[alt-photo] Re: COT320

[Amy Holmes George]

Bob and Diana,
I apologize for my very delayed reply to all these recent posts regarding COT 320, as I'm the "other" person who encountered this odd grainy result (I've been out of town and away from my computer). I have since read all the new posts, so I will try to address the questions/issues that Diana has so graciously taken on with Bergger directly . . .
I did isolate the source of my paper, which were leftover sheets from a pack that was part of a large order made in 2009 from www.lotusviewcamera.com (when COT 320 was not available in the states). I started printing on this paper when I first received it in 2009, no problem. Last weekend, I printed from sheets in another pack from the same order without any troubles. Unfortunately, I have already discarded my "grainy" prints, but I can tell you that I did humidify my paper prior to coating (about 30 minutes) and then re-humidified after coating (another 30 minutes) at 60% RH. I even tried coating both sides of the paper, arriving at the same effect. With every print, I also exposed a 31 step tablet alongside of my digital negative, noting the same weird sort of graininess visible mostly in the midtone/highlight areas. So, personally, I also believe that Diana is onto something. Let's just hope that this is part of an isolated event. I wish that I could be of more help, but I don't have any more of the "bad" paper left. Honestly, I was wondering if my incident had something to do with my storage methods. The "scraps in question" were all stored separately from the rest of my papers (got mixed up with some prints and mats by mistake). The rest of my paper stock remains in their original packaging and sealed in a plastic tub. 
On a side note, Diana, I have successfully used an X-acto knife to remove a few nasty black spots in highlight areas and then spotted to conceal after the fact—worked surprisingly well.
Just my 2 cents anyway . . .
Amy Holmes George

> From: dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:23:50 -0500
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> 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