Kodak Studio Proof

[Philippe Grunchec]

An good friend of mine (the famous printer Philippe Salaün) gave me recently an old box of Kodak Studio Proof, and told me it was POP. But the inscriptions on the box talk of "Enlarging (...)". What is it really?

 

[Mike Wilde]

Chloride paper is my guess

I was into a 1963 photo encyclopedia series last night, since my wife's show did not interest me. It seems to me that the name rings a bell from the section that I was reviewing on contact printing. Contact papers could be used for enlarging, but due to thier low sesitivity, they needed long exposures. I beleive this is what gave rise to the invention of glass neg carriers; the light would be on for long enough for the neg to 'pop' due to heating from the enlarger bulb. .

 

[scherbis]

Actually POP stands for printing out paper. This was originally used for proofs for studios. It only lasted a week or two before it faded. It is still used today, but it is gold toned before fixing which allows the image to last. I've used a little of the Chicago Albumen Works stuff using digital negatives contact printed to it. Since it is a printing out paper, the image forms during the exposure and you develop it when you think it is right. Actually I think you may have to expose it until it starts to solarize to get the correct image. We used a bank of UV lights for the exposure, but you could put it in a contact frame out in the sun.

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

I haven't been very clear, I'm afraid! I just wanted to know if this paper is really Printing out paper, like the Centennial I generally use...

 

[Jerevan]

Found this tidbit: "Gelatin Silver Chloride Printing-Out Paper was introduced onto the market in 1884. In 1892 Kodak introduced its own version of POP under the name of Solio, and continued manufacturing a version of POP up until 1987 when it withdrew its last POP Kodak Studio Proof from the market." From http://www.drcowles.ca/tech.html

So, indications are that it really is a POP paper, from looking around a bit on the 'net.

 

[df cardwell]

"Kodak Studio Proof Paper
is a smooth, single-weight printing-out paper for sunlight or arc-light. depth of printing is judged visually. Reddish tone is not permanent." Kodak Photographic Paper Samples, 1961.P7-434

 

[Mark Sawyer]

Yes, it's a printing out paper similar to the Chicago Albumen Works POP. I remember it always being on single-weight paper though, where the CAW paper is double weight. It's self-masking, so works best with a higher-than-normal contrast negative. It has a nice reddish purple hue which isn't permanent, even if the print is kept in the dark. If you fix it to make it permanent, it turns an ugly rusty orange color. It can, however, be toned, usually in gold chloride before fixing, if I remember right, giving a nice and not-overwhelming purpleish-blue color. I've heard of it being selenium toned too, but don't know much about it. Linda Connor did much of her early soft-focus work on studio proof paper.

I'm not sure how well it ages, but would be curious to hear if yours is still good.

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

Thanks a lot§
I will keep you informed! I have a Polaroid 4x5 (55) under the lamp...

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

The result is not great... Lack of contrast, overall orange tone (although fixed in gold for a -very - long time), paper looks 'mottled' (I don't know if the term is correct). Too old?

 

[df cardwell]

Have you seen this ?

http://www.albumenworks.com/printing-out-paper.html

 

[henrysamson]

I used the stuff in the 70's. We had a machine that had two sets of reels and a UV light source. The 70mm B&W portrait negatives would enter the machine and be brought into contact with the negs over a drum and be contact printed on the studio proof paper by the UV light. Exposure was determined by the speed. A 100 foot roll took about an hour and then it would be cut into sets for individual subjects and put into a light tight envelope which warned the client not to open in bright light. The image was reddish and would fade very quickly in the sun or bright fluorescent lighting. The ultimate proof . . . the client had to buy finished prints as the proof would fade away.

It also came in 8x10 sheets and I tried it with Large format negatives. Some of which I fixed and still have. The image is still of similar tone and it does not have a great dmax.

 

[Jim Noel]

I used to get those proofs from the photographer and I would fix them in the Kodak fixer of the day. I couldn't afford to gld tone them. My sister still has some of those prints from our youth including those of our High School graduation in 1945.