I hope that all who requested hard copies of my test data have
received them by now, and those whose requested the attachment
file have been able to read it.
Now that I have sent this stuff out into the world I feel I must make
some comments about it. First, I have finally plotted and analyzed
the curves. In the process I found a few typographical errors. When
you come upon a number that doesn't make sense it is a typo. Just
change it to something that fits. Also page three of the data tables
is for Cranes Platinotype. I tested it with the full range of
contrast control using the potassium oxalate / sodium dichromate
method. The other 2 columns (far right) are without the 1 drop of
hydrogen peroxide. This is a test for fog and as you can see from
the Dmin it is considerable, even when working under OC safelight
instead of my usual 40W incandescent bounced off the ceiling. I
don't know how to account for the anomalous increase in Dmax.
More importantly, I want to emphasize that using this objective data
alone to decide who well a paper works can be very misleading. It
would be easy to evaluate a paper if maximum black density was the
only criterion of importance, but for me it's not. If it was I would
choose another printmaking process. Smoothness of tone and
separation of shadow and highlight detail are to me much more
meaningful, but the former can't be read from step-tablet data or
curves. Several of the papers tested suffer from a sort of
graininess which appears to me to be fibers or spots to which the
"emulsion" did not adhere. This is most pronounced in the lowest
tones. Some papers suffer only moderately from this problem while in
others it tis extreme. Below I have grouped the papers tested
(including several for which I do not yet have density data) into
three catagories: (1) those that work well as is, (2) those that are
a bit inferior (in my opinion) but could be suited to a different
aesthetic sensibility, and (3) those that are obviously not suited to
this process. (It is certainly possible that some papers in the
second and third catagories would work quite well with additional
sizing or some other variation of the process.)
When all the densitometer readsings have been plotted and analyzed,
I will then be able to rank the papers by contrast (exposure scale)
and relative printing speed. I will also attempt to rank them in
terms of image color (warmer-cooler). I hope that these test results
and my interpretaition of them can help others in selecting papers
suitable to their own work without having to do such extensive
testing. Also I hope others will perform more intensive tests on
particular papers of their liking and share the results with list
members. I apologise in advance to anyone whose favorite paper did
not make my first cut. Particular working conditions and methods must
account for such differences.
Listed alphabetically:
Group 1 (Definitely good)***** Source
Arches Platine DS
Buxton JPP
Cranes Distaff Linen Stationary store
Cranes Kid Finish Stationary store
Cranes Parchmont B&S
Cranes Platinotype B&S
Fabriano 5 Classico DS
Fabriano Murillo DS
Fabriano Perusia
Lenox DS
Magnani Italia DS
Masa DS
Twinrocker Watercolor DS
Van Gelder Simili Japon JPP
Group 2 (Maybe ...)*** Source
Arches Watercolor DS
Coventry Rag DS
Fabriano Artistico DS
Fabriano Tiepolo DS
Frankfurt DS
Gampi DS
Inomachi DS
Meridian Drawing Colorcraft (local)
Rising Gallery 100 DS
Saunders Waterford DS
Somerset DS
Strathmore 500 Drawing Colorcraft (local)
Torinoko BI
Wahon Sarnoff (local)
Group 3 (Not ...)* Source
Arches Text Wove DS
Fabriano Rosapina DS
Lana Gravure DS
Lana Laid DS
Lana Royal DS
Rives BFK Colorcraft
Rives Moulin du Gue DS
Strathmore 400 Drawing Colorcraft
Twinrocker Calligraphy Cream DS
Twinrocker Printmaking (White Feather) DS
Key to sources:
B&S Bostick and Sullivan, Santa Fe
DS Daniel Smith, Seattle
JPP John Purcell Paper, London
BI Bookmakers International, Maryland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith Schreiber
Rights and Reproductions
Center for Creative Photography
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Fon: 520-621-7968
Fax: 520-621-9444
Email: keith@ccp.arizona.edu
WWW: http://www.ccp.arizona.edu/ccp.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~