Not having seen your POP prints Joe, can you attain the typical blacks and white that Azo can produce consistently or is the coloration dark purple? The ability to get POP in 11x4 and larger sizes could get me going in this direction. What are you using as a UV light souce? A contact printing frame with springs or a vacuum frame?
Do you have a link to some of your POP prints? I'm also curious about your light source, specifically, have you used a metal halide or mercury vapor bulb?
The colors I do get consitently that match my azo prints are on the greenish side of azo's spectrum, the hue I usually aim for. Again, this is because of the first fixing bath. I mix 240 grams of sodium thiosufite to a liter as a sort of stock solution. For the working solution I'll use 300ml of that to 200ml of water. As it starts to age the colors become more and more vibrant.
After just looking at prints I made last night, there isn't a hint of purple in them. When going into that first fixing bath they had a very dark purple, but after 4 minutes it's gone.
In my post yesterday I said that it'll move through yellow first; I said that backwards. In my experience this how it happens: After a couple seconds in the weak fixer you'll see the typical pop color intensify, then after a couple minutes it'll start to vanish in the lighter tones (and eventually in the darker tones), then green will move into the lighter tones. If you keep going the green will move into the lower tones and you'll start to get yellow in the lighter tones. I can't stress enough that you've go to print heavy.
If I were to put one of my azo prints next to one of my pop prints, color-wise, I doubt one could tell the difference.. d-max, and the depth of the shadows (just glow overall) is another story. Pop's tones, especially the lower ones, are much richer than my azo's tones.
It's also possible to get platinum/palladium print looking colors with expired pop, but I'm not about to go off on that tangent.
I'm using homemade spring back frames. On my 8x10 negatives the prints are just as sharp as prints I've made using a vacume frame (actually sharper, since I develop my film semi-stand now).
As a light source I'm using the sun and blb tubes for less contrast, and open sky or cloudy days or printing in the shade for more contrast. I've never used metal halide or mercury bulbs.
I don't have any prints online that you could look at, but I'll send the two of you some if you give me your mailing address. I'm heading to Italy tonight and won't be back for two weeks, but I'll get them in the mail soon as I return.
There is a draw back to using this paper... no burning/dodging (of course there can be if you have the patience). I look at this as a blessing though, seeing I want to spend as little time in the darkroom as possible.
Michael, I hope you do start going in this direction. I'd love to keep this paper around as long as possible. Can't promise you'll have success right away, I didn't, but I'll give you as many pointers as it takes to get you there. I can promise that you'll have a number of unexpected pleasant suprises though.
I've seen them. They're unbelievable. I've held his up alongside a Linda Connor print. In comparison hers was pure mud.
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
Joe has taken POP to a new level. Truly.
Joe, I gotta see one of these. Seriously. I love POP but have not seen the depth you mention.
Mark, I've seen his prints, and they are gorgeous. His combination of semi stand development, POP, and platinum toning is what sets his prints apart of from all the other POP prints out there. Though, what his prints do lack is a smooth transition of tone-- something I think is the problem with semi-stand development-- but that is something that is completely subjective.
It's also an aesthetic choice on Joe's part. I've never known him to show us anything that isn't exactly the way he wants it.
Originally Posted by Richard Boutwell
Maybe you've seen others that I haven't seen, but the ones he brought to Louisville seemed smooth enough to me.
I intend to start working with POP soon using TMY negatives developed in Harvey's. That combination is at the other end of the smoothness spectrum from the Tri-X / Pyrocat semi-stand methodology.
The bottom line is that I wouldn't have considered using it again without having seen Joe's prints. And I used to use POP a lot before I discovered Azo.
Forgive me naive questions, please, but what is Harvey's?
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
And are you saying that Tri-X/P-cat in semistand does not give smooth transition of tones? I have never used semistand, I am using rotary now, but I would like to try and currently I am reading and reading and reading about that :)
The official name is "Harvey's 77 Panthermic" and it is a proprietary film developer that utilizes glycerin and p-phenylenediamine (ppd). The panthermic reference means that it can be used at a wide range of tempratures from 55 degrees to 100 degrees F but is best at about 75 degrees F. If is a replenishing developer that means that after a certain amount of film has been developed, a portion of the developer can be dumped out and a similar volume can be added to bring the developer back to its original developing strength. I can be kept with replenishment for an extended period of time in large developing tanks or poured into trays for use. There is an article on this developer at unblinkingeye.com.
Originally Posted by chrobry
I think you mean "Harvey's 777 Panthermic," and it is thought that it might contain glycin (I don't know that this is known for sure), not glycerin.
Thank you, I found some more information but I would be very much interested to hear some opinions from the users,
Thanks for the correction David. It is Harvey's 777 Panthermic and it is thought to contain glycin not glycerin. My bad.
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb