Jim, you're too much. Thanks for your comments, I love your support. I hope you do start using pop again. I just had a look at one of your photographs from the monestary, it is beautiful (777 does sing), and it's on canadian azo 2 if I remember correctly? I printed a couple negatives of mine on pop that I made for that particular batch of azo (do you remeber my 4x5 sand dunes?). The azo prints have the life sucked out of them when held next to their counterpart on pop.
While I couldn't imagine your print getting any better on azo, I think we both might be suprised at how it prints on pop.
Could you give me a call when you have a free moment, I'd like to talk to you about 777.
As for Linda Connor, personally I wouldn't call her print mud. I think it's beautiful, it's just really different from mine.
I think you sent me an email, Mark? I erased a lot of spam in my inbox and I must have erased yours and a few other important emails haphazardly. So, if you'd like to see an example of what I'm doing, could you (and the others who sent me their addresses) write again?
Chrobry, the prints other's have seen of mine were tmy negatives, not tri-x. I have used tri-x/semi stand/pop, and it was actually a little smoother than tmy, but that could just be the way I was exposing and processing it.
You don't have to worry about not getting a smooth transition of tone using semi stand. There is a distinctly different look when using semi stand however (there had better be, seeing I'm in the darkroom processing film for two hours at a time); I guess if I had to label that look, I'd call it 'clearer'.
I was reading and reading too. Fortunately I'm friends with Steve Sherman, so I was also calling and calling. He was a huge help to me. If you've tired of searching things online, give me a call. I might be able to get you going in the right direction relatively quickly. 267.772.0827
