U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | COT 320

COT 320

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: COT 320
  • From: BOB KISS <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>
  • Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 23:10:10 -0400
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Thread-index: Aci3AlmzUbgBSA8BRuuNAYPgawMD8g==

	I hope this might be of interest to someone.  
	Given the complex formulation of sliver gelatin enlarging paper, I
make certain that I do my test strips from the very box from which I will
take the paper for the final enlargements.  There can easily be some
variation of speed and contrast from batch to batch.  
	However, it never entered my mind that the same could be true of a
paper like COT 320.  I bought some 11X14 and, about 6 months later, bought
some 20X24.obviously two different batches.  I tried making test strips
using some of the 11X14 paper and, on two occasions, the prints on the 20X24
paper were lighter.  Yes EVERYTHING was the same; same drop ratio, same
Magic Brush, same plate burner, same dev, same dev temp.same everything.  I
found it hard to believe so I cut up one sheet of 20X24 and made a test
strip.  The large print matches, as closely as I can see, the results on the
test strip.  
	There were none of the other major problems about which I have read
on this list with COT 320.just a difference in speed.  Well, this might be
obvious to some but I never thought that different batches of the same
watercolor paper could produce such different results.    

 Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/  

"Live as if you are going to die tomorrow.  Learn as if you are going to
live forever".  Mahatma Gandhi

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: COT 320
      • From: Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net>