[alt-photo] Re: COT320

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hey Amy,

Thanks so much for the update.  Yes; I referred to you as the "one other person" on here, because I didn't want to keep throwing your name out there in case you were lying low and didn't want to be involved with this whole paper issue- just wishing it would disappear. ;)  

So it sounds like your paper wasn't from a brand new pack, then?  Perhaps there is a storage issue, but since mine was a new pack, I'm guessing the storage issue isn't with us.  I also humidified a sheet yesterday, and it didn't seem to make any difference for me, either.  My problem was overall grain (not just in midtone/highlight areas). I printed only on the 'smooth' side.  I've also picked pieces out randomly-- going in the center of the pack as well as the front-- on the suspicion that maybe the top papers had a problem (?). 

This is actually the first time I've bought directly from Bergger in a very long time.  I typically buy from B&H, with no problems.  Not sure that should make any difference (unless storage is the problem), but I'll be interested to hear how Chris fares with what she just purchased from B&H.

Oh-- and, yes--  thanks for the X-acto knife advice-- I have to try that.  I've never been able to spot very well, and I've always thought that a weekend workshop  based solely on spotting techniques would be really useful (really boring, but useful).  An X-acto component could be added to spice things up.

-Diana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>