Lodima Fine Art Paper - Available for purchase

[Bruce Barlow]

While Mr. Bowen has accurately described me in private communications as a slacker, given my photography habits of late, I recall in my distant past last fall just how easy contact printing on Azo was. Far less messing around than enlarging, using far less paper to get a superior result. Lodima makes my mouth water.

I have Lodima, and am thrilled that it's closer to grade 3, since that's what I mostly develop for. I will admit that recent slacker-ness has kept me from cracking a box. I am developing October's negatives (some are washing as I type), and will even try Lodima for proofs of 5x7s. This thread is inspirational. thanks, everybody, for getting my darkroom juices flowing.

[John Bowen]

While Mr. Bowen has accurately described me in private communications as a slacker, given my photography habits of late, I recall in my distant past last fall just how easy contact printing on Azo was. Far less messing around than enlarging, using far less paper to get a superior result. Lodima makes my mouth water.

Yes, Peter Schrager, myself and more than a few others have referred to printing with Azo/Amidol as cheating! My experience with Lodima/Amidol has mirrored my experience with Azo....it's still cheating!

[Blacky Dalton]

.......MAS has addressed the keeping properties of Lodima. They have run "advanced aging" tests to determine if the paper would keep over extended periods.........
Best,

John, I understand your concerns, but I would not let the pressure of extinction panic me into parting with a lot of money on a promise. I purchased a small amount of the Chinese Amidol, that was personally endorsed by MAS, and found it to be useless crap for me. I might add that since I did not get in on the initial order, which was another 'give me the money up front' buy, I paid the going price of over $200 per pound. Sure, it will develop paper, and it was cheap for those that bought many pounds in the initial order, but it was totally useless for me.

I certainly applaud MAS for wanting to produce his paper. But in the business world that I am familiar with, as the manufacturer, he is responsible for the funding and production. He should produce the stock, store it, and take orders as they come in. This is how business works. Note how Harmon/Ilford runs their business when it comes to film. You order whatever you need for a year. They deliver and stock whatever amount of film they make in a run. And, if there is ever a problem with their product, they stand behind it and will replace if necessary.

As I said before, I would certainly be interested in a box of Lodima. But, if my experience with the MAS approved Chinese amidol is any indicator, I would be very cautious about putting up a large sum of money.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!!!

[Roger Thoms]

I just completed my order for 5 boxes of 100. Sometimes you have to take a little risk. Not a large sum but all I can do until I'm working again.

Roger

[John Bowen]

Mr. Dalton,

Some of us choose to go through life as optimists and others choose to make the great journey as pessimists. It's probably pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread which of us is the optimist and which the pessimist.

Good day,

[John Bowen]

Ron Mowrey aka Photo Engineer posted the following on Apug:

I think that if one does a careful analysis, one will find two benefits from Azo paper types.

1. Contact printing from LF negs is ever so much better than enlarging anything.
2. Azo type contact papers have a very soft toe and soft shoulder that enhances the shadow and highlight detail. Of course, not all varieties of contact papers, developers and etc... reveal or contain these latter characteristics. This is why we must rely on expert judgment.

PE

[John Bowen]

and David Goldfarb added this comment on Apug:

The way I've described it is--it's not so much that the paper is more beautiful than enlarging papers, but an Azo type paper or the new Lodima paper, which I've tested, makes it possible to use a longer scale neg (about one zone more contrast) with more detail, and to render that detail easily on the print. I have negs that print well on enlarging papers and make similar prints on Azo, but I have negs targeted to Azo that make excellent prints on Azo that couldn't be made easily on enlarging papers.

[Michael A. Smith]

There is a lot to respond to from Blacky Dalton.

Here goes: Keeping properties of Lodima Paper:

I am puzzled why some people post the kind of questions he raises without first asking me, the distributor for the manufacturer.

The manufacturer has tested the paper for keeping properties and has told me that it should keep for 10 years at a minimum. He said it should keep longer, but would not guarantee that. Now what does that guarantee mean? Will I get money back if the paper goes bad in five years or in nine years? No. Some things you have to take on trust.

The paper is a silver chloride paper. All silver chloride papers, because they are slow papers compared to enlarging papers, last a long time. We have printed on silver chloride paper that is now 90 years old. There is some slight fog, but the prints are beautiful. Papers from 70 years ago (a number of brands--not just Azo) also show slight fog, but also give beautiful prints. Paper from 40 years ago is perfect with no fog, but does have a slight lessening of contrast. Slight.

The Lodima paper: Will it last a long time? Probably it will, as it is a silver chloride paper. The paper is warranted against defects the same as Kodak warranted their paper. The last batches of Azo had an expiration date on it of a year after manufacture. That meant nothing except, I imagine, that Kodak would guarantee the paper for that amount of time. That paper is now three to five years out of date. The paper is still perfect.

If you get one box of paper and you like it, what will that tell you about its long-tern keeping properties? Nothing. Unless you don't use the paper for over ten years. You can wait ten years to see how the paper ages before purchasing any more, and I hope in ten years we will still be able to have it made, but can we absolutely count on that? I would sooner count on the paper lasting over ten years.

Now for the Chinese Amidol: First of all, let everyone be clear that the Chinese Amidol was not my deal. I was not buying it, just testing it. Yes, I approved the Amidol. We were sent a test sample of Amidol and it was perfect. We had been warned, however, by the folks at ArtCraft Cemicals that you cannot count on the Chinese to deliver what was tested. We urged, and I have many emails to prove it, the fellow who was doing the deal to go over to China, take some Amidol from the batch to be shipped, take some paper, and print on it in a darkroom. I arranged with photographer friends in China, people we had met and who had visited us at our studio here in Pennsylvania, and who work with large format cameras, to meet the fellow doing the deal at the factory and to go to a darkroom and to test the Amidol to make sure it was the same as the sample. The fellow doing the deal did not do that. He did not go to China and make the test I urged him to make. His actions, or in this case, non-actions, were beyond my control. So, don't pin that one on me, please. I do not operate like that. So I did not "fool you once." A public apology would be appreciated.

Other: A normal business like Ilford makes a product and then people buy it. I sure wish it could be like that for us. But it cannot because Paula and I are photographers who make our entire living from the sale of our photographs as fine art (we lose money on our Lodima Press books because the quality is so high and the books are so expensive to produce) and we simply do not have the money. We live month to month. No health insurance, no savings, no investments. Everything goes into our work and there is nothing left over. I am not complaining here. Just explaining. We cannot do it the normal way. Had we the funds, we would put up the entire purchase price in a heartbeat. In 1994 when we spent $85,000 on the last of the Super XX film, we did it with Visa Cards that took us five years to pay off. We cannot go down that road again, and in any case, the required minimum order for the paper is many, many times the cost of our Super XX, and our credit would not extend nearly far enough. So the only way we can do this is with pre-orders.

If you are nervous about putting up your money, okay. I understand, some people are very cautious. You are obviously one of the cautious ones. Fine. But if you have questions, such as about longevity of paper, and about how "we screwed up the Amidol order", be a mensch, ask me, or confront me directly, rather than posting innuendos in the forums. I do get riled up when my integrity is questioned without someone first confronting me directly.

Michael A. Smith

[Michael A. Smith]

It may not be clear from what I wrote above, but I want to make it clear that Paula and I have already put up a significant amount of money toward the manufacture of Lodima paper.

Michael A. SMith

[chris_4622]

Michael,

A couple of questions come to mind: The Lodima paper is faster than Azo was, does this have an effect on the keeping qualities? When you test for the final run of paper will the speed of the paper be a factor?

chris