Re: "speckling" v "staining " (was New Orleans/glut) SEE SCANS

Okay, I've been to the library and seen these spectacular speckles for
myself. My comments are offered for whatever they are worth to anyone,
and offered in my semi-official capacity as initiator of the discussion
of the speckle controversy.

What I see here are two things:

(1) ordinary overall garden-variety stain, on both paper/size
combinations. That's what I thought I was seeing on my defective
monitor, but since Mark's description was that there was no "tone" on
the original in the areas of the denser portion of the negative for the
glutaraldehyde sample, I assumed that it must be paper white, so I
didn't trust what I was seeing on my monitor, which was a distinct
difference between the tonal value of the white background of the page
and the tonal value of the glut-treated paper. But lo and behold, it's
pink on the library's monitor as well. Another indication that the
glut-sized sample is stained is that the numbers in the gum-tone portion
of that sample are obscured by stain in the same way and to the same
extent as the numbers on the BFK are. (I haven't seen one of these step
wedges, but I'm assuming that they work just like a 21-step: the numbers
should print white in areas of tone).

The difference in stain between the two paper/size combinations is
quantitative, not qualitative, to my mind. The intensity of the overall
stain is less on the glutaraldehyde-treated paper, but still quite
evident. The fact that the stain is more all one tone on the Fabriano
than on the BFK is a function of the topography of the paper. Stain acts
like one of those topographical maps where you can tell the elevation by
looking at the color. The stain on the BFK takes on a number of
different values depending on the ups and downs of the paper. The stain
on the Fabriano has one tone because its topography is relatively flat.
But they are both just stain. The difference is in the paper, not in the
stain itself.

The stain on the BFK is exactly the same stain that I got by printing on
unsized BFK the other night. That's just what BFK looks like when it's
stained. Why your glyoxal mix doesn't protect the paper from staining
while mine does, is one of those unfathomable mysteries; I wouldn't
begin to venture a guess.

(2) speckles that look like dots from a pencil. They are grey rather
than pigmented and appear on both paper/size combinations. They are
evident throughout both the stain and the gum tone on the glyoxal-sized
paper; on the glut-sized paper they are quite evident in the gum tone
and less evident in the portion of paper that has stain but not tone. I
have no idea what this is.

I'm not sure which of these are being given the term "speckles." If it's
(1) then I would disagree. If it's (2) I would agree, but I sure don't
know what those speckles are, and since they occur on both papers, I'm
not sure what good explaining them would do toward an overall
understanding of the the difference between the paper/size
combinations. But Mark's description about the loupe and trying to
scrape the material out of the paper suggests to me that it's the stain
that you're talking about, not the speckles.

My 2cents.
Katharine

Ender100@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> regarding the infamous speckles.  As mentioned, there were two papers
> coated used:
>
> Fabriano Artistico Extra White with Gelatin sizing hardened with
> Gluteraldehyde
>
> Rives BFK with Gelatin sizing hardened with Glyoxal
>
> The Rives BFK is a more textured paper than the Farbrianoâ*”I do not
> know if it was cold press or what, but had obvious more texture.
>
> I wondered if the paper had been scuffed when sized, causing the peaks
> of the texture to not clear, however when I looked at it with a loupe,
> it appeared that the "speckles" are located more in the valleys of the
> texture.  Then I wondered if it was just loose pigment gathering in
> the valleys, but that isn't true because when they were developed in
> the water, I tried to remove the "speckles" with a spray and abrasion
> and it wouldn't go away.  The area that of the RIVES that I scanned is
> the area under the most dense steps of the 31 film step tablet (not
> digital step tablet) that received relatively no exposure... there was
> no indication of "tone" at all at those steps or on the Artistico at
> the same steps.  So whatever occured, happened without exposure and
> was fairly even all over the paper regardless of how much exposure it
> received.
>
> Here are the links to the two spectacular speckled scans for you to
> speculate upon:
>
> Frabriano Artistico Glut & Rives BFK Glyoxal at 3x
> Rives BFK Glyoxal at 24x
>
> I do also recall rather vividly when feeling the papers before coating
> them that the Fabriano had a smooth feel while the Rives had a gritty
> feel.  Very much like when you spray something very lightly with a
> varnish and the tiny droplet dry and leave a rough feel to the
> surface...or a very fine grit sandpaper.
>
> These are just my observations and I draw no conclusions  I would like
> to have seen the same to papers with the hardners reversed.  However,
> I would probably not waste my time and just go with the Fabriano sized
> in the manner it was, because it printed beautifully.  Not as sharp as
> PT/PD, but not badâ*”hehehehe
>
> Best Wishes,
> Mark Nelson
> Purchase the eBook & PDN System for Your Own Custom Digital Negative
> Workflow @
> Precision Digital Negatives
> PDN's Own 31-Step Tablet Now Availableâ*”produced by Stouffer
> Industries
> Coming Soonâ*”Curve Calculator II will let you choose your toes!
> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>
> In a message dated 9/6/05 9:41:26 PM, zphoto@montana.net writes:
>
> I sent some images to Darryl (thanks, Darryl) but have to
> await Mark sending
> scans of the two Stouffers to Darryl to see speckling,
> unless I can find a
> speckled image amongst my stuff.
Received on Fri Sep 9 16:05:44 2005