margins for alt process prints?

[CreationBear]

I'm (slowly!:)) accumulating supplies to try some kallitypes this summer and wanted to know y'all's approach to matching paper size to the negatives you'll be using. Or to put it another way, is it feasible to print an 8x10 negative on 8x10 paper, or would I be better served moving up to 11x14 in order to have a more manageable "work space" for getting the sensitized area down/manipulating masks, etc.?

A second question is more about aesthetics/presentation: in combing through all the threads about alt processes here, I see that many of you do leave ample margins when you print, e.g. printing WP negatives on 11x14. The question I have is once you have the print in-hand, what's the next step? I could see dry mounting the print and not really worrying about matting/framing for informal display "'round the house," but am curious if there's another option I'm missing.

[Jim Noel]

I always leave an ample margin around the image to negate the possibility of fingerprints in the image.
I NEVER dry mount an alternative print. I hold it on the backing board with corner mounts which I make from lightweight rag paper, and hold down with Magic Tape. No tape or other glues touch the print.

[CreationBear]

Excellent, that's very helpful--I was thinking that 8x10 might represent a false economy. The corner mounts sound like a neat idea as well.:)

[martiansea]

I prefer to print an 8x10 on 11x14, 5x7 on 8x10, etc... I agree that it makes it much easier to handle and work with, and also less chance of uneven coating in the image area. My experience (always brush coating) is that often the coating will be most uneven toward the edges, so the more margin you have away from that uneven area, the better.

[CreationBear]

I prefer to print an 8x10 on 11x14, 5x7 on 8x10, etc....

Thanks for the tips--my contact frame should handle 11x14 with no issues, though I believe I did run across a gentleman who said he gets sharper results if he trims his paper 10x12...perhaps that would be a happy medium.

[Alan9940]

Like Jim, I, too, always leave ample margin around the actual image for the reasons he states. Since I print pt/pd, I, also, like having the extra room for brush marks.

[Vaughn]

I also make my own corners, using acid-free paper, and linen tape to hold them down...not too tight against paper to give the paper a little room to shrink/swell with changes in humidity. Most watercolor papers and heavier papers like COT320 and HPR stay flat if given the chance.

I bought a large roll of HPR (50" x 10 meters)...I can cut it to any size I want. I print camera negatives from 2 cm square to 11"x14" in size -- including 4x10 and 5.5x14. Once you find a paper the both works well and looks good, buy a bunch of it in a size that will be the most economical...which might be rolls or larger sheets to cut down.

[CreationBear]

I bought a large roll of HPR (50" x 10 meters)

Alan, Vaughn: thanks gents, I was actually laughing at myself for sweating things that no doubt come naturally to y'all visual artists, especially when it comes to fabricating customized solutions.:)

[BrianShaw]

I’ve done it both ways and most often print on paper the same size as the negative. The challenge printing on oversized paper is making sure that the image is centered and square. It must be possible because o the RTS do it, but I’ve had enough failures in that aspect that I avoid the challenge. Apparently I need more practice and experience!

[martiansea]

Now that I think about it, I think 11x14 is a good size to go for if you want to stock up and not have to get several sizes. 1/2 of an 11x14 works really well for 5x7 and 1/4 is good for 4x5; so, from this one sheet you can easily cover a variety of sizes and it ends up being very economical with the smaller prints.
When buying the fancy art papers, like Fabriano and Arches, I get the 22x30 size - this seems to be the typical size they run - and you can easily cut this down into the smaller sizes. 1/4 of it is approximately 11x15, so one sheet is like getting 4 11x14s, and you can keep cutting down from there.
Overall favorite paper for a crisp "clean" look is COT 320, and my favorite for an "artsy" textured look is Arches Aquarelle cold press.

[CreationBear]

1/2 of an 11x14 works really well for 5x7


Thanks Brian, IIRC LFPF member Holden Richards gets a 6x6 or 6x8 out of an 8x10 neg onto an 8x10 sheet...y'all might have more manual dexterity than me, though.:)

Martiansea-- thanks for elaborating, I've been pondering which paper to standardize on first, being drawn to HPR just because it seems to have market share. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure after shooting a few 8x10's just for grandiosity's sake ;) I'll use a film splitter in my Sinar Norma and shoot mainly 5x8's while afield.

[martiansea]

Here is an example of a 5x7 printed on 1/2 of an 11x14 sheet, to give an idea of the margins it has. I find this a very comfortable size to work with.
217028
The HPR is a good paper, but it can be a pain with some processes. It seems to have a hard sizing on its surface, that, in my experience, gives "crisp" results with some processes, but gets ugly uneven coating with others. For example, with Kallitypes, I found I had to apply two layers of sensitizer with HPR to get results as good as what I got with one layer on COT 320. But, because of this hard sizing, I found I can do a nice gum print on HPR without the need for additional sizing. I believe Bob Carnie does this as well; in the video he has up where he demonstrates making a gum print, he uses HPR and doesn't make any mention of additional sizing being used.
I'm saying HPR is good, but there's some caveats to watch for regarding the hard sizing. Depending on the process, Tween20 can help. COT 320 has very similar characteristics without the hard surface.

[CreationBear]

with Kallitypes, I found I had to apply two layers of sensitizer with HPR to get results as good as what I got with one layer on COT 320.

Excellent, that's very good to know. The other paper on my radar was Arches Platine, so that might be an option along with the COT 320 until I get my workflow sorted.:)

[martiansea]

I've done one kallitype print on Arches Platine, and it turned out very well.

[Dan Dozer]

One thing I've also done is because I don't like to keep the image margins in my prints (show the brush strokes), I cut some ruby lith masks for my 8 x 10 negatives with different sizes (7 1/2 x 9 1/2 is the standard) and some slightly smaller sizes if I want a small amount of cropping in the image. Just tape the negative to the mask when you do your contact printing and it gives you perfect edges to your prints. This also allows you to over mount a mat that is larger than the image size and sign your prints on the print (hope this makes sense). I work with 11 x 14 paper sizes as well and always use corner mounts for alt prints.

[Greg]

I print whole plate and 8x10 on 11x14 paper. I now use a glass puddle pusher rod exclusively. One time I let a friend borrow my two brushes, and upon their return, they were never the same... With glass rods, cleaning them after use is many, many times easier. Overcoating the format's dimensions I find very aesthetic when I or others lift up the mat. At the bottom of the paper is usually printed technical data along with my signature, title, and date printed. I still have to come up with a consistent way of recording the data. Once air dried, the prints are flattened overnight between four 4-ply archival boards (two above and two below the print) in a Seal press that has been very slightly warmed up only to a little over 100 degrees. Final prints that are keepers are stored in circa 1980s 11x14 Light Impressions white envelopes until they are matted. My initial stack of several hundred of them is getting frightfully low after all these days. I also use them to store 11x14 negatives. Digital negatives are stored between 11x14 2- ply archival boards.

[CreationBear]

Dan, Greg--thanks for the input! I've been mocking up some of the combinations in case I want to change aspect ratios along the way (out of an 8x10 negative)...e.g. for some reason, I'm digging WP on 13x15, but only in portrait orientation, but for some reason my "squares" have to be 7x7 for some reason. :)

Otherwise, I've been pondering the glass rod/brush choice before my next Bostic & Sullivan order--very useful input.

[martiansea]

There is a set of brushes from Royal & Langnickel with the product number "RSET - 9532". It is a set of 3 flat brushes in 1", 2" and 3" sizes with "Gold Taklon" synthetic bristles. I found they work very well and the set is extremely cheap (got mine for less than $10 at Hyatt's). Taklon brushes have a good reputation for not soaking up too much emulsion liquid. You want low absorbency with the brushes, generally. I'm not sure if there is a difference between the gold and white varieties of Taklon in this regard, but it may be they are different because Christina Anderson recommends specifically the white ones. Need to check on that.

The big issue I've found with cheap wood-handled brushes is that eventually the wood starts to shrink away from the ferrule and the whole thing gets loose. My cheap R&L set has started doing this a bit, but hasn't had any problem with getting loose thus far. I drilled hanging holes in the handles so they can hang bristles down to dry, which seems to help with this. I had an extremely cheap one I bought in China that the bristles started falling out in clumps after the wood started to shrink, but it cost me maybe 50 cents so it's hard to complain, LOL. I got one of those seemingly-nice Yasutomo hake brushes from Blick, but it didn't last a year before being ruined. The wood shrank away and revealed a metal ferrule glued inside it (it gives the outward impression of having no such ferrule; it's imbedded in the wood). The wood cracked and split and eventually half of it broke off and the whole ferrule, bristles included, fell out. I was able to rescue it by gluing the ferrule back in, and I now use it as a utility trash brush. It constantly sheds broken off pieces of bristle and absorbed way too much. Avoid that one, and I'd say avoid all natural bristle hake brushes generally because they absorb and shed too much. The R&L Taklon brushes have not been shedding at all.

[CreationBear]

There is a set of brushes from Royal & Langnickel with the product number "RSET - 9532". It is a set of 3 flat brushes in 1", 2" and 3" sizes with "Gold Taklon" synthetic bristles.

Excellent, paddle vs. brush vs. "all of the above" has been on my mind lately--good to know that there are options that allow you to economize somewhere in the alt print world. (I'm imagining all us aesthetes suddenly pouring over Precious Metal ETF's these days...;))

[martiansea]

I tried a glass rod for the first time a couple days ago. The results were not good. I don't know if it was either because I need much more practice or need to use much more emulsion. Seems counterintuitively that it needs more emulsion to get the same coverage as with a brush. Guess I need to keep messing with it. I was trying with cyanotype so I'm not wasting money. I see people in videos just sorta pushing it around; when I tried that, it was a horrible uneven mess. Looks like they're using way more emulsion than me, and then wasting a large portion by having a big puddle on the edge? I can't believe a brush is less waste-y than a rod. I have yet to see a definitive tutorial that gives any insight.
Always learning!

[Jim Noel]

What do you hae under the paper you are attempting to coat? That can make a big difference in their efficiency.

[Vaughn]

If the paper's sizing resists the solution, rod-coating can be more difficult. Part of my routine is to whiggle the rod a little after squirting the solution along its length...so my first pass has solution all along its length. A touch of tween20 can make it much easier in those situations where the first pass has spotty coverage.

Some papers such as Arches can benefit from a first few passes with distilled water to prep the paper.

I have done about four passes with the rod (defines the area nicely), then finish with a damp (not wet) brush -- that works, too. But with Tween20, I have found the brushing is not needed.

When working with platinum and palladium, one can easily refine the number of drops needed to cover with a rod (no unknown amount in the brush) without having a line of solution at the edge to clean up. This amount will change with paper, humidity and the phase of the moon.

[Greg]

I tried a glass rod for the first time a couple days ago. The results were not good. I don't know if it was either because I need much more practice or need to use much more emulsion.

My experiences is to have students practice coating paper using strong (room temperature) black coffee with both a rod and a brush. Most prefer one over the other, with the rod by far more preferred. First 6 times coating a penciled in rectangle on the paper, then switching to eight 1/2" marks outside of the area to be coated. 9 out of 10 students rush coating the paper rather than using slow controlled movements. Personally I like the visual edge effect of a brush over a rod, but use a rod because I seem to have more control and am able to move more slowly. I will demonstrate how to coat paper only once with a rod and once with a brush. From then on the students have to develop their own technique rather than try to duplicate mine. Biggest hurdle is that a lot of students try to hold down the paper with one hand instead of taping down the four corners.

[martiansea]

What do you hae under the paper you are attempting to coat? That can make a big difference in their efficiency.

I had the paper taped directly to glass. I avoid anything under the paper that might have a texture, as I found this causes unevenness with brush coating.

[martiansea]

I was finding that I could only do one pass. And if that one pass didn't cover evenly across, it was failed. Every time I tried to turn it around and do a second pass, the second pass would be extremely uneven and even start to get sticky and not go smoothly and completely messed up anything good from the first pass. This was with cyanotype with a couple different kinds of paper. I've never had an experience like this with a brush.

[martiansea]

If the paper's sizing resists the solution, rod-coating can be more difficult. Part of my routine is to whiggle the rod a little after squirting the solution along its length...so my first pass has solution all along its length. A touch of tween20 can make it much easier in those situations where the first pass has spotty coverage.

Some papers such as Arches can benefit from a first few passes with distilled water to prep the paper.

I have done about four passes with the rod (defines the area nicely), then finish with a damp (not wet) brush -- that works, too. But with Tween20, I have found the brushing is not needed.

When working with platinum and palladium, one can easily refine the number of drops needed to cover with a rod (no unknown amount in the brush) without having a line of solution at the edge to clean up. This amount will change with paper, humidity and the phase of the moon.

I will try dampening the paper and using some Tween 20. Thanks. I hope I can get this figured out. I thought glass rod would be the way to go for very even results, and I'm surprised by how counterintuitive it has been.