koraks
29-Dec-2016, 04:12
Yesterday I went to the store to stock up on paper. I have mostly used Schut drawing paper for making my Van Dyke browns as in a previous trial, it seemed to offer good value at reasonable costs. It has one major drawback in my eyes: it has an irregular, somewhat coarse surface texture, which usually isn't very apparent, but it shows on close inspection. So I picked up a few papers to see if there was room for improvement, focusing on papers that meet the following criteria:
* Affordable; I don't want to worry about paper cost when printing. The papers I bought were < € 5 per large sheet (55 x 71cm) or € 13 per 100 sheets in A4 size (Fabriano Accademia).
* Not too thin, so I only selected papers with a weight of >180gsm (> 122lbs).
* Fine or smooth surface texture, so I left out the coarse watercolor papers.
These were the papers I came home with; I didn't buy everything that met my criteria, but went for a few papers that appealed to me based on surface texture and feel and general appearance:
1: Fabriano Accademia 200gsm; this comes in packs of 100 sheets A4, unglued.
2: Fabriano Artistico Liscia traditional white 300gsm
3: Steinbach 250gsm (no further description; it has an embossed logo in two opposing corners of the sheet and was very affordable at € 1.25 for a large sheet)
4: Schut Salland 300gsm; I bought this about a year ago when I embarked upon intaglio printing
5: Arches watercolor smooth 185gsm
6: Schut Simili Japon 225gsm; also bought a year ago
The reference paper is the aforementioned Schut drawing paper, which is 160gsm and comes as A5, A4, A3 and A2 blocks, glued on one side, with a bright pink cover. I've used this paper as my standard paper over the past 18 months or so and I have made many hundreds of prints on it. Only the rough side of the paper is usable for Van Dyke, with the smooth backside giving poor dmax and issues with uneven coating. The rough front side gives good dmax, also works well with New Cyanotype and withstands both cold and hot wet processing quite well.
I proceeded to cut 10x15cm sheets, two from each paper to test each side, and I made Van Dyke brown prints from a 4x5" negative with identical chemistry, exposure settings and processing. The negative is Fomapan 100 exposed at ISO 80, developed in Pyrocat-HD 1+1+100 for 15 minutes in a Jobo drum.
The Van Dyke brown mix I used is mixed fresh from stock solutions of the constituents, which I find gives good consistency as well as flexibility in printing. The mix is as follows:
* 5 drops of ferric ammonium citrate 20% w/v solution
* 4 drops of silver nitrate 11% w/v solution
* 2 drops of tartaric acid 8% w/v solution
The solutions are added in the sequence mentioned. When the silver nitrate is added, a white precipitate forms, but this completely dissolves when the tartaric acid is mixed in.
The mixed sensitizer is close to the formula on Sandy King's website. The recipe above coats 2 4x5 prints, with a few drops remaining depending on the absorbency of the paper.
Exposure and processing were as follows:
* Sensitizer was coated onto the paper with a synthetic brush.
* The paper was left to sit for about 30 seconds and then force dried with a hair dryer.
* The exposure was made under a home-made exposure unit with Philips Actinic BL tubes. Exposure time was 3 min 20 sec.
* Immediately after exposure the print was washed in 3 consecutive changes of tap water (which is not particularly hard here nowadays) with constant agitation, until the tones just began to fade to green-yellow.
* Fixing was done in nearly exhausted film fixer at a dilution of ca. 1+8 with fixing time being brief, around 1 minute.
* The prints were washed in tap water with continuous agitation for about a minute, using 2-3 changes of water.
* Finally, the prints were force dried with a hair dryer.
Obviously, the fixing and washing is not at all archival and the prints will likely fade within a few weeks or months. The comparison shown below is of the prints about 16 hours after they have been made.
All prints were put side-by-side and photographed in one go with a digital camera under relatively diffuse light from a window (cloudy/foggy weather) with manual white balance set to 'cloudy'. In photoshop, the curves were adjusted slightly to make the prints look on my (uncalibrated!) screen close to how they look in real life. There is no absolute color accuracy in this representation and it is only possible to see differences between the papers, but not how the prints relate to an absolute standard. The prints are numbered, with the 'a' suffix indicating the smoother/finer of the surfaces and the 'b' suffix indicating the coarser surface of the same paper.
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/testing/VDBPO1612_ds_1084w.jpg
Some (subjective) notes on the various papers:
* 1: Fabriano Accademia: good dmax and retention of highlight detail. Tone is greyish-brown on the coarse side and distinctly warmer and tending a bit to green-brown on the smoother side. The coarse side has a tendency towards silvering on densely coated areas.
* 2: Fabriano Artistico: poor dmax on both sides, but good retention of highlight detail. Tone is distinctly greenish-yellow-brown on the smoother side (this is the side with the very fine mesh-structure); this side also shows silvering in densely coated areas. The coarser side has slightly poorer dmax and yields a more chocolate brown tone without the yellow-greenish tint of the other side; no silvering seen on this side. Tonal scale is very smooth, partly due to the finely textured surface.
* 3: Steinbach: very good dmax, particularly on the smoother side. Tone is purplish-red-brown on the smooth side, a bit more purple-orange-brown on the coarser side. Heavy silvering on both sides but particularly the smoother side. Coating was difficult, with the sensitizer not really being absorbed by the paper (I did not add a surfactant to the sensitizer, this may help with the coating and silvering issue). Tonal transitions are not very smooth with coarse artifacts showing and small paper fibers apparently coming loose from the paper surface during coating or processing, resulting in white specks. Highlights tend to be blown/washed out with a blotchy appearance. A challenging paper, which is a pity, as it gives a very pronounced and (I find) beautiful tone.
* 4: Schut Salland: good dmax on the coarser side, but a little less so on the smooth side. Unlike with the other papers, the difference between both sides is very pronounced, with the smooth side being very smooth indeed. Tone is orange-brown on the smooth side and a slightly cooler, deep chocolate brown on the coarser side. Good highlight detail retention with smooth tonal transitions from midtones to highlights, but the coarser side shows a little less smoothness in tonal scale in the higher midtones than the smoother side (I find this is the case in general with coarse vs. smooth surfaces). Some silvering along the extreme edges of the coated surface where the sensitizer pools a bit, but not in the image area. The smooth side appears to suffer to a minor extent from surface fibers becoming unstuck like with the Steinbach paper, but much less pronounced.
* 5: Arches watercolor/aqua: poor dmax, but good highlight detail retention. Very red tones, which tend towards orange on the smoother side and towards ruby on the coarser side. Heavily sensitized areas (along the edges) seem to partly wash off during processing (see 5b left edge), but this does not affect the image area. Smooth tonal transitions.
* 6: Schut Simili Japon: good dmax on both sides, but the coarse side is superior. Tone is red-orange-brown on the smoother side, and very neutral grey-brown on the coarser side. Highlight detail retention is quite good on the smoother side, but distinctly less so on the coarser side. Tonal transitions are smooth on the smoother side, with a more grainy look on the coarser side.
* ref: Schut drawing paper (only coarse side): good dmax, fairly good shadow detail retention. Fairly smooth tonal transitions. Quite neutral chocolate brown tone that tends ever so slightly towards green.
In conclusion, there is no clear winner. Fabriano Artistico to my surprise seems to have little potential, although I may try increasing the tartaric acid in the sensitizer to see if that improves dmax. The Steinbach paper is appealing for its good dmax, attractive (but pronounced) tone and its low cost, but I doubt if I will ever get smooth, defect-free prints from it. The Arches watercolor paper comes close to the tone of the Steinbach paper and seems to be easier to get defect-free prints from, but its dmax is suboptimal - perhaps I can figure something out to make this paper work, but it will require experimentation.
Both the Schut etching/fine art papers (Salland and Simili Japon) perform well and provide flexibility in terms of tone and surface texture by altering between both sides of these papers. The Fabriano Accademia paper seems like a good paper for test prints and it may replace the Schut drawing paper I currently use for most of my printing as it's affordable, performs reasonably well in all respects and has a bit finer surface texture than my currently used paper.
Thanks for reading all of this; I can't blame you if you didn't. I suppose I wrote most of this to structure my own thoughts and to be able to revisit this in the future as my experience drifts in new directions.
* Affordable; I don't want to worry about paper cost when printing. The papers I bought were < € 5 per large sheet (55 x 71cm) or € 13 per 100 sheets in A4 size (Fabriano Accademia).
* Not too thin, so I only selected papers with a weight of >180gsm (> 122lbs).
* Fine or smooth surface texture, so I left out the coarse watercolor papers.
These were the papers I came home with; I didn't buy everything that met my criteria, but went for a few papers that appealed to me based on surface texture and feel and general appearance:
1: Fabriano Accademia 200gsm; this comes in packs of 100 sheets A4, unglued.
2: Fabriano Artistico Liscia traditional white 300gsm
3: Steinbach 250gsm (no further description; it has an embossed logo in two opposing corners of the sheet and was very affordable at € 1.25 for a large sheet)
4: Schut Salland 300gsm; I bought this about a year ago when I embarked upon intaglio printing
5: Arches watercolor smooth 185gsm
6: Schut Simili Japon 225gsm; also bought a year ago
The reference paper is the aforementioned Schut drawing paper, which is 160gsm and comes as A5, A4, A3 and A2 blocks, glued on one side, with a bright pink cover. I've used this paper as my standard paper over the past 18 months or so and I have made many hundreds of prints on it. Only the rough side of the paper is usable for Van Dyke, with the smooth backside giving poor dmax and issues with uneven coating. The rough front side gives good dmax, also works well with New Cyanotype and withstands both cold and hot wet processing quite well.
I proceeded to cut 10x15cm sheets, two from each paper to test each side, and I made Van Dyke brown prints from a 4x5" negative with identical chemistry, exposure settings and processing. The negative is Fomapan 100 exposed at ISO 80, developed in Pyrocat-HD 1+1+100 for 15 minutes in a Jobo drum.
The Van Dyke brown mix I used is mixed fresh from stock solutions of the constituents, which I find gives good consistency as well as flexibility in printing. The mix is as follows:
* 5 drops of ferric ammonium citrate 20% w/v solution
* 4 drops of silver nitrate 11% w/v solution
* 2 drops of tartaric acid 8% w/v solution
The solutions are added in the sequence mentioned. When the silver nitrate is added, a white precipitate forms, but this completely dissolves when the tartaric acid is mixed in.
The mixed sensitizer is close to the formula on Sandy King's website. The recipe above coats 2 4x5 prints, with a few drops remaining depending on the absorbency of the paper.
Exposure and processing were as follows:
* Sensitizer was coated onto the paper with a synthetic brush.
* The paper was left to sit for about 30 seconds and then force dried with a hair dryer.
* The exposure was made under a home-made exposure unit with Philips Actinic BL tubes. Exposure time was 3 min 20 sec.
* Immediately after exposure the print was washed in 3 consecutive changes of tap water (which is not particularly hard here nowadays) with constant agitation, until the tones just began to fade to green-yellow.
* Fixing was done in nearly exhausted film fixer at a dilution of ca. 1+8 with fixing time being brief, around 1 minute.
* The prints were washed in tap water with continuous agitation for about a minute, using 2-3 changes of water.
* Finally, the prints were force dried with a hair dryer.
Obviously, the fixing and washing is not at all archival and the prints will likely fade within a few weeks or months. The comparison shown below is of the prints about 16 hours after they have been made.
All prints were put side-by-side and photographed in one go with a digital camera under relatively diffuse light from a window (cloudy/foggy weather) with manual white balance set to 'cloudy'. In photoshop, the curves were adjusted slightly to make the prints look on my (uncalibrated!) screen close to how they look in real life. There is no absolute color accuracy in this representation and it is only possible to see differences between the papers, but not how the prints relate to an absolute standard. The prints are numbered, with the 'a' suffix indicating the smoother/finer of the surfaces and the 'b' suffix indicating the coarser surface of the same paper.
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/testing/VDBPO1612_ds_1084w.jpg
Some (subjective) notes on the various papers:
* 1: Fabriano Accademia: good dmax and retention of highlight detail. Tone is greyish-brown on the coarse side and distinctly warmer and tending a bit to green-brown on the smoother side. The coarse side has a tendency towards silvering on densely coated areas.
* 2: Fabriano Artistico: poor dmax on both sides, but good retention of highlight detail. Tone is distinctly greenish-yellow-brown on the smoother side (this is the side with the very fine mesh-structure); this side also shows silvering in densely coated areas. The coarser side has slightly poorer dmax and yields a more chocolate brown tone without the yellow-greenish tint of the other side; no silvering seen on this side. Tonal scale is very smooth, partly due to the finely textured surface.
* 3: Steinbach: very good dmax, particularly on the smoother side. Tone is purplish-red-brown on the smooth side, a bit more purple-orange-brown on the coarser side. Heavy silvering on both sides but particularly the smoother side. Coating was difficult, with the sensitizer not really being absorbed by the paper (I did not add a surfactant to the sensitizer, this may help with the coating and silvering issue). Tonal transitions are not very smooth with coarse artifacts showing and small paper fibers apparently coming loose from the paper surface during coating or processing, resulting in white specks. Highlights tend to be blown/washed out with a blotchy appearance. A challenging paper, which is a pity, as it gives a very pronounced and (I find) beautiful tone.
* 4: Schut Salland: good dmax on the coarser side, but a little less so on the smooth side. Unlike with the other papers, the difference between both sides is very pronounced, with the smooth side being very smooth indeed. Tone is orange-brown on the smooth side and a slightly cooler, deep chocolate brown on the coarser side. Good highlight detail retention with smooth tonal transitions from midtones to highlights, but the coarser side shows a little less smoothness in tonal scale in the higher midtones than the smoother side (I find this is the case in general with coarse vs. smooth surfaces). Some silvering along the extreme edges of the coated surface where the sensitizer pools a bit, but not in the image area. The smooth side appears to suffer to a minor extent from surface fibers becoming unstuck like with the Steinbach paper, but much less pronounced.
* 5: Arches watercolor/aqua: poor dmax, but good highlight detail retention. Very red tones, which tend towards orange on the smoother side and towards ruby on the coarser side. Heavily sensitized areas (along the edges) seem to partly wash off during processing (see 5b left edge), but this does not affect the image area. Smooth tonal transitions.
* 6: Schut Simili Japon: good dmax on both sides, but the coarse side is superior. Tone is red-orange-brown on the smoother side, and very neutral grey-brown on the coarser side. Highlight detail retention is quite good on the smoother side, but distinctly less so on the coarser side. Tonal transitions are smooth on the smoother side, with a more grainy look on the coarser side.
* ref: Schut drawing paper (only coarse side): good dmax, fairly good shadow detail retention. Fairly smooth tonal transitions. Quite neutral chocolate brown tone that tends ever so slightly towards green.
In conclusion, there is no clear winner. Fabriano Artistico to my surprise seems to have little potential, although I may try increasing the tartaric acid in the sensitizer to see if that improves dmax. The Steinbach paper is appealing for its good dmax, attractive (but pronounced) tone and its low cost, but I doubt if I will ever get smooth, defect-free prints from it. The Arches watercolor paper comes close to the tone of the Steinbach paper and seems to be easier to get defect-free prints from, but its dmax is suboptimal - perhaps I can figure something out to make this paper work, but it will require experimentation.
Both the Schut etching/fine art papers (Salland and Simili Japon) perform well and provide flexibility in terms of tone and surface texture by altering between both sides of these papers. The Fabriano Accademia paper seems like a good paper for test prints and it may replace the Schut drawing paper I currently use for most of my printing as it's affordable, performs reasonably well in all respects and has a bit finer surface texture than my currently used paper.
Thanks for reading all of this; I can't blame you if you didn't. I suppose I wrote most of this to structure my own thoughts and to be able to revisit this in the future as my experience drifts in new directions.