[alt-photo] Re: Ziatype questions

[Vedos]

Marek,

Thanks for the help! As I said to Loris, I've had issues with the same batch of COT before. I purchased it maybe two years ago. Has anyone else experienced anything like this... maybe they have changed the paper?

OK, I won't use Tween, and will be watching for overbrushing.

- 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 Marek Matusz [marekmatusz at hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 6:45 PM
To: alt photo
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Ziatype questions

Jalo,
Just read your blog. Seems like you have lots of issues. Perhaps that is the fun part: discovery and learning.
It has been a couple of years since I printed "Ziatype" and I use that tern loosely to include ferric ammonium oxalate/palladium POP. I can not remember having any issues with coating, so after reading your blog I just coated a copulple of test strips with ferrix ammonium oxalate/Na2PdCl4 mix (this is my standard palladium solution). No surfactants of any kind. I only have an old batch of Arches platine that I have used for years for palladium printing. The coating is as sommoth as baby's behind. I did use COT 320 in the past and never had any issues with coating. I would suggest a couple of things: has the paper changed? Are you using too much solution and overbrushing? You should not need a surfactant, so cut it out. I am exposing and developing the sheets that I coated and will upload the examples later today.
Marek

> From: mail at loris.medici.name
> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 16:41:48 +0300
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> 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

_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo