F11 magazine, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee featured

[Merg Ross]

[QUOTE=Bruce Barlow;1305752]If Michael didn't have such strong opinions, the world would be a little bit less colorful. He's balanced by Paula, who is about as wonderful as a human being can get.

Insightful and nicely said, Bruce. They have contributed greatly to the niche we are proud to call large format photography. Michael, of course, is no stranger to those who have followed this forum over the previous decades. Opinions are just that, take them at face value and move on. Their work speaks for itself, and we can like or dislike it. However, there are very few photographers with the dedication of Michael and Paula to their work, and to the craft of producing photographs of technical excellence. They have always been more than willing to share their knowledge.

[Wayne]

What would the world be without ornery, opinionated people. Pretty boring.

I've never taken to M's web personality much but I appreciate what he does, preserving old technology and especially his Brett Weston Portfolios.

[Michael A. Smith]

I rarely get here these days, but a good friend alerted me to this thread. Let me set the record straight.

Paula and I saw an exhibit in Carmel California by about eight or ten former Ansel Adams. Speaking of print quality only, there was only one print that would have made it out of our darkroom. And our response does not mean the prints were bad prints, they were just not what we expect from our prints. That is just our taste, but certainly we are entitled to our taste.

Back in 1970 I think it was, there was a huge exhibition of Ansel's photographs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Most of the prints were enlargements of many of his famous negatives. They were uninteresting to me. But then, off to the side there was a wall in a balcony that had a row of his 8x10-inch contact prints. I still remember those prints as if they were in front of me. They were the most beautiful prints I had ever seen—to this day. I learned that they had all been printed on silver chloride paper.

Some of you may not be aware of this writing by Ansel:

In his book, Examples, when discussing the photograph, “Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain,” Ansel Adams wrote, "Many years ago I made a print of this negative on a contact paper that, when fully toned in selenium, had a marvelous color. It is one of the most satisfactory prints I have ever made, and I have not been able to duplicate it with contemporary enlarging papers. The paper I used might have been Agfa Convira or Kodak Azo. Both were coated with silver-chloride emulsions, which tone faster and give more color than the predominant bromide or chloro-bromide emulsions of today."

I taught myself photography. To learn what a great print was, as often as I could afford, I often went into New York to the Museum of Modern Art, sat down at a table in the photography department, and the curators brought prints for me to look at—as many as I wanted to see, by all of the great photographers—both Westons, Adams, Strand, Stieglitz, Frank, Friedlander, and on and on. To my eye, no matter who the photographer was, I thought that the most beautiful prints, as prints, notwithstanding what the picture was of, were the contact prints on silver chloride paper. (Yes, I asked the curators about the paper.) So I set about learning to print on this type of paper. It took a long time to get the results I was after. Partly that had to do with the choice of developer and partly it had to do with discovering the right print developing time.

Prints on silver chloride paper are capable of having deeper blacks than prints on enlarging papers and they do have a longer gray scale. (What Paula and I did not like about the prints we saw that day in Carmel was the shortened gray scale. It was as if some of the mid-tones had dropped out.) As a consequence of the long gray scale, to some, prints on silver chloride paper may look flat. Whether one prefers prints like that, or not, is a matter of taste.

Scans of prints equalize everything, and the differences between print on silver-chloride paper and prints on other papers are indistinguishable. But if any of you have the opportunity to see the actual prints from Bruce Barlow's tests, you will readily see the difference.

I do not understand Mr. Gitting’s response. He has every right to his opinion about my prints, but he made up the statement that I made an excuse and said that these were not my best prints. I have always, and Paula and I have always, carried what we think are our best prints with us. We meet, or used to meet, regularly with curators and photography collectors. Since we never had any money we were, and still are, hoping to make sales of our prints. Since that was and is our goal, there was and is certainly no percentage in carrying around anything other than our best prints.

The Lodima silver chloride paper we had made: My comment in the interview had nothing to do with making sales of our paper. That anyone could attribute my comment to that motive is, I don't know what, but the word “weird” while not exactly right, comes to mind.

Here is a very short history of how we came to make this paper. In the 1990s, when Azo was first going to be discontinued, Kodak offered me and Paula to become limited dealers of Azo. We turned them down. We are photographers and did not have the time. They suggested that some camera store needed to “step up” and guarantee a minimum purchase every year. They suggested Freestyle. After a few months, Freestyle called us a told us they no longer wished to carry Azo. So we, reluctantly, contacted Kodak and became limited dealers. Not only did we need the paper for ourselves, we felt it should be available to others. Then , because so many were very happy printing on silver chloride paper, after Kodak stopped making all papers, we set about having a new silver chloride paper made. We had enough Azo in our big freezer to last us a lifetime. We did this so others could have access to silver chloride paper. Five years of R&D took its toll on us. Doing this has been a financial disaster. We sell an 8x10 sheet in 100-sheet boxes for $200. That is $2/sheet. Yes, that is more expensive than other papers. Had we the capitalization and the resources of a company like Ilford, we could match their prices, but we cannot. It is an interesting thing about many photographers: they will spend huge sums of money on equipment, on cameras and lenses, but when it comes to spending a little more on film and paper, they get cheap and often choose materials based on the lowest price.

Platinum prints: I haven’t a clue how to make platinum prints. The large platinum prints that we have had made for us are made from five separations by Salto-Ulbeek in Belgium. These prints have deeper blacks and a longer scale than any silver papers, including silver chloride papers. Anyone who thinks platinum prints cannot have deep blacks does not know anything about what a platinum print can be.

Paula joins me in inviting anyone who would like to make up their own minds about print quality to come and visit us. I'm even willing to print one of your negatives on silver chloride paper, so you, too, can see the differences in print quality that the paper can make. Contact us though our web site: www.michaelandpaula.com.

And one more thing:I have often said that there are a number of photographers who make enlargements who are more skillful printers that I am. They have to be, because printing on enlarging paper is so difficult. Printing on silver chloride paper, with it’s long scale and little toe or shoulder, is so easy that little skill is required.

Michael A. Smith

[MDR]

Thank you for the clarification

[Michael A. Smith]

I read this thread again and am compelled to defend myself and add one thing. Personal attacks have no business in a thread like this, but when I am attacked I must respond. In addition to (intentionally?) mis-stating that I said these were not my best prints, Mr. Gittings also mis-stated everything else. When Paula and I show our photographs to anyone (except in a workshop) we never say anything at all about them. The photographs must speak, or sing, for themselves. If I said anything anything at all, it would have been about the paper. I have no doubt that there may be better photographers than I am. I have never said or suggested otherwise. All I was talking about, or could possibly have been talking about, would have been print quality. And the only reason I would have been talking about that is because I am first of all a teacher. If anyone doubts that I am a good one, I suggest you look at the comments following the workshop descriptions for our upcoming New Zealand workshops. All of the comments were unsolicited. Paula and I do not ask for feedback.

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/ht...8---20-2016-10

[peter schrager]

I went to Classic Photographs L.A. yesterday. This is a select group of about 22 very well known dealers from around the country. here you had a chance to look over many of the great photographers and the one print that stood out for me was a Weston that I had never seen before. It was a cloud rising formation in Yosemite. the print looked like it had been made yesterday and I'm sure it was printed over 50 or 60 years ago. not withstanding there were many many great images to be seen; many iconic images that I know from books or have seen previously in person. one needs to go and see real prints in order to become a true artist.
the first time I met Paula and Michael they came to Ct. with a boatload of prints to share with us. it was quite the revelation to see those prints. they have always been so generous to share ALL of their info with us here and on the internet for FREE. I have to say that printing with AZO is about the easiest thing you will ever do. it takes less time and less paper to get it right because it's that simple as long as you have a roadmap to where you want to go with the print.
Yes I too have a great stash of FILM and PAPER (AZO); and do you know why? it's because I'm now free to go and photograph. I just taught myself after 40 something years of this to develop by inspection. one more item to check off the list; no more time and temp for me. and I simply learned it by reading what Michael had to say on the internet.
everyone have an amazing day and go see prints!!
best, peter

[Bill_1856]

All Michael lacks in being considered one of the great landscape photographers of all time is that he has produced no single iconic masterpiece, (Adam's Moonrise, Strand's White Picket Fence, Tice's OakTree, etc), which we all know may be just a matter of luck in addition to skill. I sometimes wonder if his technical inflexibility is as much a determent as an asset to his vision.
He and Paula certainly deserve the highest level of respect from the fine-arts photography community.

[Michael A. Smith]

I word of explanation to those who have taken offense at my remark in the f11 article that, “only one print in the exhibition would have made it out of our darkroom.”

It just hit me: I believe some of you think that I was saying that the photographs were no good and that I thought I was a better photographer than those who were in the exhibition. I was saying nothing of the sort. I was commenting on print quality only. As far the vision that manifested in the photographs in the exhibition, Paula and I thought that many of them, in terms of vision, was excellent, and there were a number that either she or I would have been proud to have made. For those who thought that I was being arrogant about who I am as a photographer in relation to other contemporary photographers, may I suggest that you read more carefully, or more literally. I am very literal. I said there was only one print that would have made it out of our darkroom—not one “photograph.” Of course, always, vision come first. A technically exquisite print could well be dead on arrival. And I fully understand that print quality is not the most important aspect of a picture. As David Vestal once said, “the really great pictures do not have to be perfect.” But, all things being equal, a more beautiful print has the ability to connect with the audience more deeply than one not so beautiful. And I was only commenting on print quality, based on my experience and my taste in prints. I hope that is clear.

Michael A. Smith

[DennisD]

Thank you, Michael, for your various postings. You've certainly made every effort to be clearly understood.

With regard to the exhibited prints, It's clear you were speaking of the difference between the quality of silver chloride paper compared to enlarging papers. Unfortunately, the statement, if not carefully read, can be misunderstood.

It's regrettable when quotes are misinterpreted and twisted beyond original intent, flavored and fueled by third party commentary. That's when negativity arises and the atmosphere of a forum loses its humanity. Unfortunately, the presentation of your quote from f11 opened the door.

There are many here who do not hesitate expressing strong opinions about all sorts of things. While that makes the forum interesting, it can become destructive when conversation leads to negativity or comments are misunderstood.

I hope your clarifications help those who have any doubts about what you intended.

Both you and Paula have done many positive things for LF Photography. Your publishing and teaching efforts are most commendable as is your stature as a photographer and your overall devotion to photography over so many years. Those who appreciate and use Azo type paper are, no doubt, indebted to you for keeping the paper alive.

Although I have no connection to you as a student, or otherwise --

I look at your track record and say a kind "Thank You" for your contribution to LF.

[mdm]

Good to hear of someone coming to NZ to run a workshop, Iceland is such the cliche. I won't be attending your workshop in Wellington but if you are in the vicinity of Te Anau or Milford Sound I would love to look at prints.

David

I rarely get here these days, but a good friend alerted me to this thread. Let me set the record straight.

Paula and I saw an exhibit in Carmel California by about eight or ten former Ansel Adams. Speaking of print quality only, there was only one print that would have made it out of our darkroom. And our response does not mean the prints were bad prints, they were just not what we expect from our prints. That is just our taste, but certainly we are entitled to our taste.

Back in 1970 I think it was, there was a huge exhibition of Ansel's photographs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Most of the prints were enlargements of many of his famous negatives. They were uninteresting to me. But then, off to the side there was a wall in a balcony that had a row of his 8x10-inch contact prints. I still remember those prints as if they were in front of me. They were the most beautiful prints I had ever seen—to this day. I learned that they had all been printed on silver chloride paper.

Some of you may not be aware of this writing by Ansel:

In his book, Examples, when discussing the photograph, “Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain,” Ansel Adams wrote, "Many years ago I made a print of this negative on a contact paper that, when fully toned in selenium, had a marvelous color. It is one of the most satisfactory prints I have ever made, and I have not been able to duplicate it with contemporary enlarging papers. The paper I used might have been Agfa Convira or Kodak Azo. Both were coated with silver-chloride emulsions, which tone faster and give more color than the predominant bromide or chloro-bromide emulsions of today."

I taught myself photography. To learn what a great print was, as often as I could afford, I often went into New York to the Museum of Modern Art, sat down at a table in the photography department, and the curators brought prints for me to look at—as many as I wanted to see, by all of the great photographers—both Westons, Adams, Strand, Stieglitz, Frank, Friedlander, and on and on. To my eye, no matter who the photographer was, I thought that the most beautiful prints, as prints, notwithstanding what the picture was of, were the contact prints on silver chloride paper. (Yes, I asked the curators about the paper.) So I set about learning to print on this type of paper. It took a long time to get the results I was after. Partly that had to do with the choice of developer and partly it had to do with discovering the right print developing time.

Prints on silver chloride paper are capable of having deeper blacks than prints on enlarging papers and they do have a longer gray scale. (What Paula and I did not like about the prints we saw that day in Carmel was the shortened gray scale. It was as if some of the mid-tones had dropped out.) As a consequence of the long gray scale, to some, prints on silver chloride paper may look flat. Whether one prefers prints like that, or not, is a matter of taste.

Scans of prints equalize everything, and the differences between print on silver-chloride paper and prints on other papers are indistinguishable. But if any of you have the opportunity to see the actual prints from Bruce Barlow's tests, you will readily see the difference.

I do not understand Mr. Gitting’s response. He has every right to his opinion about my prints, but he made up the statement that I made an excuse and said that these were not my best prints. I have always, and Paula and I have always, carried what we think are our best prints with us. We meet, or used to meet, regularly with curators and photography collectors. Since we never had any money we were, and still are, hoping to make sales of our prints. Since that was and is our goal, there was and is certainly no percentage in carrying around anything other than our best prints.

The Lodima silver chloride paper we had made: My comment in the interview had nothing to do with making sales of our paper. That anyone could attribute my comment to that motive is, I don't know what, but the word “weird” while not exactly right, comes to mind.

Here is a very short history of how we came to make this paper. In the 1990s, when Azo was first going to be discontinued, Kodak offered me and Paula to become limited dealers of Azo. We turned them down. We are photographers and did not have the time. They suggested that some camera store needed to “step up” and guarantee a minimum purchase every year. They suggested Freestyle. After a few months, Freestyle called us a told us they no longer wished to carry Azo. So we, reluctantly, contacted Kodak and became limited dealers. Not only did we need the paper for ourselves, we felt it should be available to others. Then , because so many were very happy printing on silver chloride paper, after Kodak stopped making all papers, we set about having a new silver chloride paper made. We had enough Azo in our big freezer to last us a lifetime. We did this so others could have access to silver chloride paper. Five years of R&D took its toll on us. Doing this has been a financial disaster. We sell an 8x10 sheet in 100-sheet boxes for $200. That is $2/sheet. Yes, that is more expensive than other papers. Had we the capitalization and the resources of a company like Ilford, we could match their prices, but we cannot. It is an interesting thing about many photographers: they will spend huge sums of money on equipment, on cameras and lenses, but when it comes to spending a little more on film and paper, they get cheap and often choose materials based on the lowest price.

Platinum prints: I haven’t a clue how to make platinum prints. The large platinum prints that we have had made for us are made from five separations by Salto-Ulbeek in Belgium. These prints have deeper blacks and a longer scale than any silver papers, including silver chloride papers. Anyone who thinks platinum prints cannot have deep blacks does not know anything about what a platinum print can be.

Paula joins me in inviting anyone who would like to make up their own minds about print quality to come and visit us. I'm even willing to print one of your negatives on silver chloride paper, so you, too, can see the differences in print quality that the paper can make. Contact us though our web site: www.michaelandpaula.com.

And one more thing:I have often said that there are a number of photographers who make enlargements who are more skillful printers that I am. They have to be, because printing on enlarging paper is so difficult. Printing on silver chloride paper, with it’s long scale and little toe or shoulder, is so easy that little skill is required.

Michael A. Smith