From: Jeff Buck (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 01/09/03-08:46:59 PM Z
Thanks guys. -jb
At 09:09 PM 1/9/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>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