From: Lukas Werth (email@example.com)
Date: 02/08/00-02:05:01 PM Z
At 15:22 08.02.00 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello out there,
>Recently a friend gave me a few sheets of arches platine to try out. He told
>me he wasn't satisfied about it, and showed me some (classic) cyanotypes
>that indeed were not good. very light and there wer strange spots were there
>was almost no color.
>I have tried this paper with New cyanotype and i have noticed the folloing:
>-the paper seems to have to differend structures on either side one
>structured but very fine and smooth and the other side a bit more rough and
>- when i coated the smooth but structured side, the print was a little
>gritty looking and there was no highlight detail. the print looked to hard.
>-when i coated the rough side the sentisizer was not absorbed by the paper
>even. ther were lighter sports where there was less penetration (. after
>exposure and washing the highlights showed trange colored spots
>(greyish-yellow looking) were it looked like the paper had not cleared
>properly. the print looked hard and the highlights had no detail.
>in both cases i used a little tween (one drop 2% per 1 ml sentisizer)and i
>made more than one print with differend negs that have given me good results
>with other papers. I also tried argyrotype but this failed to give me a good
>result (in accordense with finding of mike Ware). Strange is that Mike Ware
>says that this paper is good for his New Cyanotype
>What side of the paper is the right one?
>What are youre experiences whith this "famous " paper?
>Is it really that good or.........
>Is Tween causing the problem? or am i doing someting wrong?
>PS Has anyone ever tried Buxton paper and what was your result??? (I want to
>buy some to try out)
>Greetings from Holland,
>Gerard de Vrueh
I am using up a batch of Arches Platine I ordered some time back, and I
only get satisfactory results on the structured side.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04/24/00-04:37:09 PM Z CST