U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Flattening Paper- Mini Tutorial

Re: Flattening Paper- Mini Tutorial

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: Flattening Paper- Mini Tutorial
  • From: Henry Rattle <henry.rattle@ntlworld.com>
  • Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 10:48:40 +0100
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
  • In-reply-to: <481EC30F.1040708@vt2000.com>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Thread-index: AciulTJ1cPbtVhqIEd2f5QAUUSQZMg==
  • Thread-topic: Flattening Paper- Mini Tutorial
  • User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/

Clair - I use the Waterford 300 gsm HP. Like you, I find that it stays flat
enough that it isn't a problem to coat and process, at least in the 12x9
inch size that I tend to use. I hold it flat for coating in an old darkroom
masking frame which holds down all the edges. Again like you, I find that
after processing the very smooth hot-press finish comes up into a gentle
tooth. It shrinks just a little (0.5% - 1mm in 200 mm) in one dimension

For gum, I've found that I need to size Waterford to avoid staining with
most colours. One coat (gelatin+formalin, brush-sized) is enough to prevent
most colours staining, although W&N lamp black still stains quite badly with
one coat sizing.

The print you show is very nice - quite unearthly.

Best wishes


On 5/5/08 09:19, "cadunn" <cadunn@vt2000.com> wrote:

> Laura --
> It feels in stiffness quite close to the Arches 140 lb. which is
> 300 gsm. So I'm going to say that -- and as to hot press - (the
> store did not label it) but it has a *very slight* tooth to it --
>   -- though nothing like we think of with high end, high weight
> watercolor stock. I can just barely, eyes closed, with my
> fingers, tell the difference between the Arches HP and the
> Saunders. So it may be their "standard" HP. It is quite creamy in
> tone.
> I prefer, for this work, as smooth a surface as I can get.
> However, in the cyanotype print the details were sharp and clear.
> And, whew, I had not purchased anything to do with art in a store
> in probably 25-30 years. I had sticker shock -- and had to put
> back brushes and some tubes of paint. The other sheet of paper I
> bought was Stonehenge -- the only other kind they had suitable
> for me.
> And here's my attempt yesterday -- it's not exactly going to
> knock your eyes out but it does look like I wanted it to --
> cyanotype with grey gum (Chinese White, Davy's Grey, and Lamp
> Black) over it.
> http://www.turboeyes.com/alt/ffld-cyan-grey-72.jpg
> Clair
> Laura Valentino wrote:
>> Hi Clair,
>> What weight was the Saunders Waterford, do you know? I'm in the process
>> of ordering paper, and the company I'm ordering from has the Saunders in
>> 5 different weights, ranging from 190 to 640 gsm. (your paper might be
>> measured in pounds, but there is a conversion chart somewhere online) I
>> have tried Fabriano Artistico in 640...and it definitely did not buckle,
>> but it is like card stock, expensive and seems like overkill for me.
>> I had just about decided on ordering Fabriano and Somerset Satin in 300
>> gsm, and now I'm considering adding the Saunders Waterford. Did you get
>> hot or cold press? Has anyone tried Somerset Satin (for gum)?
>> Thanks! Laura
>>> Well, yesterday, having accumulated 4 or 5 errands (gas conservation
>>> going on here) to do in the nearest city (35 miles) with an art supply
>>> store, I went there and bought one sheet of Saunders Whatman -- and
>>> have just gone though a cyanotype to the drying stage and voila! The
>>> sheet is still flat and ready for the gum. Temporarily very happy
>>> camper here. And if this sucker comes out as I see it in my mind, I
>>> will post it where you can gawk if so inclined!