[alt-photo] Re: COT320

[BOB KISS]

DEAR DIANE,
	Thanks for the thorough reply.  I have discovered that the best
ideas are combinations of those submitted by different parties often with
divergent interests.  So why not send John Horowy:
1) At least one example print showing your grainy results.
2) One print on the older COT 320 using the same neg showing the lack of
grain.
2) At least one sheet of the newer problem paper.
4) One sheet of the older COT 320 that does not exhibit grain.
*****Be sure to write the batch number in pencil on each item you send.  You
can find the batch numbers on the labels on the white envelopes in which the
COT 320 is packed.  With this evidence, you may well convince Bergger that
they have a problem, at least with that batch, and they may actually take
action to correct it.  No guarantees that they will, but they certainly will
*not* without having their noses stuck in the evidence while swatting them
on the butt with rolled up newspaper.  Oops, Cesar (Dog Whisperer) says we
can't use that training method any more.  Oh, well!
	But you get my drift...
		CHEERS!
			BOB

-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
[mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
Diana Bloomfield
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 1:24 PM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: COT320

Hey Bob,

I typically order COT320 from B&H in NYC.  They have been out of the size I
wanted for a while, so I ordered directly from the Bergger site
(distribution in Illinois, I think?)  It was an 11x14 packet.  So the "art
merchant" who sold it to me was, in fact, Bergger direct.  

I started using it maybe a week after receiving it.  In terms of humidity,
my studio has about the right amount of humidity (also in a humid climate
here, in NC-- though not as humid as Barbados, I'm sure!).  I used to have
to use a humidifier for all my papers, in the space I worked in before- but
not anymore in the studio I have now.

And, as mentioned before, I tried the same negative with various other
papers (Arches Platine and Revere, specifically)-- papers that had been
sitting in my studio for quite a while-- nearly a year-- and the prints with
same negative, same chemicals, printed in the same afternoon, etc were fine.
I did print on several pieces of the new COT320 paper, with the same
(grainy) result.  I also discovered an older piece of COT320 that I had left
over, in a flat file here-- printed on that, and it was fine.

So I do believe the new packet of paper has a problem. It's possible, of
course, this is an isolated incident, but since at least one other person
mentioned the same issue, I think not.  John had suggested that I send the
prints to him, and he would send to France for evaluation.  My thought is,
rather, he should send the remaining packet of paper to France, so they can
evaluate the paper that's in there.

At any rate, I did not humidify this new paper, simply because everything
else that's in my studio works fine, and I never have to do that.  I can try
that, though, and I'll let you know what happens.

Diana


On Feb 16, 2013, at 3:54 PM, BOB KISS wrote:

> DEAR ALL,
> 	This, once again, appears to be a case of, "Rumors of my demise have
> been greatly exaggerated" (Mark Twain).  I recall a few years ago, when
B&S
> stopped carrying COT 320, rumors flew that it was no longer made.  I
> contacted John at Bergger USA and he had plenty of stock in all sizes and
> more on the way.  I ordered directly from him and received it
quickly...well
> quickly for Barbados!  LOL!  I have ordered lots from him at various times
> and he has always had stock.
> 	Now, because there is the problem of grain, and I believe Diana that
> there is a problem with the batch she bought, we are once again relegating
> COT 320 to the scrap heap.  Why not demonstrate to those like John at
> Bergger that we are logical, technically sophisticated, craft-persons and
> find out exactly what the problem is?  I don't recall where Diana got that
> batch but, if the art merchant who sold it to her stored it in a hot, dry
> place, it may well have changed the paper significantly.  This would even
> explain the difference Diane found between the older COT and this newer
> "problem batch".  We all also know that paper may eventually stabilize in
> terms of humidity but, as I said, if the paper was stored at extremely low
> rel hum and high room temps, it might need some help.
> 	Which brings me to; Diana, did you ever try humidifying this grainy
> batch of COT **before** coating?  I don't usually have to, living in a
very
> humid place, but it might be an interesting experiment to humidify it
before
> coating, coat it and proceed with your normal steps.  I would love to hear
> the results.
> 
> 			CHEERS FROM BARBADOS!
> 				BOB
> 
> -----
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 8020 (20130217) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com