Re: POP process

  I like it because it's simple. I can get images with the least amount
of work, time, and involvement. They look nice, vintage, and warm.

I bought a box of paper from Chicago Albumen over a year ago, and it's
still good, though I am aware it may well not be soon if I decide to
use it again. I just don't have much time for printing and my interests
are many. It's a good process for that. I'm always on the lookout for
other ways of toning it that allow the toner to sit for a while before
I use it.

Gold made me some wonderful results, but I end up wasting quite a bit
of it.

JD
On Nov 11, 2004, at 2:36 AM, Susan Huber wrote:

>
> Hi Diana,
> Thanks for the comments.
> Sometimes I think I am masochisticas the POP is really tricky and iI
> think it is a recent problem. I wrote to Albumen Works about this 2
> years ago and they were upset I even implied that the paper might have
> changed in substance. The paper now goes off within 2-3 months if you
> don't put it in the refrigerator.
> I even bought a small refrigo. to see if that helps. I also get bleach
> spots occasionally which have lessened when I bought a print washer. I
> believe the emulsion soaks in more chemicals than any other paper.
> I like POP because it is closest to Albumen in look and it is very
> sharp unlike Platinum. Another favouright is Cyanotype. It is easy and
> takes a min. ofchemicals.
> Good luck and keep us informed.
> Susan
> www.susanhuber.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Diana Bloomfield
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: POP process
>
> Hi Susan,
>
> Thanks for your email. I've used POP quite a lot, got good results,
> and really like it (though I do think it's expensive, a bit tricky,
> and not sure I like it as much as some other processes). I was mainly
> interested in the selenium toner comment, because--as I mentioned--the
> folks at CAW really advised against it--so I was curious. I try to
> stay away from selenium, but I guess at some point, I was thinking how
> much easier it would be to use instead of gold toner(?) Again, the
> people at CAW acted like I might go to hell if I attempted that
>
> As far as the white gloves, let me clarify-- I only meant that
> wearing white cotton gloves to initially handle the paper (when it
> comes right out of the box) is a very good idea. I made the mistake of
> handling a few pieces without gloves, and the fingerprints will
> definitely show up, no matter how gingerly you think you are handling
> the paper. I even tried holding the paper with latex or vinyl gloves,
> and I found that left a mark as well. But...obviously, I don't wear
> the white cotton gloves once I'm toning...I do switch to the latex at
> that point.
>
> My own question simply had to do with selenium. I, too, live in a
> humid area..and as I mentioned before, this paper will not last on the
> shelf any time at all--without proper storage--as you say.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Diana
> On Nov 9, 2004, at 8:29 AM, Susan Huber wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Diana,
> I use the POP exclusively- sorry; I didn't answer quickly, was working
> (off island and   away from  home).
> I don't know about using white gloves in the toner etc. but; I have
> found the platinum toner from Bostick and Sullivan to be good along
> with the gold toners from the Formulary.
> Next time I will try to get gold chloride from chemical supply places
> near my area (Vacouver Island, BC) because the US gov't is cracking
> down on chemicals and other things that might go .ballistic... (?)
> The Formulary has suggested Selenium but I don't think it would work
> well.
> I think the POP goes off very quickly in humid areas (where I live
> near the sea is a no-no)- so; place the paper in a small refrigerator
> if possible. And, use quickly. The consistency is the real problem but
> also its charm.
> The hypo must be a bit old (like a week) or; it bleaches.
> Good luck,
> Susan
> www.susanhuber.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Diana Bloomfield
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 6:09 AM
> Subject: Re: POP process
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in the selenium toning as well. I probably wouldn't use
> it, but I'm curious about the use of it for POP prints. I have used
> POP and gold toned, and don't really have anything to add to what
> everybody else has said here. I liked it very much and thought they
> made for rich prints with interesting tones... and found that, for me,
> the end result was much better if I really over-exposed the image
> initially. And wear the white gloves, definitely. And unless you have
> good storage for the paper, it does go bad fairly quickly, I think.
> I'm in a humid climate, and I couldn't allow a box to sit on a shelf
> for any real length of time. And when gold-toning these (as with any
> toning, I guess), but more so with this...really stay there and
> agitate the tray..definitely keep the print moving. Just my
> experience. I liked the results, but I do think it's expensive.
>
> And someone on this list in the last few months gave a link to Linda
> Connor's POP printing method, which I thought was interesting, so it's
> in the archives somewhere. Maybe they sent it back in the summer?
>
> But I'm curious about the selenium, because I had wondered if you
> could use selenium to tone these, instead of the gold, and the folks
> at Chicago Albumen Works strongly advised against it and pretty much
> implied I would have a ruined print on my hands if I tried it. I never
> bothered, since I didn't have any on hand anyway, but I had just
> wondered..
>
> Diana
>
> On Nov 8, 2004, at 8:44 AM, Jeff Sumner wrote:
>
>
> Would you please elaborate on the Selenium toning that you do? I’ve
> run out of gold toner far in advance of my POP and I’d like to use the
> rest. My experimentation with POP and selenium toning turned the paper
> completely black.
>
> JD
>
>
>
> From: David & Jan Harris <david.j.harris2@ntlworld.com>
> Reply-To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:02:11 +0000
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Subject: Re: POP process
>
> Donna
>
> I have very recently started using POP paper, here are a few
> observations:
>
> 1. Toning is (near) vital with this paper. Without toning the result
> is a strong orange/brown which does not suit too many images, and
> exposure times may be excessive due to bleaching in the fixer.
>
> 2. Very different results, particularly in image colour, but also in
> contrast range, exposure requirements and possibly tonality can be
> obtained using different toning strategies. This is a benefit (wide
> range of possible results) but also may be the paper's achilles heel
> (difficult to achieve consistency due to toner exhaustion).
>
> 3. The "classic" toning involves gold toning before fixing. This
> reduces the bleaching effect, so keeps exposure times short. I have
> found it to give cool tones in the highlights and brown midtones and
> shadows at short toning times, up to overall cool tone with longer
> exposure times. Dmax with this toning is around log 2.1.
>
> 4. I have tried palladium toning but wasn't happy with the results
> (some prints failed to clear in the highlights, and it was hard to
> achieve a high Dmax).
>
> 5. Selenium toning (using dilute toner) after fixing works quite well,
> giving a more neutral colour (slightly warm highlights, slightly cool
> shadows). The bleaching effect in the fix is more significant, so
> exposure seems to be three times that required for gold toning before
> fixing, this does still give a good Dmax however.
>
> 6. Care needs to be taken not to handle the paper, I use cotton gloves
> and process in one tray to avoid handling during processing.
>
> 7. The only strategy for contrast control is to change the toning.
> This may be a problem for you if your nagatives are fixed, the
> negative contrast and characteristics might not suit the paper. The
> only thing to do is to try it!
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>  
> From:  DHTalman@aol.com  
>  
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca  
>  
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 3:16  AM
>  
> Subject: Re: POP process
>  
>
> Hello Shannon,
>
> Thanks so much for  responding to my question.  You are the only one
> who responded   Perhaps that means few people use POP paper.
>
> You mentioined Azo  paper.  From the web, I see that it's a paper
> Kodak makes and that it  comes in #2 and #3 contrasts.  It is glossy?
>
> What can you recall  about the problems of exposing the POP paper?  I
> recall you said that it  had been a couple of years since you have
> used it.  And also, you  mentioned that you had problems toning it,
>  What were the  problems?
>
> Why did you begin to use the POP paper and what made you stop  using
> it?
>
> I'll be very grateful for your help.
>
> Donna
> www.donnahamiltalman.com <http://www.donnahamiltalman.com>   
>
>
>
>
> <promodll.gif>
>
>
>
> <promodll.gif>
>
Received on Thu Nov 11 20:34:16 2004