations about the capacity are correct (1M 3lt solution should safely de-alkalize 45 full sheets), but the time required would increase gradually.

It is normal actually, as the capacity of the acid decreases the reaction time would increase gradually, but the increase in time was a bit dramatic than I expected. That is why I felt the need to clarify.

I have de-alkalized 28 full sheets so far with the solution I have prepared approximately 3 months ago and it is still working. If time is an issue you should always dump the old solution and prepare a new considering the low cost and effectiveness of sulfamic acid.

Regards
Serdar Bilici

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Be sure to thoroughly wash your treated papers before using. I washed the paper for about 15 minutes (rising stonehenge) and got an ugly, grainy blob of an image. I let the paper wash for an hour and the print was much much better. If I were to go the SA route, I will have to adjust my digi negs profile.

 

[Herzeleid]

Be sure to thoroughly wash your treated papers before using. I washed the paper for about 15 minutes (rising stonehenge) and got an ugly, grainy blob of an image. I let the paper wash for an hour and the print was much much better. If I were to go the SA route, I will have to adjust my digi negs profile.

Right. The initial post contains the washing procedure too. 20-25 mins washing is quite adequate with SA method.

I am curious which acid you are using for removing buffer.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sulfamic acid at 10%

 

[Herzeleid]

Andrew,

May be 15mins water was was too short so that you had problems, I always do 20 to 25 mins washing, shuffling the papers 5 mins intervals.
I can't find rising stonehenge here, so I am unable to test it.
May be there is a problem with the tap water, or with the sulfamic acid (additives perhaps).

Any case, I will paste my washing regimen from the initial post.
"I washed the papers (5 of them in the same tray) with tap water (chlorinated, not filtered, measured Ph. 7), for 20-25 minutes with 4-5 changes of water, and with each change of water shuffling the papers and bringing the bottom one to the top. When finished washing, I hanged the papers to dry in the bathroom."

regards
Serdar

 

[Loris Medici]

With 12 11x15" (= 3 full) sheets (my usual batch size) of FAEW/SP, I use 4 water changes and shuffle all by agitating in the water + I lift each sheet out of water (from one corner) until drop frequency slows down to about 2 drops in 1 second (this is a very effective way of washing / clearing / agitating paper - highly recommended!), haven't measured it exactly but it takes something like 20 minutes. Papers work flawlessly with pop Pd and Argyrotype processes.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[sklimek]

Hi Serdar, I just got a dMax of 1.46 on rives bfk 90lb, coated on back of paper with a long brushing time (over and over) forced humidity 80% for 10 minutes before exposure.

Thank you once again for sharing your discovery, it is opening up a bunch of different kinds of paper previously thought as un-printable...

Stan

 

[Herzeleid]

Hello Stan,

Thank you again for sharing your experience with different papers. I might have mentioned this before but the feedback from a professional printer like yourself means a lot. And not just for me I believe, everyone can look and see your evaluation of specific papers.
It is always a great pleasure to hear that SA treatment works well for many people.

I have noted down this paper, although I can't buy it locally, I plan to get some to test with other processes. I can't do pt/pd yet.

BTW, I have tested fabriano artistico traditional white 300gsm HP, it was no different than 200gsm version (used the back side of the paper again). The paper is not the best choice in the dmax department but it is a good paper if a slightly yellowish base is desired. Also I had limited test/experience with arches watercolor papers too, they also work quite well with the new cyanotype, I got very deep blues after SA treatment.

Regards
Serdar

Hi Serdar, I just got a dMax of 1.46 on rives bfk 90lb, coated on back of paper with a long brushing time (over and over) forced humidity 80% for 10 minutes before exposure.

Thank you once again for sharing your discovery, it is opening up a bunch of different kinds of paper previously thought as un-printable...

Stan

 

[sklimek]

Hi Sedar,
In my experience w/ Rives BFK I have found that every different version of BFK for example 150gsm, 285gsm and 300gsm behaves deferentially, it is a printmaking paper as opposed to a watercolour paper in regards to size additives AND texture. I have not tried the 300gsm BFK but I have had just great results with the previous mentioned. In addition I have printed on the front and back of the same weight and found the front to have a slight sheen as compared to the back which produce a better dMax and image appreciation.

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Serdar,

You can find Hahnemuehle and Magnani printmaking papers here in Istanbul. In my understanding, printmaking papers have less sizing therefore are more absorbent and fragile. OTOH, they have a wider set of color and weight choices, compared to watercolor papers. Maybe Stan can elaborate further about the whys and wherefores of his choice of printmaking papers (BFK in particular) and the specifics of working with them?

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A 1% solution has been working very well for me. Rising Stonehenge paper.

 

[Herzeleid]

Hi Andrew,

For which process you are using %1 SA treatment? (I am guessing DOP Pt/Pd).

regards
serdar

 

[Herzeleid]

Hi Loris,

Yes I have seen those papers at some stores' online site. My limited experience with the hahnemuehle copperplate gravure paper was exactly as you described, quite absorbent and the surface was slightly damaged /abrased in wet treatment and very good dmax. I am guessing some might have more endurance depending on the printmaking process they are used. I am curious about Stan's choice of paper too

Regards
Serdar

Hi Serdar,

You can find Hahnemuehle and Magnani printmaking papers here in Istanbul. In my understanding, printmaking papers have less sizing therefore are more absorbent and fragile. OTOH, they have a wider set of color and weight choices, compared to watercolor papers. Maybe Stan can elaborate further about the whys and wherefores of his choice of printmaking papers (BFK in particular) and the specifics of working with them?

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Serdar,

Using a glass rod - cut neon tubes with a handle attached (for single handed usage) or bent to U shape (double hand usage) - for applying the emulsion + using a support sheet under the paper in wet development (synthetic Yupo paper works perfect for that kind of job) does really help with the feeble wet strength / easy abrasion issues. But still, these paper are going to need more emulsion, comparatively.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew,
May be 15mins water was was too short so that you had problems, I always do 20 to 25 mins washing, shuffling the papers 5 mins intervals.
I can't find rising stonehenge here, so I am unable to test it.
May be there is a problem with the tap water, or with the sulfamic acid (additives perhaps).

Any case, I will paste my washing regimen from the initial post.
"I washed the papers (5 of them in the same tray) with tap water (chlorinated, not filtered, measured Ph. 7), for 20-25 minutes with 4-5 changes of water, and with each change of water shuffling the papers and bringing the bottom one to the top. When finished washing, I hanged the papers to dry in the bathroom."

regards
Serdar

Serdar, I'm making kallitypes.
I gave thorough washing, up to an hour, after my initial trials with the 10% solution. Results were much better. I compared the 1% and 10% prints side-by-side, and they are identical, at least to my eye. 1% worked with Rising Stonehenge. It may not with other papers.

 

[Herzeleid]

Serdar, I'm making kallitypes.
I gave thorough washing, up to an hour, after my initial trials with the 10% solution. Results were much better. I compared the 1% and 10% prints side-by-side, and they are identical, at least to my eye. 1% worked with Rising Stonehenge. It may not with other papers.

Hi Andrew,

Do you rinse the papers after %1 SA treatment?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, I rinse and wash in a tray with a kodak tray syphon hose , for about an hour. Every 10 minutes or so, I move the paper around so none stick to each other.

 

[Herzeleid]

Yes, I rinse and wash in a tray with a kodak tray syphon hose , for about an hour. Every 10 minutes or so, I move the paper around so none stick to each other.

Thank you Andrew, I will try it one of the papers I currently use and prolong the washing time. As you have said %1 SA might work with the specific paper, rising stonehenge in this instance. For example, with FAEW SP it takes nearly 20 mins. until the acid-base reaction stops.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'll be curious to hear your results!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here is a straight scan of a kallitype print where the paper (Rising Stonehenge) received a pre-bath in 1% sulfamic acid.

 

[sklimek]

I'm starting a new project and my client wanted to use 90lb paper for tipping in. I have received great results using Arches HP WC paper with the 10% sulfamic treatment. I have always liked this paper but could never get it to work. In my tests w/ sulfamic on the back side of the paper (verso) it has worked out very nicely and predictably repeatable with a Dmax of ~1.42. I do a 20 minute sulfamic soak with agitation and a 10 minute wash. So once again thank you for sharing! Another note that even though I coated w/ just straight Pd and develop in potassium oxalate the tones are quite neutral considering and you could warm up the image if necessary by heating up the P.O.

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Stan, great news.

About the colder tone; could be the acid is breaking some of the original size in the paper (or fibres to some extent) and letting the paper retain more moisture than usual, leading to colder tones. Do you get more whisper / printout (and speed) than usual? I noticed that sulfamic acid treated papers become a little more absorbent than non-treated ones...

Regards,
Loris.