I am curious which acid you are using for removing buffer.
Sulfamic acid at 10%
May be 15mins water was was too short so that you had problems, I always do 20 to 25 mins washing, shuffling the papers 5 mins intervals.
I can't find rising stonehenge here, so I am unable to test it.
May be there is a problem with the tap water, or with the sulfamic acid (additives perhaps).
Any case, I will paste my washing regimen from the initial post.
"I washed the papers (5 of them in the same tray) with tap water (chlorinated, not filtered, measured Ph. 7), for 20-25 minutes with 4-5 changes of water, and with each change of water shuffling the papers and bringing the bottom one to the top. When finished washing, I hanged the papers to dry in the bathroom."
With 12 11x15" (= 3 full) sheets (my usual batch size) of FAEW/SP, I use 4 water changes and shuffle all by agitating in the water + I lift each sheet out of water (from one corner) until drop frequency slows down to about 2 drops in 1 second (this is a very effective way of washing / clearing / agitating paper - highly recommended!), haven't measured it exactly but it takes something like 20 minutes. Papers work flawlessly with pop Pd and Argyrotype processes.
Hi Serdar, I just got a dMax of 1.46 on rives bfk 90lb, coated on back of paper with a long brushing time (over and over) forced humidity 80% for 10 minutes before exposure.
Thank you once again for sharing your discovery, it is opening up a bunch of different kinds of paper previously thought as un-printable...
Thank you again for sharing your experience with different papers. I might have mentioned this before but the feedback from a professional printer like yourself means a lot. And not just for me I believe, everyone can look and see your evaluation of specific papers.
It is always a great pleasure to hear that SA treatment works well for many people.
I have noted down this paper, although I can't buy it locally, I plan to get some to test with other processes. I can't do pt/pd yet.
BTW, I have tested fabriano artistico traditional white 300gsm HP, it was no different than 200gsm version (used the back side of the paper again). The paper is not the best choice in the dmax department but it is a good paper if a slightly yellowish base is desired. Also I had limited test/experience with arches watercolor papers too, they also work quite well with the new cyanotype, I got very deep blues after SA treatment.
In my experience w/ Rives BFK I have found that every different version of BFK for example 150gsm, 285gsm and 300gsm behaves deferentially, it is a printmaking paper as opposed to a watercolour paper in regards to size additives AND texture. I have not tried the 300gsm BFK but I have had just great results with the previous mentioned. In addition I have printed on the front and back of the same weight and found the front to have a slight sheen as compared to the back which produce a better dMax and image appreciation.
You can find Hahnemuehle and Magnani printmaking papers here in Istanbul. In my understanding, printmaking papers have less sizing therefore are more absorbent and fragile. OTOH, they have a wider set of color and weight choices, compared to watercolor papers. Maybe Stan can elaborate further about the whys and wherefores of his choice of printmaking papers (BFK in particular) and the specifics of working with them?
A 1% solution has been working very well for me. Rising Stonehenge paper.
For which process you are using %1 SA treatment? (I am guessing DOP Pt/Pd).