Peter:
PT = Platinum
PD = Palladium
They are the metals often used in combination for making beautiful contact prints.
Peter:
PT = Platinum
PD = Palladium
They are the metals often used in combination for making beautiful contact prints.
Hi Mark. I'm afraid you'll find little objectivity regarding the differences between Azo and Platinum prints on this forum, partly because its contributors are strongly biased towards their own process, and partly because it is, in the end, a subjective question. Quoted endorsements from Michael's costomers are meaningless, just as Michael's own opinions are meaningless. I've seen both and have my own opinions, which are also meaningless. Beyond which print you prefer for your own work, is the question of which process you prefer. Although Azo and Platinum/Palladium are both contact processes, they differ greatly in many important ways. Platinum paper is coated by hand, and Azo is bought from a factory. Azo is most sensitive to visible light, and Platinum to UV. Azo comes in only two contrast grades, and Platinum prints' contrast is controlled chemically to wide variations and the list goes on. Do a little investigating and you'll find a lot of information on either process on the web, but for meaningful comparisons you'll have to see real examples of each process, but be aware that a lot of variation exists in the prints from either process, and no one photographer produces definitive results. Good luck with your research.
I don't think EW would have used an enlarger. They had them in his day, they also had smaller cameras too which he didn't use for his own work. He did use a small Graflex but the pics he took were family snapshots etc.
CP Goerz
I know it is not happening tomorrow, but Paula and I will be participants at Steve Simmon's LF conference in California in April, and we'll be happy to show hundreds of our prints to anyone who is interested in seeing what Azo prints can look like.
Interesting that Jay's vendetta continues. He does manage to turn each of these threads into a personal attack on me. At least he recognizes that his own opinions are meaningless. If he had spent almost 40 years in photography studying prints in collections and museums around the world and that much time making them perhaps his opinions wouldn't be meaningless.
I dont know that it is a vendetta Michael. Jay is pointing out a very legitimate point that if it comes down to taste, your, his or my opinion are meaningless, it is up to the individual to judge what satisfies them more.
Of course this animosity is in partly created by your statement that pt/pd prints are "dull", "lifeless" and "muddy" every time this subject comes up. As if nothing is comparable to Azo and nothing ever will.
Instead of answering Mark, is up to you there is not one "better" process, I could have simply said that I thought pt/pd were better because they were richer, had color and tonality that not one silver paper, even azo can ever acheive, and that any experienced darkroom printer can produce a good silver print without having to use Azo that will look just as good as an azo print.
Perhaps I have not been studying prints for 40 years, but I have been doing so for 20 years and I know with certainty that your opinion, given your bias and your print taste is not an absolute truth. Since I dont do workshops nor do I sell pt/pd supplies I do not have "testimonials", but those people who have had the same question, azo or pt/pd and to whom I have sent a small 4x5 print to compare to an azo print have decided to go with pt/pd. So really, your opinion regardeless of how many years you have been printing is as meaningless as mine, is up to the individual and I think this is what Jay was trying to say.
Michael, your tender ego is becoming tiresome. My message was about the subjectivity of taste, and individual preference being incompatible with blanket statements that masquerade as objectivity. Your experience gives you no authority in questions of taste, which is the subject at hand. Everything is not always about you, Michael, so give it a rest.
I believe, Jorge, I did say that I have seen very beautiful Pt/Pd prints. They are not all muddy and dull. Just most of them are.
Azo: I was talking about Azo for years before I was selling it. All of the "testimonials" on our web site came in long before we started selling Azo. The last two were recent, but they are all unsolicited and have nothing to do with us selling it. This came in tonight from someone who is not a customer: " I came accross a free box of Azo from a friend and fell in love. It really is amazing."
There are opinions and there are opinions. Some opinions are informed and some are not. As I have said before somewhere, I am musical--way in the past have played in orchestras and given concerts in chamber groups--but I am not a musician nor do I have the ear of someone who is really a musician. So I would not dare give my opinion in a forum like this about how good a performance of music was, or about the precise quality of sound on a recording. I have my taste about these things, but my opinion about these things is hardly an expert one and I certainly would not be so arrogant as to express it publicly other than as "my taste." But there are musicians and music critics who do venture their opinion about these things. Their opinion is based on having a great ear and on vast experience comparing the various performances and recordings. And those opinions carry weight and can be usually be trusted.
It is a curious thing about photography: people have the audacity to call themselves photographers when their experience and ability is no further advanced in the medium than mine was in music. They are competent, perhaps, but often that is all. And, in general, their experience is rather limited. They are entitled to their taste and to their opinions--everyone is--but in a critical forum, their opinions really do not count for much.
So, no, Jorge, when you say "Jay is pointing out a very legitimate point that if it comes down to taste, your, his or my opinion are meaningless, it is up to the individual to judge what satisfies them more," that is just not so. There may be some people who regularly participate in this forum whose critical evaluations of these things is as well-founded and experienced as mine, but certainly Jay's is not. He is too new at this. It really does take years and lots of study and experience at looking to have an informed opinion. You, I don't know about. I'll give you credit here and assume that you have a trained eye and vast experience.
So, no. All opinions are not equal. To think they are is to level everything--to deny excellence. I happen to believe that there is excellence in all things and that not everthing is equal--whether it be the beauty of photographs or other works of art, or yes, even of opinions.
Whether anyone wants to take my opinions seriously is, of course, up to them. But they can be assured that my opinions are disinterested, in Matthew Arnold's meaning of the word. All I really care about is excellence.
Michael, if your taste in music is anything like your taste in photography, I'm not interested in that either. It may take you years to form an opinion, but I'm pretty quick on the uptake. It's interesting that you're ready, even eager to accept the opinions of those who agree with you regardless of their experience, you quote them ad nauseum without the slightest qualification of their experience or "excellence". In one instance a person's first experience with Azo is validated because they gush and repeat your "Azo is the best paper ever" mantra, but a dissenting opinion is dismissed as unqualified. You contradict yourself so often I'm embarrassed for you. By the way, this is not a critical forum, it is a place for people who are interested in Large Format photography to swap ideas, tips, experiences and even opinions. If this is beneath you, then you are under no obligation to post here. I for one could live wihtout your constant self promotion and egomania.
This is getting ridiculous. I've had the pleasure to see some of Michael's prints and they really are exceptional. I've also seen many excellent Pt/Pd prints. Both are excellent processes with their own unique ins and outs, and ultimately it's a matter of what one makes of whatever he chooses to use. Neither is perfect, both ways of doing things have significant disadvantages to them, and one can use them to make prints that range from excellent to horrible. But then that's the case with essentially every process that has ever been.
Michael, please....what you are saying goes against every known ocupation in life. Some people can labor for 50 years and never make a good print, some people can be doing it for a few months and make beautiful prints, perhaps even more so than yours or mine.
Some people have innate talent, "feel" for their process and just that "thing" that allows them to succeed where many of us have to struggle.
It is true that you said you have seen "some" beautiful pt/pd prints, but that in general all pt/pd prints are not good and at the same time you imply that most of the people using azo make great prints no matter what is their experience.
Take for instance this statement you make:
It is a curious thing about photography: people have the audacity to call themselves photographers when their experience and ability is no further advanced in the medium than mine was in music. They are competent, perhaps, but often that is all. And, in general, their experience is rather limited. They are entitled to their taste and to their opinions--everyone is--but in a critical forum, their opinions really do not count for much
Just how are you able to make this kind of judgements? How do you know what is everbody's level of competence? Are you really saying that the only measurement of a person knowledge and ability can only be accepted by the time they have spent doing something? Do you really think that because you have been doing phtographs for 40 years, your opinion is actually more valuable than other person who has not?
You say Jay is too new, but who is to know that he is Mozart to your Saglieri? The shame of it Michael is that in a way you are correct, your opinion should be valuable, but you dilute the value of your opinions by sounding dogmatic about azo. Given two perfectly printed photographs, one in azo and one it pt/pd, if you place them side by side you cannot say that one process is better that the other, or that one print is more beautiful than the other. Perhaps you dont like one, but I am sure next to you someone else with your same level of experience and abilities will like what you dont like. It all comes down to a matter of taste, and that does not need to have many years of experience. You can jump up and down and proclaim that azo is better, but in the end if people does not like it, they wont, no matter how many years of experience you have or how many years you have been using azo.
You mention critics and how it takes many years of study, etc...but even then, regardless of how many years they might have, some of us might find their opinion worthless. When I lived in the US I used to pick what movies I wanted to go see by picking those movies that Roger Ebert did not like. You might say here is a guy who has years of experience, etc, etc. But in the end for my taste he could not pick a good movie if it rised up an bit him in the ass.
So I have to agree with Jay when he says that our opinions are really meaningless, it is Mark who has to make a judgement to satisfy his taste, and nobody here can say that azo or pt/pd is the best process or produces the best prints, it is a matter of individual taste and for that your years of experience and study have no value.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks