From: Clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 12/31/02-09:11:33 PM Z
I wanted to post a follow up to a recommendation for Van Gelder Simili
Japon that I posted yesterday.
Well, I printed a few 7x17's today, and the results were pretty awful.
Low Dmax, very slow printing speed, low contrast.
I was stumped, because I had used this paper before with decent
results. Then I had the AHA! moment. This was actually the first set of
prints from the batch I got from NYC about a year ago. Prior to that, I
had been using the 11x14 Socorro from B&S, which worked fine. I had
put the 10 sheets I ordered for my big prints aside when I discovered
Whatman's. So, my current impression is : Avoid this paper now! It
was a waste of palladium. It'll make nice interleaves for my mounted
prints.
FYI
Clay
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 08:56 PM, Jeff Buck wrote:
> Thanks for the tip. Won't try. Will get out my Stonehenge one of
> these days though and do some printing. -jb
>
> At 09:49 PM 12/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>> I tested the gelatin sized (glyoxal hardened) Stonehenge with
>> kallitype, same negative and conditions as described previously. The
>> image was much more contrasty, took a very long time to clear (in
>> fact, never cleared completely), and there was very little gain in
>> detail. A real no-starter for further testing from my point of view.
>>
>> Sandy King
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> I like Stonhenge a lot and it has become my comparative paper.
>>> Clears easily, very white surface, and excellent wet strength. And
>>> the three batches I have purchased over the past two years have
>>> given very consistent results. And it has a nice pebbly surface. The
>>> only disadvantage, and this may not be one for you depending on what
>>> kind of look you are after, is that it is not as well sized as some
>>> of the plate surface papers, consequently detail is not quite as
>>> high.
>>>
>>> Sandy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> How do you like Stonehenge, as a rule? -jb
>>>>
>>>> At 06:07 PM 12/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>> OK, I did the Everclear tests with kallitype, using as comparison
>>>>> papers Stonhenge White Rising and Lenox. I made prints from a step
>>>>> wedge with each paper, using 1 drops of Everclear per 2 ml of
>>>>> sensitizer for one set, no Everclear for the other set.
>>>>>
>>>>> Result:
>>>>> 1) Stonhense and Lenox behaved almost the same in terms of
>>>>> contrast and speed. The Lenox prints had a slightly higher Dmax,
>>>>> and somewhat finer detail.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) No streaking with any of the prints, with or without Everclear.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Stonhenge cleared faster, but Lenox also cleared completely
>>>>> with about twice the amount of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> With these preliminary results I made two 7X17 prints on Lenox,
>>>>> using 4ml of sensitizer per print. One paper was sensitized with
>>>>> 2 drops of Everclear added to the sensitizer, the other had none.
>>>>> Exposure and development same from from here on out, and both
>>>>> prints were toned with a pt/pd mixture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Results: Nice prints both. Both have even tones with no streaking.
>>>>> Maybe there is slightly better gradations in the one with
>>>>> Everclear but if so the difference is very subtle and I would need
>>>>> more tests to verify. But for certain the Everclear caused no
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, with these mixed results here is the question. If the guests
>>>>> drink all of my expensive whiskey this evening would it be ok for
>>>>> me to have a nightcap with the Everclear, or should I save it for
>>>>> making prints?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy New Year to all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandy King
>>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST