RE: "New" Paper for Pt/Pd (and other iron processes, too)
The print looks nice! Is it from a digital negative? If that's not
asking too much, can you please provide a crop of the print (showing
tonality from shadows to the highlights) at 360dpi resolution 100% size
(to let us see the paper texture)? A last question about the print: is
it DOP or POP?
This papers price is very good indeed. I may buy this paper later, just
like as I bought not-100%-cotton (a bad thing to me) Masa paper earlier,
the only drawback is the acidic alum-rosin sizing which makes the
paper's archival qualities questionable. See:
sized papers (such as Cranes AS 8111) seem to work well, but are
archivally questionable (although Willis's commercial paper was of this
type)...". There's a similar statement in page
http://www.mikeware.co.uk/mikeware/technical.html -> "An Investigation
of Platinum and Palladium Printing" (this is a word document); "...Some
gelatine tub-sized papers were also found to work well with palladium
(but not platinum), and even an alum-rosin sized paper, although the
archival permanence of the latter is open to question(17)..." Reference
(17) is: Green S.B., Fine Print, January (1984). Finally, the same point
was made again in Mike's "The Chrysotype Manual" p.45.
As I said above, the paper's still very very interesting...
From: Sandy King [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 29 Kasım 2006 Çarşamba 05:09
Subject: Re: "New" Paper for Pt/Pd (and other iron processes, too)
It is very economical, just a little over a dollar a sheet if you
purchase it in 100-sheet quantity.
For comparison, I have used a lot of Stonhenge Rising in the past for
kallitype and Pt./Pd. printing, and the price is about the same.
However, the Weston paper gives much better Dmax and clears better.
In fact, Dmax looks at least as good as with COT 320.
The only negative is that the paper does not have great wet strength
so you have to work with it carefully during wet processing. However,
it is not any worse than the Crane paper that many people use for
At 8:24 PM -0600 11/28/06, Jeremy Moore wrote:
>I haven't seen this mentioned in this discussion, but what's the price
>of this paper?