From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 04/10/03-07:32:16 AM Z
The Painted Horse wrote:
>
> I couldn't answer that directly as I have never used Rives, but in my
> working with Arches 140lb and 90lb Hot Press Papers I have noticed
> significantly different results, using the same techniques in my
> processes. So I would say it is quite possible.
>
I wasn't referring to the weight, which is only 10 grams heavier per
square meter than the 270 gm standard BFK at any rate, but to the fact
that the two papers (BFK and BFK Heavyweight) are listed as different
papers and that the BFK Heavyweight is sized more heavily. I was simply
wondering whether it's possible that the people who say that BFK works
well for gum may be using the BFK Heavyweight and the people who don't
like BFK as well may be using the BFK standard paper, with less internal
size. It was just a speculation on my part. In my early testing of
papers, BFK was the one paper that tended to hold onto pigment in my
shop, and I'm pretty sure the BFK I tested was the regular BFK, not the
BFK Heavyweight. I don't care for the texture of BFK anyway, so I never
considered it very seriously for my own work.
For what it's worth, I didn't see any particular difference between
Arches HP 140 lb and 90 lb in their printing characteristics, although I
should add that it was a while back that I compared the two, that the
manufacture of Arches paper has changed in some respects, and that my
observations may not apply to the papers as presently available.
kt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 05/01/03-11:59:54 AM Z CST