U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Cot 320

Re: Cot 320


I also noticed the graininess—especially in the pure blacks.  It was more pronounced where the coating was thinner along the edges of the paper.

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson

Precision Digital Negatives
PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
Mark I. Nelson Photography
In a message dated 4/24/08 1:28:48 PM, dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net writes:

Hi Mark,

Yes,  I was just printing with some COT320 paper last week, and I wondered if they-- like everybody else-- had somehow changed the make-up of the paper.  I usually order it from 2 different places-- depending on who has it-- although it should all originate from the same central place (right?)-- but, yes, I did notice a difference.  I have some bigger paper that I haven't opened and was going to try that today to see if there was a difference.  I was using a batch of 11x14 before.  I had to keep brushing over the same spots to get over the beading/  I also noticed that  I was getting this grainy look which I had never before seen with that paper.  I switched to a brand new brush, a brand new tray, and I even made up some new developer-- wondering if one or the other had been contaminated in some way.  I was also using negatives I'd used before-- with no problem-- and still, I got this graininess.  I'm hoping that doesn't happen with this different size-- and was thinking I just got  bad batch or something-- who knows.  I do wish paper/film manufacturers would simply leave a good thing alone.  Too much to ask, I guess.


Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Cot 320
      • From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
    • Re: Cot 320
      • From: Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net>
    • Re: Cot 320
      • From: Jeremy Moore <jeremydmoore@gmail.com>