RE: Homemade POP ??

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;>
Date: 09/21/04-08:13:19 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Liam Lawless wrote:

>> I did an article on this subject in Post-Factory #5. Results resemble
> commercial POP, but on art papers. I used only a small amount of gelatin
> for a low gloss. Prints are definitely more colourful than salt or straight
> SG. I haven't done any more work with it since PF #5, but I'm sure there's
> some scope to tweak the formula to get what you want.

Hi Liam -- I wondered where you'd gone ! In fact I'd just looked up the
article and was about to post the info myself. So as my contribution,
here's the pull quote and first paragraph:

Above the title: Why make your own printing-out paper? Besides the
economy (more than a litre for the cost of 10 sheets of Centennial
12x16"), and the satisfaction of making it ourselves, is the lure of
coating it on art papers. Liam Lawless has worked out the effective
principles and the best formulaie -- and spiked the biggest problem.

First paragraph: There are a few POP recipes in old texts, but I don't
know of anyone who works with home-made POP, and only one person who's
even tried. Nearly everyone thinks emulsion making is horribly complicated
and requires great precision in weighing, timing, temperature, etc. My
"innovation" is doing it as a two-part formula, so great precision isn't
necessary, and neither is a ripening stage.

The issue also includes 5 articles about cyanotype and one on John
Dugdale and his cyanotype, among othertreasures. For info on obtaining,
e-mail OFFLIST.

Received on Tue Sep 21 20:13:34 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/01/04-09:17:55 AM Z CST