Sandy, I bought the paper I used directly from Crane's; it was labeled Cover #90. However, I was under the impression that Crane's Cover #90 and Platinotype are the same paper, as are other people. For instance, check out http://unblinkingeye.com/AAPG/Papers/papers.html and especially http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-...eb00/0435.htm:
Originally Posted by sanking
"The most widely used Crane paper is 90-pound Crane's Cover Natural
White. It used to be called Crane's Parchment. The name change was
initiated in order for Crane's Business Papers customers to better
understand which cover stocks correspond with which writing grades. For
several years, the alternative process trade has called it Crane's
Crane's Kid Finish is basically a stationery paper (I believe it has a weight of #32). I tried it once for pt/pd and hated it. Plus, the watermark is extremely annoying.
Agree with Gerhard completely. I started with Cranes Kid Finish (#32), then after a good butt chewing by Jorge for using crappy paper, moved to COT320/Platine (found Arches Platine is really the same as COT320 with some minor difference) then tried Platinotype (aka Cranes Cover Stock). Now, I still like Platinotype for VDB, and I know Matt (Scootermm) uses it for some of his work so it is probably not quite as bad...unless you have spent a couple of hours in the darkroom coating, exposing and porcessing prints to end up with fuzzy prints which will drive you to swearing in a heartbeat. Never have found when it will print well and when it does not...and not patient enought to walk through the process and figure out the problem.
I haven't experienced this problem yet. I have also read about black spots and Platinotype, but have not experienced that either. Basically, as I said, I've had pretty good luck so far. No problem with tearing, but I am working no larger than 8x10. The dmax seems pretty good as well. I was more troubled by the highlight drydown, but even that is looking better as I become more used to working with the paper. Of course I cannot compare it with Platine or Cot yet. I will take everyone's word for it and am excited to see what all the excitement is about.
Originally Posted by photomc
I made some good prints on Cover #90 but I hated the fact that some otherwise fine prints were ruined by weird fuzzy blotches that look like oversized fingerprints but actually seem to be the paper fibers breaking up (or down). I blame it on excessive washing--I load prints into my print washer as they come out of the clearing bath but I don't actually start the wash until I have 12 cleared prints--but it's the same routine I've used with Platine and other papers (such as Rising Stonehenge) for four years. I guess to be successful with Cover #90 I'd have to modify my routine and we all know how annoying THAT is :-)
Originally Posted by billschwab
You'll experience drydown with Platine as well. I don't have enough experience with alt process papers to know where Platine falls in the drydown spectrum, but after printing 25+ sheets on Cover #90, it seems that Platine has even more drydown than Cover #90.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
One of the problems with using Cranes Cover is determining the "good" side from the "bad" side. To do this I have to loupe the paper and inspect the paper grain under magnification. The side with longer rougher fiber is the "bad" side. Cover is okay to work with up to about 11x14 , larger than that and it rips very easily once wet and don't use any heavier than the 90# as it will delaminate and bubble once soaked for a while.
Originally Posted by photomc
Cranes Cover works pretty well with VDB and ziatype, IME, but as Sandy has pointed out can be more difficult to clear. Not a great paper but an adequate one at an affordable price. Magic brush coating pretty much eliminates the fuzzies.
Cranes Kid Finish, IMO, isn't that bad of a paper except for the water mark.
For small prints it can work quite well. I've attempted to obtain samples of the heavier weight versions of this paper but to no avail. The minimum order from Crane dealers is 500 parent sized sheets.
Cranes stationary makes a good cheap paper for Agyrotype, or so I've been told by Darryl Baird.
I don't regard Cot 320 and Arches Platine exactly the same, I prefer the Platine for the reasons Kerik pointed out.
I have two small sample sheets of Buxton, I'm afaird to test it because if I like it I won't be able to afford it.
Finally I've pretty much settled on 3 papers for printing, Fabriano Artistico Extra White, Rives BFK, and Arches Platine. The FAEW and BFK both require an acid presoak for paltinum palladium work. I do like Stonehenge white for VDB and I've got a pile of the Stonehenge Natural White waiting to be tested.
I've still not make up my mind on ClearPrint and Bienfang and at one time it was rumored that Koday Dye Transfer paper works really well for plt/pld.
So many papers, to little time.
Now that you mentioned it, Gerhard, do believe that it was after a long wash that I experienced the bleeding problem with Platinotype....Good Catch.
Also, it seems that the more I work with each paper, the more I learn the little quirks they have. As noted in earlier in this thread, drop count changed quite a bit between Platine and Platinotype...need to get some PVA to try on the Platinotype.
Don, agree with your assesment of Rising Stonehenge for VDB, Jeremy gave me some to try and I did really like it, had just forgotten about it. Good info on the other papers, the BFK and FAEW are a little less $ than Platine (but the way to go with it is to order the BIG sheets and cut them down - still $109 for 25 sheets of 22x30 approx).
Great Thread, and as Don stated....the magic brush is a must.
Last edited by photomc; 06-02-2006 at 06:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Aha... I tend to keep a complete cycle going where prints don't spend a lot of wet time. I noticed early on that if it was too saturated for too long that the coating became very unstable. The slightest touch would blemish the surface and cause one of the "fuzzy spots" of which you speak. Since going to a limited wet time, I have not had the problem.
Originally Posted by gbock
I also have to agree with Don's good side/ bad side. I found early on that one side printed much better than the other.
It seems this all breaks down to personal experience, size and type of print etc. I am hoping I will be blown away by the others. For now, this is working fine for me. It seems I have been printing night and day for weeks now! Too many variables, but I think I am finally settling in on what works for me and my style of shooting.
Thanks everyone for all the help!
"Great Thread, and as Don stated....the magic brush is a must." - Agreed... the brush makes a world of difference.
I didn't know about the good side vs. bad side. With Platine, it's very obvious which side is the right side; with Platinotype, I just assumed it didn't matter because they're both quite smooth. Thanks for pointing that out, Don and Bill.
I have experienced "fuzzy spots" a few times. I found, in my case, they were caused by drying the paper on horizontal screens. As the paper dried, certain areas of the paper would curl, or lift off the screen, and water pooled in the flat areas that were not as dry, creating a fuzzy spot.
I solved this by placing the wet print, straight out of the wash, on a screen set at a forty-five degree angle. After 10 or 15 minutes, the excess water drains off and the print can then go onto the final drying rack. My final drying rack is set at a slight angle, so excess water drains to one edge. One word of caution, if I leave a print on the 45 degree screen too long, eventually it will slide down to the floor, possibly damaging the print.