It was a repeat of an experiment I did years ago, and it worked just the same then. I haven't tried fixing or toning, that was as far as I got, but it seems enough to be worth further experimentation. The density wasn't as high or the result as rich as the Kentmere POP, but it was quite fast, and on the reasonably bright day I tried it, got to it's full potential density in about 2-3 minutes.
In the prolonged absence of any real POP it's got to be worth more testing, maybe it could be tweaked to provide a real substitute?
I knew I kept that post it note around for a reason.
In the apug galleries, look up the work of lasse Mellberg. (Do a search by name in the gallery.) In 2002, he posted a number of photos created using enlarging paper soaked in a solution to make them POP. The first photo in his gallery is labeled "August 2002" and is of a flower taken in his kitchen. Under the comments to that photo, he states that he used Kodak Medalist Paper soaked in a 10% sodium nitrite solution and dried, then used as POP after that. The prints are very nice.
I thought the process was interesting, so I put a post it note about it on my wall, and haven't had time to try it. The note was on my wall for several years.
You might try contacting Lasse directly to find out his methods. I had never heard of sodium nitrite being used for photographic purposes. I assume he had the correct chemical, however. Perhaps some of the chemistry experts here on Apug could shed light on how this works.
I thought the bit about sodium nitrite was interesting, so I googled it a bit and found that there may be some precedent. The American Chemical Society's web site seems to have publications whose contents show up on Google, but that can't actually be viewed in their entirety, and one of these came up in my search:
The Photographic Plate VIII. Wilder D. Bancroft. J. Phys. Chem., 1912, 16 (2), 89-125
The hit was on the sentence "Moistening the photobromide film with sodium nitrite also causes a rapid and intense darkening in the light." I must say that sounds like P.O.P. to me, but I can't get Google to spit out enough context to be helpful.
Presumably anyone with access to a university library can turn up the paper and find out if there are any more details. (I wonder how to fix such prints, for instance.)
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
You might want to look at this earlier posting -
Originally Posted by Allen Friday
Here are links to scans of the test prints;
[links removed while technical problems being resolved]
Last edited by Martin Reed; 05-27-2009 at 05:54 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Tech. problem
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Those links don't work Martin
Intense work is going on amongst the backroom boffins here - some problem with the website we're lodging the files on. Normal service resumed asap.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Ok, here they are;
Straight print using Galerie as POP
Galerie as POP with 5 mins soak in 2% silver nitrate, rinsed & dried
I didn't use much agitation - the marks at the edge seem to indicate this is a bit critical.
Last edited by Martin Reed; 05-27-2009 at 07:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.
The chemical options so far for making a POP from a normal paper seems to be:
10% sodium nitrite
10% potassium nitrate
2% silver nitrate
3% potassium iodide with development in metol/sodium sulfite
Citric acid or Sodium citrate
Any more options?
“Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu
Fascinating stuff. I will be interested in further results. Thanks!
Thanks for reporting your results on my suggested test!
For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!