Papers to try for Van Dyke process?
Francesco Curcio (francesco.curcio@galactica.it)
Wed, 04 Jun 1997 00:37:05 -0700
Willard-Korfhage@deshaw.com wrote:
>
> I've been trying a variety of different papers to find one I like for
> the Van Dyke process, and I was wondering if perhaps people on this list
> can offer advice on papers to try or things I should do to my papers. My
> semi-random experiements look like they could go on for a while without
> some guidance.
>
> I'm using the Luminos Argyrotype kit, and have tried the papers I list
> below.
> It has been interesting to see how much they differ, but unfortunately I
> don't know what characteristics cause these differences. Perhaps someone
> can enlighten me.
>
> Wateman Watercolor: Gives very high contrast prints, which look "grainy"
> when dry, although smooth when wet.. I can get nice, deep browns, but
> shadows tend to loose detail. Is the image washing out during
> processing?
>
> Arches Watercolor: Gives very low constrast prints. I'm not getting
> tones lighter than lightish brown, and shadows aren't very dark. Nice
> smooth tones - not grainy. A ruddy brown.
>
> Sommerset Velvet: Yields low constrat prints. I had splotching problems,
> but I may have done a bad job coating the paper.
>
> Fabriano Artistico: Looses a lot of image in processing, and results in
> a light, washed out looking image.
>
> Rives BFK: Similar results to the Wateman - a somewhat grainy appearance
> - but lighter. The shadow areas didn't get really dark.
>
> Strathmore Imperial: Very ugly black splotches. Unsuitable.
>
> What I would like to get is the smoothness of the Arches image with the
> image density range of the Wateman image. The Arches image is very nice,
> except I can't get white and "black" (well, brown).
>
> I have been trying to figure out if sizing could (partially) explain the
> behavior of the papers. Perhaps the Wateman and the Rives have little
> sizing, so the mid tones tend to wash out in processing?
>
> Can anyone suggest other papers I should try? Or can I do something with
> one of these papers to get better results?
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Willard Korfhage
> Cambridge, Massachusetts
My experience with the Argyrotype (Van Dyke is a different process)
is limited to Arches Watercolor (in Europe it is called Aquarelle Arches)
Satine (smooth) 300 gsm, and Fabriano 5, a 50% cotton,
hard gelatine sized paper, smooth, 300 gsm.
I mix myself the sentitizer from the Mike Ware's formula
and coat with a glass rod.
I found, as Ware advices, the key to succeed being much more
in the quantity of Tween 20 used than in the paper itself.
I don't know if the Luminos kit includes this surfactant,
that's becoming popular to ease coating in several alt-processes.
I find the Arches needs at least 5 drops of 10% Tween in 2 ml
of sensitizer (roughly the quantity to coat a 8x10 print),
the Fabriano 6-8 drops. With a lesser amount these papers
"bleed" in the water and fixer bath, loose density and stain, because the
sensitizer hasn't got a chance to penetrate in the paper sizing.
The Tween really solved my problem, even if the Argyrotype
is known to be very "paper sensitive".
I got perfect whites on both papers, no grain and smooth
tones, though I am not fully satisfied with the shadows,
that tend to close down, but maybe I have to better tune the
negative for the process. I like the Fabriano 5 whiter base.
If the problem is "washing out" of the image, anyway,
you should actually see the dark areas (typically, the
overexposed edges) bleed and wash out in the water,
staining the lights.
Francesco Curcio