My thoughts on AZO vs. Ilford Galerie and Warmtone papers

[Willie]

GB - you may still be right, I will have to test it on another print. I have a couple other negatives I want to try as well, including an x-ray neg.

Randy, that thread reminds me that I forgot to mention my dilution. As someone else mentioned trying for AZO, I use 130 at 1:1 for about 1-1.5 minutes.

Speaking of AZO, I don't know if I've ever seen an AZO print by one of the "masters" in person. Who knows what is on the wall when looking at prints.

You might check with Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, the makers of Lodima paper and champions of Azo and Amidol for decades now. They had the new paper made after Kodak discontinued Azo. They may be able to point you to a gallery or someone in your area with some of their prints you can see.

Beautiful work worth the effort to find a way to see it.

Azo and the contact papers generally work well with a negative that is good for Pt/Pd and Carbon printing. Long tonal scale prints that are simple to make. The developer makes a difference that can be easily seen in many cases.

[Corran]

Thanks Mark, I appreciate it.

Willie, what I meant to say, is that I don't know what papers / developers (or usually even film) was used when I see prints on the wall from classic photographers. But for me, what's more important is seeing prints from my own negative. I think it's easy to see a wonderful print and think "it's wonderful, perhaps because it's printed/shot with XYZ." But that's poor thinking, what I call "magic bullet syndrome." But I like to try things! So I am very happy to try this stuff out to see, and like I mentioned I'll take Thom up on his offer because it's always possible I'm just not a great printer and I'm doing a disservice to the negative. Or maybe it's not a great negative or the light wasn't the best!

I shot some today at a location I have been to before - but today the light was amazing! If I made a print from my first trip on one paper and then today's image on another, it would not be a good comparison, because even though it's the same place the light and timbre of the image will be completely different.

All that is to say, I think it's best to try to compare things with my negative, not an image from someone else without any knowledge of what the negative looked like, what the scene looked like, or a myriad of different things that could be the reason a print looks really excellent. This is also why I think there is a dearth of such comparisons online and why a common suggestion is to "try it yourself." Unfortunately that becomes harder as material costs continue to climb!!

[Willie]

Thanks Mark, I appreciate it.

Willie, what I meant to say, is that I don't know what papers / developers (or usually even film) was used when I see prints on the wall from classic photographers. But for me, what's more important is seeing prints from my own negative. I think it's easy to see a wonderful print and think "it's wonderful, perhaps because it's printed/shot with XYZ." But that's poor thinking, what I call "magic bullet syndrome." But I like to try things! So I am very happy to try this stuff out to see, and like I mentioned I'll take Thom up on his offer because it's always possible I'm just not a great printer and I'm doing a disservice to the negative. Or maybe it's not a great negative or the light wasn't the best!

I shot some today at a location I have been to before - but today the light was amazing! If I made a print from my first trip on one paper and then today's image on another, it would not be a good comparison, because even though it's the same place the light and timbre of the image will be completely different.

All that is to say, I think it's best to try to compare things with my negative, not an image from someone else without any knowledge of what the negative looked like, what the scene looked like, or a myriad of different things that could be the reason a print looks really excellent. This is also why I think there is a dearth of such comparisons online and why a common suggestion is to "try it yourself." Unfortunately that becomes harder as material costs continue to climb!!

Trying and learning on your own is a good way to go but don't discount learning from those who are at the top of their game. A workshop with Michael and Paula will expand your horizons and give you hands on experience with master photographers in their element.

You look at good work so you understand what quality is and use it as a guage for your own printing. If yours does not measure up for quality in the final print you find out why it doesn't and correct it. Since you are talking contact printing Michael and Paula are your resource. If it is enlarging look at John Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum - and yes, I know there are many who are very good, just giving some I know are worth it.

Kodak Azo was a magical paper in many ways. Not perfect and no longer made. Lodima from Michael and Paula is excellent. Small runs and a paper for those looking for that last bit if quality. Why not work with it the way its makers say gives the highest results? You try it as they say works best and then decide for yourself. Not just one print but a series of them so you can see it with different negatives.

Depending on what you like you might find yourself on a journey to hand poured Carbon prints with this material only a stop on the journey.

[Peter De Smidt]

In the last year, I saw an exhibition by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. The prints were excellent, but the quality wasn't better than prints I've seen by other top printers using other tools. In my collection I have two 8x10 contact prints printed on Azo and developed in Amidol. I'm trying to think of the artist.....He was from Alaska....Anyway, again the quality is first rate, but the prints didn't make me want to switch to printing with Azo. It's a good paper, but there are other equally good options, imho of course.

[bob carnie]

In the last year, I saw an exhibition by Michael Smith and Paul Chamlee. The prints were excellent, but the quality wasn't better than prints I've seen by other top printers using other tools. In my collection I have two 8x10 contact prints printed on Azo and developed in Amidol. I'm trying to think of the artist.....He was from Alaska....Anyway, again the quality is nice, but the prints didn't make me want to switch to printing with Azo. It's a good paper, but there are other equally good options, imho of course.

I completely agree, their work is outstanding no doubt about it, but I have seen many shows on different papers that are on par.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I have two 8x10 contact prints printed on Azo and developed in Amidol. I'm trying to think of the artist.....He was from Alaska....Anyway, again the quality is first rate, but the prints didn't make me want to switch to printing with Azo...

George Provost. I have one of his. It looks like an Azo print. The 'long scale' means that, for those accustomed to high-brightness-range daylight scenes as rendered by typical chlorobromide or bromide enlarging papers, high values aren't quite white enough. There's always a hint of gray except for completely specular highlights. Michael Smith espouses that look. It's a definite aesthetic. Old Oriental Seagull is the only enlarging paper I've seen which duplicated this characteristic to some degree.

[LabRat]

Mainly, it's a question of look that works with the image/series/ mood/subject one is trying to acheve, so they are all suitable with possibilities... It's the "palette" one chooses to use...

I agree with Sal that sometimes an image can be too flat and greyish with some long scale paper/dev combinations, so testing is required...

I also think it helps a lot when one makes their own developers and finds dilutions, as that can help trim print characteristics...

I find that some combination can be more pleasing for different moods/conditions such as rainy day, bright beach. night, overcast, etc etc etc...

You are in multiple "zones", so explore differences!!!

Steve K

[Oren Grad]

Here are the curves for the three papers Bryan mentioned to start this discussion. All three of them are specified as having an ISO range of 110 at grade 2. Of course the choice of developer could affect this, as well as the curve shapes, Dmax and image color, to some extent.

[tgtaylor]

I distinctly recall a Brent Weston that was exhibited in the Out of the Shadows exhibition inSa taBarbara a few years back. The image was looking back towards the west at Mono Lake with the foreground in a greyish snow. I don't think it was the paper.

Thomas

[Corran]

Very interesting discussion on the long scale, and thank you Oren for the charts. Quite enlightening. I can definitely see that hard shoulder in the Warmtone paper!!

I would love to take more workshops, but I can't afford them at the moment.