Has anyone seen the report Steve Simmons did on AZO in the recent View Camera? I wonder what it would have looked like if he used Amidol? Frankly I did not like the image at all. Very drab.
Has anyone seen the report Steve Simmons did on AZO in the recent View Camera? I wonder what it would have looked like if he used Amidol? Frankly I did not like the image at all. Very drab.
You really can't judge an image by how it looks in a publication. Some magazines do better than others in the reproduction process but I don't think any can duplicate the look of an original print. I recently had the opportunity to see the Steiglitz exhibit at the National Gallery in Washington. It included a lot of the famous photographs by Strand, Steiglitz, Steichen, and others that I've seen many times in books and magazines. The originals just floored me, they looked so much better than the reproductions I've seen. FWIW, I use Azo and I think it's terrific for contact printing.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
My initial reaction was the same Michael. However I am tempted to try it. But, I was told that they do not make AZO paper anymore... is this true?
They've eliminated a number of sizes and grades, but they still seem to be making it. You can still get it at B&H or www.michaelandpaula.com.
I was also disappointed by the photo in the article. However, I know just how superb Azo can be through personal use of the product. Nothing else I've ever tried even comes close when I'm contact printing. I develop it in Ansco 130 and the results are so good I don't feel any overwhelming need to give it a shot in Amidol. Azo is definitely being made, albeit in fewer grades and sizes than in past years. Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are the big users and proponents of the paper, and it can be bought directly from them, as well as B&H and Badger Graphic. Azo is great stuff to be sure, and I encourage anyone to try it.
Keep in mind that the negative was probably not scaled for Azo. I think the point being made was that Azo was a 'longer scale paper', and provided results quite different from typical enlarging papers. Azo does look very good in Ansco 130 but one shouldn't fear Amidol as being ruinously expensive - there are economical Amidol formulae (something like Peckham's Amidol may actually be cheaper than Ansco 130). Cheers, DJ.
Isn't longer scale the same as lower contrast? Or does AZO have a longer toe and shoulder while still retaining a high contrast midtone area. This would let it show more detail (but with lower contrast) in highlights and shadows.
In the context of grade 2 Azo paper, "longer scale" means that a much greater range of negative densities are recorded while retaiing detail in the print. This results both from a low slope in the curve's straight line section and an exceptionally long shoulder. My approach to using Azo has been standardizing on grade 3. Its slope (contrast) is higher and it has a shoulder more typical of enlarging papers. Targeting negatives to grade 3 Azo means they will also be easily compatible with enlarging papers if/when I manage to set up an 8x10 enlarger. You can still obtain grade 3 in 100 sheet boxes, but only, as far as I know, from Michael Smith www.michaelandpaula.com). Elsewhere it's a 500 sheet purchase.
I shouldn't post so early in the morning. My last post should have read "...an exceptionally long toe."
And "...a toe more typical of enlarging papers,"
Arrrgggghhh!!
Bookmarks