I have been reading a lot about AZO. Now I will plop the ignorance on the table. What is it. I have read that it is better than PT. If this is the case why are more people not doing it? I looked at michael and paula's site but to tell you the truth could not see much difference between say a standard B/W print and one on AZO. I am sure a lot was lost in the scan as it usually is. I am interested in learning more but I can't find much about it.
I would start my visiting one of the best places to get info on Azo:
www.michaelandpaula.com
There is a forum dedicated to Azo on their site and you can order paper as well.
You can't tell from the scans. You must see real prints to see the difference, and the differences and superior qualities are immediately obvious.
I'm sure you are aware that Azo is a contact printing paper. It is too slow to enlarge on, although someone is working on a light that will adapt to any enlarger and make enlarging exposure times sort on Azo. He thinks it may be ready before the end of the year.
Beautiful prints can also be made on Pt/Pd paper. But few prints on Pt/Pd paper are truly beautiful. Usually, they are muddy (some would say "dreamy") and do not often have rich blacks. The Pt/Pd process is slow, so if you do a lot of work you will spend a lot of time printing.
It is quite easy to print on Azo. Because of its long scale, only about 20% of the dodging and burning that one would do with enlarging papers is necessary. Once one gets the hang of it, and it is not that difficult to do so, one can easily make 5 prints from a new negative within an hour.
Here are some comments we receieved recently from people using Azo for the first time:
"Finally acquired everything I needed to try Azo today and nine hours later...
"Wow! From the very first print, I was simply stunned by the results. I've been a bit frustrated with my printing for the last couple of months and this was the most fun I've had in the darkroom in a very long time. I may have a different perspective in the morning, but seemed like I was able to get strong prints from practically any negative I touched - including some I had given up on long ago. In particular, my older contrasty PMK negs printed very nicely on G2 (most of them are dogsh**) on my enlarger) whereas my more recent WD2D+ negs often needed G3. Could not believe the feeling of control I felt like I had with this paper - especially when combined with water development. Always thought I could never go back to graded papers after getting used to split grade VC printing but felt no hinderance whatsoever. A complete joy to use."
And this:
"Just for the sake of comparison, I took my two favorite images that print well on Azo grade 2 and printed them on Oriental Seagull grade 2 paper. The Oriental paper is my favorite enlarging paper for prints from 35mm and MF negs. Oriental is a good paper, simply beautiful for enlargements, and easy to print on. But let me tell you, it doesn't hold a candle to Azo for contact prints. The biggest problem is at the low end, down in the shadow areas. You get this featureless black on the Oriental Seagull paper where Azo gives you much better separation between tones. You can see more shadow detail on the Azo prints. The highlights aren't as profoundly different, but there are still differences. Once again, you can see into the high values better with Azo. Azo clouds have more character than Seagull clouds.
"Bottom line, I like Azo better than anything I've ever printed on. If you could enlarge onto it, I'd use it for everything. But since it's too slow for enlarging, I'll continue to use Oriental Seagull developed in Amidol for all enlargements. For silver contact prints, I'm quite certain I'll never use anything other than Azo again. There is simply nothing better than Azo. "
And there are the comments on our web site and so many others that I can't find right now.
It is not a matter that azo is "better" or worse than pt printing. It is only different. If you like the silver look then azo is a good paper to use, specially the way Michael uses it with amidol.
OTOH I must disagree with Michael`s assesement of pt prints. WHat he describes was probably true at the time of the resurgence of pt printing, but presently with the work published by Arentz, Sullivan and Weese, given correct controls of the process it is possible to make pt prints that have the "depth" and "hardness" that equal any silver paper including azo.
Bottom line is more what you like and what process fits your style of photography better. ALso, if you are a little bit technically inclined and are able to make testing and controls procedures, printing in pt is far easier than any other process. Rarely do pt printers have to dodge or burn, etc if they have learned to control the process.
So the question is not which one is better, the question is wich one YOU like better.
I love the pt/pd prints I have seen. From what i was reading on other forums AZO had a much longer tonal range, was easier to use, cooked dinner and after all was said and done it did the dishes. I just wondered what constituted such praise. I guess I need to see one in real life. It would be neat to see a posting of a neg printed on regular paper and then on AZO right next to each other. That would show some of the differences on a computer screen.
thank you for the information.
I do not believe any scan on the web could reveal the differences. But at some point (not soon--about to head out for five weeks to print our Tuscany books) I will try. I do have a print that was done both ways. It was done for Kodak on Polyfiber Fine Art, or whatever it was called, as wel las on Azo, so that they could see the difference.
One major reason that Azo is still in production is that the powers that be at Kodak saw the difference and were willing to talk to me about continuing its production. Those two prints were a major part of it.
I'm afraid Jorge and I will continue to disagree for quite some time about Azo vs. Pt/Pd. Yes, ultimately it is just a question of taste. I have seen many terrible prints on Azo. And I have seen exquisite PT/Pd prints. But, really, so very few. Most are muddy. Many that have rich blacks in them have little separation on the dak tones--in prints where that separation is warranted. (There are many prints where you might want the dark areas to be pure black.)
And I would think the inability to dodge and burn is a severe limitation. I usually do not do much, but often, just a very little fine tuning makes a gigantic difference.
Someday, Jorge and I will meet and look at each other's prints. Then we will our ongoing discussion with both of us having more knowledge.
"it is possible to make pt prints that have the "depth" and "hardness" that equal any silver paper including azo"
Where can I see such a pt print? I know that your statement above is true, because I've seen pt prints at the Library of Congress by Paul Strand which bear you out. But those prints were made in the early 30's, while precoated platinum paper was still available. No platinum work made after that time that I've seen rivals them.
Even most of the platinum and carbon prints made by Steiglitz in the first part of the 20th Century are dull as dishwater. But many of his gelatin silver prints made then are breathtaking.
Yes, you can make enlarged prints on AZO! Durst-Pro-USA makes a special AZO head for 8X10 enlargers.
Come to our Free Large Format Photo Workshop along the Oregon Coast in 2004. We will be spending a whole day at the Durt-Pro-USA facility in Portland trying out their various enlargers in their demonstration darkroom.
Edward Weston only made contact prints, first platinum prints, later prints on AZO using Amidol developer. But ask yourself this question: "If Edward Weston had the funds and the opportunity to make enlarged prints on AZO would he have done so?" My personal answer is yes!
If you are interested in participating in the Free Oregon Coast Workshop (to find out out how enlarged AZO prints look like) - in spring of 2004 please email me: volquartz@volquartz.com
Where can I see such a pt print? I know that your statement above is true, because I've seen pt prints at the Library of Congress by Paul Strand which bear you out. But those prints were made in the early 30's, while precoated platinum paper was still available. No platinum work made after that time that I've seen rivals them.
Even most of the platinum and carbon prints made by Steiglitz in the first part of the 20th Century are dull as dishwater. But many of his gelatin silver prints made then are breathtaking.
You can see prints from Dan Burkholder, Dick Arentz, Butch Welch, Flor Garduņo etc.
Jim Galli, Pete Galea, Eric Rose, Gray Wolf and a few others here on the forum have seen my prints and I think they will tell you they have nothing of the "dreamy" soft quality many people associate with pt/pd and that there is no muddy "veiling" in them. As I have said before, it is all in learning to control the process and making correct printing and film developing tests.
Machine or hand coated has nothing to do with the outcome, the important part is the paper one chooses to coat the emulsion, some papers produce less contrast than others.
OTOH Jim, it is well known you are one of the staunchest defenders of Azo, and I suspect nothing will ever please you if it is not in azo. I tell you what, since you print in azo with stained negatives they should also print well in pd , if you want to send me one of your negatives of a print you like I will be glad to send you back the negative with a pd print that will prove my point. Let me know what you want to do.
Per, yeah Durst is making those heads, but at $10,000 each, I rather buy a 16x20 camera and a life time supply of film....:-)
Michael, it is possible to dodge and burn when making pt/pd prints,I do it when the print needs it. I dont know where you got this idea, but you are mistaken in this case, as a matter of fact, in his book Dick Arentz is shown dodging a print.
Hey, gang! Let me in! Please tell me the secret! What do PT and PD mean? Thanks.
Peter Collins
On the intent of the First Amendment: The press was to serve the governed, not the governors --Opinion, Hugo Black, Judge, Supreme Court, 1971 re the "Pentagon Papers."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks