I actually use the bulb in a clamp-on reflector a couple feet from the printing frame.
Jon
I actually use the bulb in a clamp-on reflector a couple feet from the printing frame.
Jon
my black and white photos of the Mendocino Coast: jonshiu.zenfolio.com
I am new to contact printing, but have looked forward to trying it for a long time. I just acquired a 8x10 so I can't put it off any longer. I have been offered several boxes of Azo & Lodima some open, a few of the Azo sealed. I want to be sure that using opened material is not a mistake. I have heard varying opinions on whether the paper loses contrast, among other issues. This is expensive stuff, any thoughts? I am wondering if it ages badly, if stored correctly. Thanks Bob
Stored properly, Azo has a long life. Lodima is relatively new, time will tell. You might do well to contact Michael Smith at Smith/Chamlee for a definitive answer to your query and other practical advice relating to contact printing. Congratulations on the new 8x10!Originally Posted by murphy
The film isn't "somewhat fogged." It is relatively fresh stock correctly stored. Michael bought a full run when he learned it was going out of production. Super XX negatives exposed and developed for contact printing have a much longer scale than do negatives for enlarging. This is true of an good negative for contact printing. Trying to print a short scaled negative p n Azo or Lodima is a waste of time and money.
Readthe info about film exposure and development on the Azo forum.
If you are afraid of it and it is less than 60 years out of date, send it to me. I'm happy to pay the freight.
Yes, Azo has a considerable usable shelf life. I have a box of 1951 Grade 1 Azo that prints marvelously when called upon. When Azo was laid to rest and Lodima came to life I had the opportunity to assist Michael and Paula with the promotional materials for the paper and had access to the trials and tribulations of the product via conversation. Fact of the matter is that Azo was a product that was not capable of being replicated in any way shape or form. Even if Kodak would have been willing to share the formulation (which they adamantly refused for some strange reason), the fact is that Azo was a product that was highly customized and virtually impossible to reproduce without the seasoned expertise and process with this product. As a result Lodima was born completely independent of Azo as a brand new product with a foundation of silver chloride paper and modern materials. As a result several iterations were necessary to get it tweaked to standards of performance. I read the densities on the Lodima test and Azo base prints and can attest to its luminance and have every reason to expect that Lodima will be as lasting as Azo having commonalities with a silver chloride formulation.
You're right about one thing. The film isn't "somewhat fogged". It's unbelievably fogged. The base density is something like .5. Michael and Paula now make thinner negatives and just print through the fog. Super XX has such a long straight line curve that they still get a full range of tones.
This discussion makes me think that one should only buy the Lodima product if they have a stash of suitable film. Otherwise, using the normally available films will only lead to grief.
If this is the case then it would be dishonest of suppliers of such a product to not make this absolutely clear to potential buyers in my view.
Unless there is another way to use the product ...
Tmax 400 works very well with Azo and Lodima. Check out the Azo Forum at www.michaelandpaula.com folks have used many currently available films with success.
Cheers John that is reassuring.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks