Negatives for POP without (over)development?

[laverdure]

I understand that the most common way to get printable negs for POP is to (over)develop. I'm in the habit of being lazy, and using diafine, or stand folgernol, for my developing, neither of which are particularly suited to pushing contast... Not that I can't change my ways, but for educational reasons if nothing else, need I? Is there some other (easy) way, whether through film choice or exposure or what have you, which would allow me to get decent results without my having to develop finicky developing habits?

Thanks for your forbearance in advance... It's just that I'm approaching a darkroom free period.... and I'm lazy

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, you could intensify your negatives to get them closer, but this seems more work than just using extended development time, which wouldn't be "overdevelopment," but proper development for contrast required by the print medium.

[laverdure]

Thanks, and yes, intensifying would be more work, but is definitely a valid answer to my question. Extended development is what I meant by (over)development. Tangentially, is folgernol, under any development regime, capable of producing negatives suitable for POP?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd be surprised if you could get enough contrast with folgernol for POP.

[jnanian]

i have experimented a little bit adding little things here and there
with caffenol c --- one thing i do to boost contrast is add about 1oz +
of straight print developer.

the staining was still really nice from the coffee, and the ansco130 somewhat
boosted the contrast --

i don't have any other "normal" developer so i can't suggest anything but ansco130 ...


i didn't do this with sheets via stand, but with a unicolor drum with roll film
... i hope to have some results with sheet film soon ...

john

[Vaughn]

If there is still any around, copy film is great for an extended contrast range. A little slow and orthochromatic, but nice stuff.

I have used it for making carbon prints.

vaughn

[PBrooks]

What film are you using now?
I find that I get better results (normal) development from HP5 or FP4 than others.
Phillip

[Murray@uptowngallery]

How do the Caffenol variants play with drum/tube environments...where there is a lot more potential for oxidation?

Someone had suggested to me they work better with tray, even stand developing, but I have been meaning to ask someone this.

Thanks

[Dwane]

I understand that the most common way to get printable negs for POP is to (over)develop. I'm in the habit of being lazy, and using diafine, or stand folgernol, for my developing, neither of which are particularly suited to pushing contast... Not that I can't change my ways, but for educational reasons if nothing else, need I? Is there some other (easy) way, whether through film choice or exposure or what have you, which would allow me to get decent results without my having to develop finicky developing habits?

Thanks for your forbearance in advance... It's just that I'm approaching a darkroom free period.... and I'm lazy

What I do for cyanotypes might also work for POP. When I want to make a cyanotype print from a normally developed negative I first make a contrasty print on variable contrast RC paper. I then contact print the RC print onto film to produce my negative, and use this negative to make the cyanotype. I use Fine Grain Positive Sheet film because it was inexpensive when I bought it, and you can also tweak the contrast of the film somewhat by how long you develop it. The fact that you can use it with a safelight in the darkroom is also nice.

[Ole]

The "simplest" way to get the extremely long scale needed for POP is to either use a staining developer, or do the bleach-and-redevelopment trick with a strongly staining (re)developer.

Redeveloping has the great advantage that the negative can be used for "normal" printing first, and then redeveloped for POP if that agrees better with the image.