Weak paper in Pd printing

[LFGuy]

After trying some palladium printing for the first time, I noticed that the paper gets pretty weak pretty fast. I tore a couple of corners off at first (which luckily didn't affect the picture, as it was centered in the middle with a large border), before being a little more careful.

Do the chemicals in developing and clearing pd prints attack and weaken the paper somehow, or is it simply a matter of a flimsy paper spending a while in liquids that makes it want to fall apart? I did soak a quite heavier paper in water for a couple of hours once hoping it would bleed out an overexposed cyanotype, and didn't notice it weakening.

 

[clay]

It totally depends on the paper you are using. What paper is giving you this problem?

I find that Arches Platine, Rives BFK, Whatman's Watercolor, Somerset Satin and Fabriano Uno all are VERY beefy papers that can stand up to a lot of wet processing without damage.

Cranes platinotype, Socorro, Lenox and Bienfang 360 are a little more flimsy, but can usually be used without too much extra care.

Masa in my experience is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to wet strength. I never even change trays when I print on that paper, and just pour the chemicals in and out so I can avoid touching it, and then float it out of the rinse water directly onto the drying screen.

So, in short, it depends...


Clay

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Papers can be surprisingly complex. Which is why there are really only a handful that people use for photographic work. You need something that is heavy enough to carry the image and bound together enough to withstand the wet processes. A good example is paper money. It is made from a strong rag paper that can get washed 100s of times with no real damage. It can be mangled and abused heavily. But notepad paper of the same thickness will dissolve in water.

If you don't want to switch to a known pt/pd paper, you might want to do some testing of your own on the paper stocks you are considering. Soak them and then pretend to put them through the process using just plain water. See how much abuse they can take.

 

[LFGuy]

Cranes Kid Finish was the culprit... I hadn't seen any problems with it before, but then again I never had it in liquids as long as I did for Pd printing. I thought I'd use a cheap paper for my first Pd prints ever.

I've tried Arches Watercolor with other processes (this is the heavier paper I mentioned above, heaviest I've used), and while not the best paper, it's very strong.

I probably just need to be more careful with the paper next time.

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LFGuy @ Feb 27 2003, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I thought I'd use a cheap paper for my first Pd prints ever.

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Neeeeeeckk....wrong answer. After the negative the paper is the most important thing, in my journey trying to learn pt/pd one of the most valuable advices I have read was from Arentz, where he states..."dont waste valuable pt/pd solution trying to make the paper work"......I have had Cranes Platinotype and Socorro wet for over 2 hours with no problem. You should really try first some of the more traditional papers, heck Stephen Kinsella will send you 1 sheet if it is all you want to try.

Trust me on this, your life will be a lot easier if you stop hassling with the paper.

 

[LFGuy]

I wasn't aiming for a final, "fine art" print, I just wanted to test the chemistry and the process before I go out and work on better prints, as this was my first experience in Pd printing (although they do look nice).

Trust me, I won't be using Cranes Kid finish, I will be using one of the "traditional papers" next time.

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LFGuy @ Feb 27 2003, 12:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I wasn't aiming for a final, &quot;fine art&quot; print, I just wanted to test the chemistry and the process before I go out and work on better prints, as this was my first experience in Pd printing (although they do look nice).

Trust me, I won't be using Cranes Kid finish, I will be using one of the &quot;traditional papers&quot; next time. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You know I had the same idea you do when I started. I wasted 1 entire pt/pd kit from B&S and all the prints looked like crap. I mean, ugly, ugly , ugly....How are you going to judge your progress, required negative density, and priting times if you cant see the print as it should be? I started with a cheap paper I could get here in Mexico, after repeated tries, sizing with gelating, soaking etc..I could not make even one decent print. I have been where you are and I really urge to get good paper even for "proofs" I only have about a 6 month lead on you and the best thing I did since starting was getting good paper.

 

[LFGuy]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Feb 27 2003, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You know I had the same idea you do when I started. I wasted 1 entire pt/pd kit from B&amp;S and all the prints looked like crap. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Point taken!

Luckily, I haven't wasted an entire kit. Just used a few 4x5 negatives of varying contrast for a few pictures, it was pretty easy to get the right dilutions and printing times the day I tried it, although a more thorough experimentation would be in order (on good paper, of course!).

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Jorge]

Aggie, Daniel Smith has the Mexican bark paper. I do not know the URL off the top of my head but if you do a Google search is one of the first to come up...just put Daniel Smith art supplies. As to a source here in Mexico I dont, but if you really want it, I could search one for you.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[carlweese]

Aggie,

A couple points. Cranes Kid Finish 8111 is actually a very nice paper for Pt/Pd as long as the negatives are 5x7 or smaller to avoid the repeating watermark. It requires careful handling but was in fact everybody's "standard" paper during the revival of platinum printing in the 1970's. That said, there are other papers much more rugged.

Second point is that you can't use one paper to "test" your platinum solutions and then print on another. The paper you coat on has enormous impact on the color, contrast, and speed of the coating solution. To put it another way, I keep at least six different papers in stock and get a range of effects in my prints primarily from choosing the paper, not from varying the coating solution formula.

Third point of course is that even a really expensive paper is never more than half the cost of a print, so there'd be no economy in using a cheap paper for tests, even if the tests were valid, which they aren't.---Carl

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[LFGuy]

Thank you everyone for your advice and concern!

 

[SteveGangi]

How do you all like Van Dykes? I have been intending to try that (I've been meaning to try a lot of things). I've dealt with Dan Smith, and he is a real nice person to do business with. I got a box of Azo from him a while back. I used to like reading his answers to questions on the forums. His stock nonserious answer to almost everything was "get a Deardorff"

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[SteveGangi]

Excellent! I will have to get off the dime then. If you would, please let me know a good place to buy from, and paper recommendations. One initial question. Do Van Dykes "like" a certain kind of negative? I know cyanotypes work best with high contrast negatives for me, and platinum (I have been told) "likes" a dense negative. How about Van Dykes?

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[cjarvis]

I'd agree with Carl on this one. I use Cranes Kid Finish almost exclusively, and it works well with Pt/Pd, albumen and salted papers and argyrotypes, providing of course you avoid the (sometimes) annoying watermark. I also find that it works better when printed on the BACK side (or felt side - with the watermark backwards) rather than the the front (or screen side - with the watermark legible). When printing on the front, I find I sometimes can see the screen marks running diagonally through the areas of lower value, but I never have anything but a pleasing pattern on the reverse.

Oh yeah...get a Deardorff.