Thanks so much Jay for confirming that I completely wasted my time.
Thanks so much Jay for confirming that I completely wasted my time.
Sounds interesting. I assume this is a machine process. Is it on glossy paper?
As for the bad print no matter what it is I believe Adams said something like: "If you have a mediocre print surround it in a huge mat, put it in a big fancy frame, and call it art."
Actually, I read the post where Michael did get slammed with great interest. It made me want to try both AZO and platinum. I feel that debates on generally subjective matter are very worth while, thought provoking, and get a ton of information out on the table that would otherwise be hard to find. This is just like political conversations I have with family members at our monthly get togethers. Nothing like getting Grandparents, Uncles Aunts, Wifes Husbands, Brothers and Sisters together for a night of loudly discussing whether or not Bush's administration is ruining the world. I look forward to these nights like I look forward to these threads. The previous thread really helped in describing the look of both AZO prints and platinum prints to me. Now if I could only see them up close and personal, I could chose what process, if any or both, I could shoot for. Man, I even spent some time checking out some workshops that I would think about taking in these processes. Thanks for all the great help everybody. Anybody know of good galleries in the western part of Kentucky I could go to for additional viewing? I agree with Sal above when he says to read the postings, then actually think about them, then what the heck, read them again, then post.
Please, please, please, read Michael's postings, think about what he wrote, stifle any urge to do other than respond to what he actually said (not what you surmise his motivation might be), and even then, let your response sit for a while before posting it. You may cool down and decide not to operate in 'reactive mode' after all. In other words, please "play nice." There was too much struggle on the part of Tuan, Bjorn and Tom re-establishing this forum for it to degenerate into an emotion-driven photo.net-like free for all.
Sal, after making an ass of myself in a few flame wars I have learned to do this. But there are times when a response has to be made.
As I said, perhaps I am being cynical, but Michael has said, repeatedly, that in all his 40 years of experience he has seen very few "good" pt/pd prints. This leads me to believe that either he has not seen that many pt/pd prints, or that this new "acceptance" of the medium has an ulterior motive, and in a way he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Dont you find curious that in 40 years he has seen very few good pt/pd prints and then all of the sudden we get a reversal in opinion?
By no means I am a "master" pt/pd printer, but I try to research and learn as much as I can on the process, unless this people in Belgium are using a proprietary method which they have not published I find hard to believe they can get a Dmax of 2.1.
Even pt/pd prints made on fixed out enlarger paper cannot get this high a Dmax. I am sure if there was a way to get this kind of response someone would have heard about or asked about it. Nevertheless, it could be possible and I am willing to give Michael the benefit off the doubt on this.
In the end I find this reversal of opinion too unusual.
Hi Sal. With all due repect, what would a forum like this one be without emotion, or the freedom to express our point of view? I think that Michael has a sufficiently thick skin to weather my challenges, and he certainly doesn't temper his resopnses or "reactions". I appreciate your desire for harmony, and I think you'll find me polite and respectful to those who reciprocate. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and have no trouble with respectful disagreement, but that hasn't been my history with M. Smith. Kindest regards, Jay De Fehr
Jay, I've followed the threads about AZO for awhile now. Not because I use it, but because I am interested in learning about as many different techniques/materials that I can. Right now I use a rental darkroom for printing, and my choice of materials is limited to Ilford Multigrade paper, so I also "don't have a dog in this fight." But in every AZO-related thread I can think of, every single one, you are right there to slam Michael and/or to make sarcastic, cynical statements about him, his work, his experience, etc. I saw one where he announced that he was going to be placing an order with Kodak, and you immediately likened him to a televangelist asking for money. Why? You say that "respectful disagreement" hasn't been your history with him, but why are you always so quick to criticize, ridicule, etc, whenever anyone comments on AZO? I believe that was the nature of Sal's post, not that you don't have the freedom to express your point of view.
Hi Mike. You must have missed the threads in which Michael told me I have no idea how to make a photograph, even though we've never met and he's never seen my work (which he claims is how evaluates a photographer's merit), or the one in which he threatened to have me banned from posting on that forum, or any of the other numerous insults he's directed towards me. Reread those threads objectively and I think you'll find that my comments are initially directed to the poster, expressing myself on the topic in question until M. makes one of his usual pity plays, accusing me of personal attacks against him. This is my post from the last thread:
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.
--Jay De Fehr, 2003-11-06 17:29:18
My remarks were directed towards the poster, and my comments regarding M. Smith were not insulting or inappropriate, just in disagreement. I attempted to pass on what I've learned regarding the posters question, and express my disagreement with another post in the thread. This is common practice and well within the bounds of polite disagreement. I didn't even offer my own opinion as to which process I preferred, but remained objective, as was the point of my post. This was Michael's reply:
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.
Do you feel that his response was appropriate? If so, what in my post provoked such a personal attack? Was it because I suggested that he, like platinum printers, was biased towards his own process? I think few would argue that he's not. Or was it because I had the audacity to suggest that his opinions are as meaningless as my own in questions of preference and taste?
The question was reframed, and I responded by providing a link to the information requested. I believe this to be the heart and soul of a forum like this one. To share information, ideas and opinions, even if we don't always agree. Did you adress a similar post to this one to Michael? No. Even though he was the one to post accusations and insults, somehow I'm the one who is being unreasonable. If you don't have a problem with M. Smith's declarations of superiority and arbirary assignment of validity, then we will tend to disagree where he's involved. I hope that will not prevent useful exchanges on other topics. Respectfully, Jay De Fehr
It would be nice if we could at one time have a discussion about contact printing which did not turn into a discussion about Azo versus everything else.
I'm afraid I agree with Jorge and Jay to quite a large extent, while I also agree that they may sometimes over-react. I will also say that I've never seen a good Azo print, but readily admit that that is biased by the fact that I've only ever seen one. I HAVE seen a good Pd/Pt print, but again, I've only seen one.
I have seen a lot of good, bad and indifferent prints in any number of other processes, and have even made some myself. At this time I intend to try Pd, as I have some negatives that I think would be suitable for it. I do not intend to try Azo anytime soon, for purely logistical reasons: I can get the chemicals for Pd/Pt locally, I can not get Azo or Amidol.
In the meantime I use Bergger art Contact, which Michael A Smith has repeatedly told me "is not Azo". Yes. I know. But I like it, and it works, and I like the results it gives me. I honestly couldn't care less if it isn't Azo...
Jorge,
No, they are not printing on watercolor paper. They are having paper made to their own specifications. It is not commercially available yet, but I think it will be at some point. They are not making platinum prints to look like Azo prints. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
"I am just not impressed with a platinum print, unless it is also a good print," seems like a pretty innocuous statement to me. I'm not impressed with anything unless it is good.
Jorge: "Perhaps I am being a bit cynical here, but could these "new" platinum prints be just another way for you to sell your prints at higher prices? or are you having them printed just to display in your house?
If this are prints to be sold then perhaps the economic incentive is what you like, rather than the "look" of the print."
You are cynical, Jorge. Of course, if I like them I will try to sell them. Is there anything wrong with that? But I would never print anything just to sell it. I have to like it for itself, first.
Geoffrey: If I saw digital prints that I thought were good, I might try those, too. However, another problem with digital, for me, is the cost of the equipment--equipment that constaantly has to be upgraded or else in 20 or 50 or 100 years, or a lot fewer, the files will not be readable. But, please, let's not make this a digital vs. other processes discussion.
Richard: Of course the only thing that counts is great photographs. Most LF photography is dull and boring. Most art of all types is dull and boring. Would you like each discussion here to be about "great photographs"? That would eliminate about 99.9% of all of the topics on this forum.
Hogarth: Sorry you are mystified, but if you read more carefully you will find that it is quqlity that I care about and not process. It is just that I have found Azo to be the vehicle for more consistently fine prints than other processes. It is easy. It is quick and it is cheap compared to other processes. It can be beautiful. Seems like a no-brainer to me, if one is making a lot of contact prints. Nowhere have I ever said it is the only way.
Mark: I don't think it is a glossy paper, although they are working on having a glossy paper made to get even richer blacks. It is not a machine process, but a hand process. They do make digital separations--each print is made from three or four negatives (as needed) so that each part of the scale can be expanded. This is nothing I could never do on my own. It really is quite a process.
Jorge, again: I have seen lots of platinum prints, but nothing before quite like those I have seen here. Reversal of opinion. Yes it is. I'll quote a friend of mine who often quotes a line from somewhere, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." And Stieglitz said something about "contradictions" and that of couse he said contradictory things, that to do so was part of being alive. (Don't have the exact quote at hand--library is at home.)
Part of the problem with these types of arguments is that they are over philosophy. Arguing a philosophy is akin to debating why one's favorite color is the best. Of course making a gross generalization that "all platinum prints are flat" or "azure is the best color" is simply wrong, but stating
is an opinion, perhaps even a philosophy worthy of consideration."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."
That said, I'm going to throw my two cents in. I have seen A LOT of flat Pt/Pd prints, many of which are my own, and I am still mystified at the reverence given Stieglitz' (or for that matter, Weston's) platinum prints, when, frankly, they were for the most part pretty lousy. And I don't want anyone to state that the materials at the time were terrible or that the technology was lame or whatever, because Frederick Evans did absolutely STUNNING (by ANY and EVERY MEASURE) work in platinum during the same time period. His prints weren't flat.
Know your materials. Know their capabilities. Know their shortcomings.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks