From: Richard Sullivan FRPS (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 06/27/01-01:50:21 PM Z
Kerik,
Been spending the day at the computer -- doing APIS badges etc. I do have
another life but I need a break once in a while. Bostick has me on a short
leash today so I can't go buzzing about town so I'll bug the folks here.
If we are talking about Kodak Studio Proof that was owl residue
masquerading as POP paper. It was a "proof" paper as the box said. I worked
back in 1982 with Karl Struss. Struss was published in 1905 in Camera
Works. Now if that don't shake you up! He was 96 at the time and lived to
be close to 100. His wife died a week after he did and she was about the
same age. Cool! Not her dying but that they lived so long.
Stephen White was setting up Karl's estate and was to be his
executor. Karl was commissioned to print a limited edition portrait of
Stephen and his wife Mus for Stephen's Gallery's 10th birthday party. I was
the gopher and assistant for Karl.
Whew! Did he blow a storm over the Studio Proof paper. "Get me some real
POP paper, this is ()*_)(&^%# " and some untranslatable German flashed
about leaving flaming streaks in the air.
"This is proof paper!" It was all there was that I could find at the time
but he sure wasn't happy with it.
Proofing POP was designed for portrait photogs to make a quick dry contact
print and send it to the sitter for approval. Since it was not fixed and
toned, it faded after a short while. Some Napster like folks at the time
would have them fixed and toned by an unscrupulous darkroom owner but since
it was a little muddy that too wasn't an answer.
Trivia:
I once read that in the late 1800's NYNY had one portrait studio for every
1000 residents. Said to be perhaps twice that many as many didn't get
listed in the City Directories as they were small neighborhood firms who
didn't buy space in the directories.
--Dick
--Dick
At 02:13 PM 6/27/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Carl,
>
>You're absolutely right. Today's Centennial is likely to be very different
>from older versions of POP. The only other one I used was the previous
>version of this paper (~10 years ago?) that was made by a company in
>France. I believe the current paper is made by Kentmere in England.
>
>My only recollection of the older version of the paper was that I didn't
>like the results! Very inconsistent, especially at the toning step.
>Admittedly, 10 years ago I was a beginner at all this stuff and the
>quality of my negs from back then were also all over the map.
>
>Kerik
>
> >Kerik,
> >I wonder how much variation there is between POP
> >papers? Centenial seems to be the only one around,
> >but perhaps it's quite different from other
> >previously available materials? Glad you have
> >current experience with it.---Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST