[alt-photo] Re: Ziatype questions

[Vedos]

Yes I used the patterned side of the paper. I seem to remember having troubles with this batch of COT before when I made vandyke prints; I didn't pour the solution then, but dipped my brush in it. I had to paint the solution onto the paper with very quick brush strokes, because I had a strange feeling about slow painting sinking deeply into the paper...

The chemicals are from Bostick and Sullivan, should be fresh, and I don't know how they could be bad... unless I have totally mucked up when mixing them, which seems unlikely (they're not too hard to mix). But if there is something wrong with the chemistry, it should be the AFO, don't you think, because both LiPd and CsPd work similarly... too contrasty maybe, but in a relative way.

My very first tries were without Tween, I don't see any difference in test prints with or w/o it... I'll just leave it away.

Thanks again, Loris!

- Jalo


-- If you only look at what is, you might never attain what could be --

V E D O S
Alternative Photographic Processes
Satakunta University of Applied Sciences
vedos at samk.fi
http://vedos.samk.fi
http://www.samk.fi
________________________________________
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Loris Medici [mail at loris.medici.name]
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 4:41 PM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Ziatype questions

Very interesting. COT320 normally doesn't absorb the sensitizer so easily (it's a pretty hard sized paper), and I experience no blotchiness... (You used the smooth / regular patterned side, right?) Is it possible that your stock sensitizer solutions (either the LiPd or the AFO) are somehow bad? Also, you mention *Tween*. I don't use it with COT320, I never had to use any surfactant for any of the alt-processes I did before - except for trad. cyanotype and some paper combinations. Have you tried w/o tween? (I just left using surfactants; when the paper is stubborn, I just extend the sensitizer with water...)

In any case, I would try to fix what's going wrong before venturing printing real images; to me it seems that you won't be able to use the full potential of the process with the current working parameters... (You really need to see 27-29 distinct and smooth steps - in the 31-step tablet test - to make sure your process works as intended...)

Regards and good luck!
Loris.


On 07.Ağu.2010, at 00:39, Vedos wrote:

> After another day of (test) printing I am pretty sure this is not a paper issue... made more tests on different papers. I also exposed one in sunlight, I had 16 minutes exposure instead of the uv unit's 4 minutes (but it was at 10 am, and the sun's power is much weaker here in Finland than, say, in Turkey ;)
>
> Again, a short report of the day on the blog: vedos.samk.fi.
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo