Buxton vs Arches platine: less exposure time?

[reinier_de_vlaam]

I did some tests with Buxton paper from Ruscombe papermill, which is

promoted as 'the' paper for alternative prints. Sofar I was usings

arches platine.

 

Now I found that with Buxton I needed much less (50%) time for

exposure of my palladium prints then with Arches. I think this is a

bid odd. How can a different paper be of such a big influence?

[silent1]

My first guess is that the Buxton paper has more sizing, so the platinum sensitizer is more on the surface and less down in the paper; that would mean a) you'd have a thinner layer, so less self-masking as the image prints out, and b) you'd have less masking by the paper itself as well. Those two factors could easily add up to one stop difference in speed.

 

You could probably test by washing the Buxton paper for a half hour in hot running tap water, which will tend to wash out starch sizing; let the paper dry fully, and sensitize as you have before. If that returns your exposures to close to what they were with the Arches Platine, then it's probably reasonable to assume sizing is the difference -- and that you could get a similar increase in speed on the Platine by sizing before you sensitize.

 

However -- a surface image might be more prone to damage with handling of the print than one that's more embedded in the paper...

[briant_lee]

fff