On printing out paper: making deep blacks and vibrant highlights

[thomasBP]

Hi,
I am new to this forum. I registered because I see a lot of people here are making their own emulsions, and I have a question regarding the results that you get.

I have just seen an exhibition made on printing out paper, I believe the Kodak Studio Proof was used, and I was blown away by the combination of deep shadows ( though still with details), beautiful mid greys (blue, gold toned of course) and crisp micro contrast with sparkling white on some little areas of the prints - on glossy paper of course.
I have tried to find out online if such a result could be replicated, but most of what I see (it's impossible to get any real idea of a print online of course) as DIY prints seems closer in tone and fashion to old albumen prints, mainly gentle mid greys, in a very painterly way.
(please forgive my english if it's not perfect) ;

I was just wondering who here is making POP paper, and if you have reached a formula that is what closer to what I'd like to do if possible : something closer to a glossy FB print but in a much, much more vibrant way. ? (something the way POP is self masking while darkening probably helps a lot to do.)

I do my own contact prints ( 8x10 ) on foma 131 and adox lupex, and I can't make it both as gentle and crisp as what I see from some POP prints.

Thanks in advance,
thomas.

 

[koraks]

Welcome aboard @thomasBP!

This is probably not what you want to hear, but much of the qualities you like in those prints probably have very little to do with the paper as such, let alone the fact that it was a POP paper. Personally, I think choice of subject matter, lighting, exposure choices and film development are much more relevant factors to focus on, only followed at that point by printing paper and toning choices.

Perhaps you could show us some examples of images that are successful by your criteria, and some unsuccessful attempts. This might enable others to figure out what differences you may be referring to, specifically, and then suggest ways to accomplish what you want.

something closer to a glossy FB print but in a much, much more vibrant way. ? (something the way POP is self masking while darkening probably helps a lot to do.)

What you're describing here seems to fit albumen, but you've just excluded that. I think this illustrates the difficulty of interpreting what you want without more concrete examples.

 

[thomasBP]

Hi,
I know how difficult it is, and how small differences makes everything for one viewer and nothing for the other, so I would have to rely on people giving me the benefit of the doubt, or trying advices no matter how thin.

I think amongst the best exemples of POP that I have seen are Judith Joy Ross's work, that you'll easily find online, but it tells you little about the real prints. In prints, blacks are very deep, but the paper is glossy and maintains a sense of light even when most of the image is grey/greyish. I am spending a lot of time with my prints and in gallery, and there's a quality there that I don't ever see with any other paper, I know the processing and artist makes a lot of difference, but I think I can sort of give each of these steps it's dues. (edit : I have spent a lot of time with subject matter, lighting, exposure choices and film development already too )

But the question could be simply rephrased like this :

Do you have a recepe to suggest for someone who want to make a glossy POP with deep rich black ?
I'll try to get the rest in camera.
thank you.

 

[koraks]

For a deep rich black, regular enlarging papers are very hard to beat with a dmax up to 2.2logD. This is a tall order with any DIY POP paper; the Adox Lupex you've tried is a very good contender and this will be very, very difficult (next to impossible) to achieve in a home lab.

Unless of course 'deep black' is about something entirely else than dmax and the prints you've seen in fact do not really excel in terms of dmax, but have other qualities for which better terms/qualifications exist. So this is not about giving you the benefit of the doubt - this is about trying to understand what you're trying to achieve. I trust that the qualities you see in the prints admire are very real. The question is what those qualities are. "Deep black" is a very subjective term that means something different to different people; for some it means high dmax, for some it may refer to the type of gloss/surface sheen of a paper in combination in areas of high densities, or it may be the differentiation of shadows values, or the image tone in the shadow areas, or...etc. The question is if you can make more specific what you mean.

 

[thomasBP]

Yes, it's hard, and you are nailing the problem here. It's very hard to know describe - or know - what I am hoping for.
I'm still trying to find the good combinaison with lupex, and I am puttting my hope on amidol : it's black indeed and extremly sharp but so far the smooth part lacks there.
Anyway.

I'd say différenciation of shadow values and gloss are the main things there, the gloss part giving a sense of "deep" that is probably not in line with dmax.

 

[retina_restoration]

Yes, it's hard, and you are nailing the problem here. It's very hard to know describe - or know - what I am hoping for.
I'm still trying to find the good combinaison with lupex, and I am puttting my hope on amidol : it's black indeed and extremly sharp but so far the smooth part lacks there.
Anyway.

I'd say différenciation of shadow values and gloss are the main things there, the gloss part giving a sense of "deep" that is probably not in line with dmax.

This may have more to do with your negatives and how they were produced, than the paper you're printing on.

 

[koraks]

This may have more to do with your negatives and how they were produced, than the paper you're printing on.

Yes, I agree.

I'd say différenciation of shadow values and gloss are the main things there, the gloss part giving a sense of "deep" that is probably not in line with dmax.

In terms of gloss, coating your own papers can give you control that's lacking in commercially produced papers. Somewhat thin gelatin layers produce an attractive eggshell gloss that's more subtle than what e.g. Lupex will give you. However, getting the same crisp whites is tricky since it involves (typically) a baryta layer and DIYing that makes for a bit of a project. Even without that complicating factor, don't underestimate the challenge of DIY-ing a POP paper that's qualitatively on par with commercially available products.

Frankly, if I were in your shoes, I'd try to find the commercially made paper that has the most attractive surface sheen for your purposes, and then tailor your negatives and processing to give the tonal rendition that you require. This is a much more feasible and dependable approach than the somewhat random move of DIY-ing a POP paper for reasons that don't really appear to relate to any particular characteristic of such a material.

 

[MattKing]

I would also investigate post-development toning options for modifying the final image tone.
This is something that is really difficult to deal with through the internet!

 

[thomasBP]

I would also investigate post-development toning options for modifying the final image tone.
This is something that is really difficult to deal with through the internet!

Lately my work is toned both in gold and selenium, it s adding a lot - to my eyes - but I’m searching for more.

 

[thomasBP]

Yes, I agree.


In terms of gloss, coating your own papers can give you control that's lacking in commercially produced papers. Somewhat thin gelatin layers produce an attractive eggshell gloss that's more subtle than what e.g. Lupex will give you. However, getting the same crisp whites is tricky since it involves (typically) a baryta layer and DIYing that makes for a bit of a project. Even without that complicating factor, don't underestimate the challenge of DIY-ing a POP paper that's qualitatively on par with commercially available products.

Frankly, if I were in your shoes, I'd try to find the commercially made paper that has the most attractive surface sheen for your purposes, and then tailor your negatives and processing to give the tonal rendition that you require. This is a much more feasible and dependable approach than the somewhat random move of DIY-ing a POP paper for reasons that don't really appear to relate to any particular characteristic of such a material.

Thank you, that’s already a lead : adox sells baryta paper for that exactly, so with what you understand that I have in mind, would that be a solution? And then, would you recommend to try one formula of emulsion more than another - or even a book that specifically discuss this ? I am attracted at least to what you say about a more subtle eggshell gloss.

Foam 131 glossy was wonderful, but now it’s only semi gloss and it’s not the same, though I think I manage to get a lot out of it. Ilford warmtone is a bit hard if not harsh on the highlight. Lupex is super fine but I have to play more with amidol because so far I am not convinced .. and it’s not that glossy either. I am even considering over coating now…

Again, I totally understand every advice telling me that I am wrong and should do otherwise, I got it, but I am willing to try something else than what I do now, and I am searching for any tips in that direction. Plus, I have spent a lot of time playing with other factors already.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Ive been making POP emulsion for 4 years 0m me please

 

[Peter Schrager]

You can get results self coating pop
I do double coat

 

[thomasBP]

I replied to your message, you see it ? As I am new it says I have to wait for 20 messages posted before private messages..

 

[koraks]

I have to wait for 20 messages posted before private messages..

You can send private messages now; the 20-post limit is an automatic anti-abuse measure. I've lifted it on your account.

Peter's suggestions on POP formulas would be more relevant than what I could say on the matter. Given what you've stated, I'd still lean towards an existing product, but it doesn't hurt to try and DIY something and then see how that goes.

In the end, it would surprise me if you ended up realizing you need to take this into a totally different direction, like carbon transfer or one of the other pigment processes, or something else totally removed from the silver gelatin family of processes. You'll only find out if you start trying things, so in that sense, by all means do ignore what I've been recommending and see what options are out there if you take a broader perspective. First and foremost try to identify what it is exactly in prints you like, see if you can put it into words. It'll help lots if you can make it as concrete as possible I think.

 

[thomasBP]

Thank you ! I’ll be a little bit stubborn for now, and I look forward for Peter’s inputs.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Don't really understand why people who don't do this have all the input here. I have 4 years into pop and get great results. I know about all the other alt process methods...understandably everyone wants to help!!

 

[koraks]

Don't really understand why people who don't do this have all the input here

Feel free to chime in; gladly. No need to hide it in PM's either and if you disagree with anything I've said, that's evidently perfectly fine and in fact welcomed.

 

[thomasBP]

The key here is that silver chloride POP tonality can largely exceed conventional silver gelatin, but the question is : can handmade POP be close to what kodak, kentemere or chicago albumen were producing?

 

[koraks]

can handmade POP be close to what kodak, kentemere or chicago albumen were producing?

Sure, but the questions are:
1: Is 'close' relevant to your purpose? Put differently: you apparently need whatever process you're looking at to exceed the capabilities of what you find in commercial products.
2: How much effort & energy does it require to get your process to a level that suits your artistic vision?
3: Is the combination of 1 + 2 a viable proposition for moving your artistry ahead? In other words: is it worthwhile to spend the time & energy needed on mastering the technical aspects of these processes in order to move ahead in an artistic sense?

There is probably a certain merit, also recognized in the commercial domain, of technical mastery and craftsmanship. But I'm assuming here that your prime interest is in the image itself and its visual impact - I assume that you're a visual artist more than a craftsman. One doesn't exclude the other, of course, but there's always the question of emphasis. And that brings the question whether it's justified, smart, sustainable and overall satisfactory to shift the balance in the direction of craftsmanship.

I ask the question to what extent the medium is instrumental, or core to your artistry. If it's more instrumental, I'd beg to challenge the implicit conclusion that a DIY route is preferable, or if it's a better idea to divest the craftsmanship to either commercial media manufacturers or a dedicated printer you can collaborate with.

What's your experience so far with DIY printing materials? Have you dipped your toes into the world of "alternative" printing processes already? Did you like it? Did you find it easy to make good progress? Did the grasp of the theory and the craftsmanship involved come easily to you?

 

[dwross2]

The key here is that silver chloride POP tonality can largely exceed conventional silver gelatin, but the question is : can handmade POP be close to what kodak, kentemere or chicago albumen were producing?

Sure, but the questions are:
1: Is 'close' relevant to your purpose? Put differently: you apparently need whatever process you're looking at to exceed the capabilities of what you find in commercial products.
2: How much effort & energy does it require to get your process to a level that suits your artistic vision?
3: Is the combination of 1 + 2 a viable proposition for moving your artistry ahead? In other words: is it worthwhile to spend the time & energy needed on mastering the technical aspects of these processes in order to move ahead in an artistic sense?

There is probably a certain merit, also recognized in the commercial domain, of technical mastery and craftsmanship. But I'm assuming here that your prime interest is in the image itself and its visual impact - I assume that you're a visual artist more than a craftsman. One doesn't exclude the other, of course, but there's always the question of emphasis. And that brings the question whether it's justified, smart, sustainable and overall satisfactory to shift the balance in the direction of craftsmanship.

I ask the question to what extent the medium is instrumental, or core to your artistry. If it's more instrumental, I'd beg to challenge the implicit conclusion that a DIY route is preferable, or if it's a better idea to divest the craftsmanship to either commercial media manufacturers or a dedicated printer you can collaborate with.

What's your experience so far with DIY printing materials? Have you dipped your toes into the world of "alternative" printing processes already? Did you like it? Did you find it easy to make good progress? Did the grasp of the theory and the craftsmanship involved come easily to you?

The best reason to make POP is for the gorgeous colors possible. However, POP is not the only handmade silver gelatin paper. A paper essentially identical to Lupex is absolutely a do'able deed -- actually, among the easiest of alternative photographic printing processes. It is a chloride developing-out paper and will deliver rich, deep blacks and quite a bit of contrast. On the other end is bromide paper, with its characteristic softer blacks and lower inherent contrast. All the of the varieties of ClBr papers lie in between. With a few changes you can pretty much design the emulsion characteristics you want.

I say, go all in on learning a DIY photographic process, precisely because there is no real reason to do so. A processed and app'ed to death digital file, printed on some beautiful inkjet paper, could fulfill your vision, but that is a world apart from becoming an artist who gets their hands and heart involved in creation.

 

[thomasBP]

The best reason to make POP is for the gorgeous colors possible. However, POP is not the only handmade silver gelatin paper. A paper essentially identical to Lupex is absolutely a do'able deed -- actually, among the easiest of alternative photographic printing processes. It is a chloride developing-out paper and will deliver rich, deep blacks and quite a bit of contrast. On the other end is bromide paper, with its characteristic softer blacks and lower inherent contrast. All the of the varieties of ClBr papers lie in between. With a few changes you can pretty much design the emulsion characteristics you want.

I say, go all in on learning a DIY photographic process, precisely because there is no real reason to do so. A processed and app'ed to death digital file, printed on some beautiful inkjet paper, could fulfill your vision, but that is a world apart from becoming an artist who gets their hands and heart involved in creation.

Ah, a second person not telling me not to do what I want to do !

 

[MattKing]

@dwross2 knows of what she speaks when it comes to making one's own emulsions.
She should consider putting a link to her website in her Photrio signature
That being said, there is a difference between exploring that route - which I have no hesitation in encouraging - or expecting that the solution for what you seek will lie there, and not somewhere else.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Thomas that was not denise's intention ..just sharing alternatives

 

[christophern]

Hi,
I am new to this forum. I registered because I see a lot of people here are making their own emulsions, and I have a question regarding the results that you get.

I have just seen an exhibition made on printing out paper, I believe the Kodak Studio Proof was used, and I was blown away by the combination of deep shadows ( though still with details), beautiful mid greys (blue, gold toned of course) and crisp micro contrast with sparkling white on some little areas of the prints - on glossy paper of course.
I have tried to find out online if such a result could be replicated, but most of what I see (it's impossible to get any real idea of a print online of course) as DIY prints seems closer in tone and fashion to old albumen prints, mainly gentle mid greys, in a very painterly way.
(please forgive my english if it's not perfect) ;

I was just wondering who here is making POP paper, and if you have reached a formula that is what closer to what I'd like to do if possible : something closer to a glossy FB print but in a much, much more vibrant way. ? (something the way POP is self masking while darkening probably helps a lot to do.)

I do my own contact prints ( 8x10 ) on foma 131 and adox lupex, and I can't make it both as gentle and crisp as what I see from some POP prints.

Thanks in advance,
thomas.

Hello Thomas,

I'm Christopher, a **confrère** user of 8x10, living in Paris also. Perhaps we should meet for café someday soon.

It sounds like one solution for you could be *collodion-chloride printing out paper* (which, in fact, I'm interested in making, also).
I've never done it, but it looks fairly simple. Below, I've pasted a George Eastman Museum video-demonstation of how to make this paper, plus — if you would like a "lesson" — my friend, Borut Peterlin gives workshops on how to make the paper (he lives in Slovenie but comes frequently to Paris .. he'll be here next month, if you want to meet him)



Ben .. voila, voila. Fais moi signe si tu veux qu'on se voit. Je suis à Paris 11.

Amicalement,

Christopher

PS: To my knowledge, two of the last companies makeing POP was the American company, Chicago Albumen Works (which I don't believe makes it anymore, but you can check: https://www.albumenworks.com), and —funny coincidence— the defunct French photo paper and plate company, Guilleminot .. who went out of business in 1995. Just for fun —and if I can find the box— I'll show it to you if we meet! Guilleminot called their paper, "papier citrate".

 

[Peter Schrager]

Chicago albumen works imported the paper from kentmere in england the last company to make the paper. Making the collidiol chloride paper is not difficult but i prefer making the paper with gelatin. There is a difference in the look and the collodion is expensive. For about $20 in silver i can coat about 20 8x10 sheets of paper.