Puzzled by Paper

[John Lockhart]

I am wondering if other folks have had a similar experience. I have been printing kallitypes, that I gold and platinum tone, for a few months. At first I used Stonehenge Rising. The kind you can get at an art store. Many folks recommend it. However, the results were really mixed. The prints were very often grainy with spotty coverage. One day on a lark I picked up a package of Arches Aquarelle. Again it was nothing special – I bought it at a local art supply. It was like night and day. The prints on the Arches were smooth with nice blacks and great highlight detail. They were really beautiful.

After a while I thought I would try a higher end paper. So, I ordered some Lana Aquarelle from Bostick and Sullivan. It’s got great body and holds up well in water. However, the prints were not that much better than the Stonehenge. I could tell the second I put the paper in the developer that the Lana was going to disappoint me.

Is there any rhyme or reason why some papers that come highly recommend just fail while others you never considered are wonderful? My process is simple. I just use a foam brush and that’s it. The humidity is always the same – indoors with air conditioning.

Follow the link below for an example of the same image on two papers. Keep in mind that I was using:

1. The same negative
2. The same developer
3. The same exposure time
4. Same coating procedure

The only difference is that I did put the one on Lana Aquarelle in gold toner for a minute. However, I know that is not a factor since you could see the difference in the prints well before they were toned. The Lana looks similar to what I was getting with Stonehenge.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhar...7624169743355/

Any thoughts? I guess it bothers me that the one thing that has made the greatest difference in my printing was a totally random paper selection. Am I not doing some things I could to make the premium papers work better? I really love the way the Lana held up in water and dried flatter, but the end result looked mediocre.

Thanks,

- John

[pschwart]

I am wondering if other folks have had a similar experience. I have been printing kallitypes, that I gold and platinum tone, for a few months. At first I used Stonehenge Rising. The kind you can get at an art store. Many folks recommend it. However, the results were really mixed. The prints were very often grainy with spotty coverage. One day on a lark I picked up a package of Arches Aquarelle. Again it was nothing special – I bought it at a local art supply. It was like night and day. The prints on the Arches were smooth with nice blacks and great highlight detail. They were really beautiful.

After a while I thought I would try a higher end paper. So, I ordered some Lana Aquarelle from Bostick and Sullivan. It’s got great body and holds up well in water. However, the prints were not that much better than the Stonehenge. I could tell the second I put the paper in the developer that the Lana was going to disappoint me.

Is there any rhyme or reason why some papers that come highly recommend just fail while others you never considered are wonderful? My process is simple. I just use a foam brush and that’s it. The humidity is always the same – indoors with air conditioning.

Follow the link below for an example of the same image on two papers. Keep in mind that I was using:

1. The same negative
2. The same developer
3. The same exposure time
4. Same coating procedure

The only difference is that I did put the one on Lana Aquarelle in gold toner for a minute. However, I know that is not a factor since you could see the difference in the prints well before they were toned. The Lana looks similar to what I was getting with Stonehenge.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockhar...7624169743355/

Any thoughts? I guess it bothers me that the one thing that has made the greatest difference in my printing was a totally random paper selection. Am I not doing some things I could to make the premium papers work better? I really love the way the Lana held up in water and dried flatter, but the end result looked mediocre.

Thanks,

- John

Paper chemistry -- especially sizing and buffering -- can have a huge impact for some alt processes. This can affect the ability to form an image, graininess, and even image color. Beware: paper formulas can also change over time, so a paper that once worked well can become unusable. Papers that work well for platinum should make nice kallitypes. I have tried the papers you mention for platinum prints but much prefer COT-320 or Platine. Maybe someone else on the forum can tell you if these work well for kallitypes.

[John Lockhart]

I guess I will have to spring for some Plantine. If it's really the best, for that kind of process then I guess it would be a great benchmark for me. Bostick is always sold out of the COT.

The Arches Aquarelle is really awesome. I was getting really frustrated until I tried it. It may not be the best, but it renewed my faith in this kind of process at a very low point.

- John

[PVia]

Try acidifying your paper...a 1-3% solution of oxalic acid for 3-5 minutes, let it dry, then use it.

[John Lockhart]

What effect does the acid have?

[Marco B]

What effect does the acid have?

It breaks down the often present calcium carbonate buffer added to a lot of papers.

Alkaline conditions are not suitable for iron based processes like your kallitypes, as they essentially ruin your light sensitive iron sensitizer by hydrolisis:

http://www.mikeware.co.uk/mikeware/A...e_Process.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis

As the Wikipedia page says:
"Hydrolysis tends to increase as pH rises leading, in many cases, to the precipitation of an hydroxide such as Al(OH)3 or AlO(OH). These substances, the major constituents of bauxite, are known as laterites and are formed by leaching from rocks of most of the ions other than aluminium and iron and subsequent hydrolysis of the remaining aluminium and iron."

If I understand this right, it means that some or a large part of the Fe3+ cations from the photo sensitizing solution, that are necessary as an electron donor for reducing the silver cation Ag+ to Ag and your silver image, are lost because they precipitate as an insoluble hydroxide.

Hence: bad image quality of your kallitype.
If you don't have oxalic acid, citric or acetic acid should do the same.

[Loris Medici]

As a note: IMHO, oxalic acid not the best choice for the purpose. (Not meaning it doesn't work!)

I'd use dilute (1% - 2%) acetic or hydrochloric/muriatic acids. The reaction products are highly soluble leaving nothing but pure cellulose behind. Oxalic will leave spiky (= may cause mechanical damage...) crystals of calcium oxalate reaction product IN the paper...

OTOH, I don't think B&S will sell a paper which needs neutralization to work, stating "good for Pd"; the problem should be somewhere else...

Regards,
Loris.

[R Shaffer]

Your Kallitypes are looking really good John.

Paper for iron processes could be a field of study all by itself and opinions vary widely. As you have discovered, some papers work better than others due to how the paper is made and I agree with the comments so far. My experience with papers for kallitypes

COT 320 - This is an excellent paper. It has a hard smooth surface that will produce sharp detailed images. It's not as absorbent as watercolor paper and needs a little less sensitizer. Very consistent batch to batch. Very good blacks. Many would consider this the benchmark.

Plantine - Similar to COT, but not quite as hard. For me it coats a little easier. I have had a bit of inconsistency batch to batch, but mostly all good. Good blacks with single coat. Excellent choice for kallitype.

Aquarella - Only tried this a couple of times. Has more surface texture, which I like. I did not get as deep of blacks, but a nice tone.

Rives BFK - My current favorite, BUT I like doing gum over kalli and tri-color gums. It has a very soft surface and lovely texture. So it does not get as good a black or as much detail as COT or plantine. I do pretreat the paper ( shrink & acidify ) with a 30min soak in hot water with 1% oxalic acid, but many like it without pretreat ( for kallitype ). I usually resize the paper after dried so that I can do multiple layer prints. I size with either a gelatine soak or brushed on PVA size.

So certainly keep trying different papers until you find the ones that fit the style of print you are after. And keep lots of notes, I write on the back of the print all the important info like paper, pretreatments, exposure, sensitizer, curve if digital negative, ect.

[John Lockhart]

Great advice. I will try neutralizing the Lana paper, see what results I get, and post something up.

[Marco B]

I'd use dilute (1% - 2%) acetic or hydrochloric/muriatic acids. The reaction products are highly soluble leaving nothing but pure cellulose behind. Oxalic will leave spiky (= may cause mechanical damage...) crystals of calcium oxalate reaction product IN the paper...

Thanks Loris, always good to hear these kind of "details" no-one usually writes about.

Great advice. I will try neutralizing the Lana paper, see what results I get, and post something up.

Actually, you're not "neutralizing" it (in the sense of establishing a neutral pH), but even acidifying it somewhat.

Marco