Re: Linda Connor's process

I would like to thank Robin Dreyer for starting this thread, and in
particular, the reference to the Chicago Albumen Works. Going to Chicago
Albumen Works's website made my day/week/month!

Back in 1981, I found a box of Kodak, 8 x 10, single-weight POP, 100
sheets, that was nominally out-of-date, and thus available for cheap. I
went through about half the box, making mistakes, experimenting like
crazy, using Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner and trying gold chloride toning,
making prints from Polaroid Type 55 negatives and 2 1/4 roll film. Had
some minor successes that I wish I'd kept for myself, but I gave them
all away (I have chairs and tables for REALLY cheap, to refer to another
thread of late!)...

I really liked working with it but hated using the single weight, got
away from it for a few years when I took a hiatus from all photography
and then the paper was truly out of date...and by this point Kodak was
no longer making it, so I chalked it up to the decline of yet another
amazing historical process.

Returning to photography about 10 years ago, my image-making has since
been focused on several other narrow areas (not necessarily alt-photo,
but all photographically-driven) and learning that I can get POP again
came like a thunderbolt on Saturday evening! I am looking forward to
using POP again...

Since one of the areas I am striving to learn more about is the use of
digitally-produced (ink-jet)negatives with alt-processes (in particular,
platinum/palladium), I have to ask if anyone is using ink-jet negatives
for working with POP? If so, what is your workflow like? Any
recommendations on printer/ink/transparency combinations? I'm thinking
of dedicating an older Epson Photo Stylus 750 to producing enlarged
ink-jet negatives, since it's sitting around the house...

Thanks!

Dennis Moser
Received on Mon Jul 12 08:22:34 2004