Re: Changes in Arches?

From: Mike Klemmer ^lt;>
Date: 11/27/04-02:48:09 PM Z
Message-id: <000801c4d4c2$67c34190$6501a8c0@downstairs>

I don't have a deep experience with Arches, but I've been using the 90# HP
watercolor paper for kallitypes with great success. I haven't noticed any
sizing issues with my work, but I occasionally get a print where the nap has
been raised slightly, producing white spots on the print.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 10:54 AM
Subject: Changes in Arches?

> Arches Aquarelle 140# HP was my paper of choice until around the turn of
> the century, when it started exhibiting strange flaws and patterns in
> the internal sizing that became evident when the coating was applied and
> remained to become part of the print. This was paper right from the
> factory, not soaked or given extra size by me. Here's an example of the
> effect:
> I had to abandon the paper for that reason, but have mourned it since,
> as I've never found another paper that suited me quite so well. The only
> two things I didn't like about it were (1) that it raised a significant
> surface texture after soaking, almost like a cold-press surface, that I
> found more and more objectionable as I went through a period of printing
> with ever more subtle tonal gradations and delicate color, and (2) it
> stank like a fetid swamp when wet.
> Recently, to fill out a paper order, I ordered two sheets of Arches
> 140#, just to see how it was doing. What I got seems like a different
> paper altogether. It feels thinner and crisper than the old paper; it
> keeps a nice smooth surface after soaking, and --wonder of wonders--
> that familiar oldy- moldy Arches odor is completely absent.
> I'm wondering if anyone knows anything about changes in
> Arches. Kate, are you still printing with Arches, and have you noticed a
> difference? This is without a doubt a different paper than the Arches I
> knew up to four or five years ago.
> There is another paper, "Arches Bright White" listed by Daniel Smith,
> but I don't think they sent me this by accident, because the paper I got
> is the same warm tone of the old Arches, not a brighter white as one
> would expect from the name of the other paper.
> Katharine
> Ryuji Suzuki wrote:
> >
> > From: Katharine Thayer <>
> > Subject: Re: What/how is Magnani Pescia sized with?
> > Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:50:34 +0000
> >
> > > [...] but I do know that whatever it is, the paper is hardly sized
> > > at all. Some sources classify it as a waterleaf (waterleaf being a
> > > paper with little or no sizing, making it very absorbent but not
> > > always amenable to soaking (think blotters)) and the Daniel Smith
> > > catalog says, "Because Pescia is very lightly sized, dampen it with
> > > an atomizer rather than soaking."
> >
> > When I compared side by side with Rives BFK, Magnani Pescia absorbed
> > significantly less sizing solution. The paper also keeps its body when
> > it's wet, while Rives becomes soft and harder to handle. Surface
> > ablation is not a problem for me because I apply sizing solution which
> > is a mixture of gelatin and emulsion of poly(vinyl alcohol-co-vinyl
> > acetate) and ethyl methacrylate (it's actually a proprietary product
> > Primal AC-33 from Kremer, which I think is a repackaged Rhoplex AC-33
> > from Rohm and Haas. I don't know exact content of AC-33 but think this
> > is close to what it is.) mixed with glut, antifoaming agent, and
> > Triton X-100, coated with a fine grain foam roller. It's pretty tough
> > once it's dried. The surface retains the paper's texture (slight, very
> > fine cross-hatch-like texture in Pescia), and it's not gritty at all
> > like gesso. Also the paper curls less when drying compared to plain
> > gelatin size. (I dont know if this works for gum but works great for
> > silver gelatin.)
> >
> > Rives looks differently when wet. As I apply the sizing solution,
> > "pressure mark" appears. Wet paper changes its apparent "opacity" or
> > "reflectance" (I use double quotes here because I don't know what's
> > the right word) where pressure is applied. Plus the paper soaks so
> > much solution and is much slower to dry. The paper loses body and easy
> > to get kink marks.
> >
> > There are probably many other differences but the way they absorb
> > differently made me think Pescia is somewhat sized, though maybe not
> > as much as Artistico, and that may be the primary reason for this
> > difference.
> >
> > I size full 22x30 sheet and dry in a flat file cabinet (the ultimate
> > intent is to make prints of this size). While sizing and also while
> > processing the exposed prints, I find Pescia and Artistico much easier
> > to handle than Rives as well.
> >
> > I'm reluctant to comment about the surface of Pescia v. Artistico
> > because I only used cold press for Artistico so far (my local store
> > doesn't carry Artistico HP). But that would be the next comparison
> > before buying either paper in bulk.
> > --
> > Ryuji Suzuki
> > "People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient,
> > then repent." (Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl, 1986)
Received on Sat Nov 27 14:48:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:34 AM Z CST