From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 01/09/03-08:09:30 PM Z
Jeff,
I have only used Stonhenge for kallitype, not for pt/pd, but since
since the two processes have so much in common I would expect similar
results. The front of the paper is slightly smoother than the back
but it is hard to see any difference in the print. I use the paper
without any pre-treatment, develop in a 20% sodium citrate solution,
and clear in two baths of 3% citric acid. The paper clears very well
because even with just one clearing there is no visible yellow left.
Dmax in the deepest image shadows is as high as with any paper I have
used, about 1.50.
Sandy King
>Thanks, Carl. -jb
>
>Carl Weese <cweese@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> Oxalic seems to be a good idea for this paper. Definite increase in dmax,
>> though most of the difference shows up in the fully black border. Actual
>> image tones aren't affected that much and a masked print may not really need
>> the pre-treatment. It requires an acid clearing bath: in EDTA/sulfite the
>> image area clears but the entire sheet takes on a yellow cast (from the
>> developer?) that needs acid clearing to go back to the original white. 2%
>> citric does the trick.---Carl
>>
>> --
>> web site with picture galleries
>> and workshop information at:
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: jeffbuck@swcp.com
>> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>> >Subject: Stonehenge Paper
>> >Date: Thu, Jan 9, 2003, 3:49 PM
>> >
>>
>> > Stonehenge was mentioned frequently in a thread last week or so. Do those
>who
>> > use it pre-treat w/ oxalic acid? Also, is there any difference between
>using
>> > the "front" or the "back", aside from the visible difference in texture?
>> > Thanks. -jb
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST