This post is the result of my own experience and is being offered up for those who may be considering a change of materials.
I have been contact printing on Azo (8X10 and 12X20) for a couple of years now. No doubt about it the Azo prints appeared to be very nice. Azo is acknowledged by many as being the "epitome" of silver papers today. My comparative benchmark to those Azo prints were enlarged prints from 4X5 negatives on my Saunders 4550 XLG VCCE enlarger. This enlarger manufacturer is favored by John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum and others. I enlarged on Seagull VCFB. Again considered by many to be a good paper.
About 3 months ago I had the opportunity to purchase three Durst 138S condenser enlargers. (I can almost hear the gnashing of teeth at this point.)
The addition of these condenser enlargers into my operation has totally changed my view of things. When I begain using them I immediately noticed enhanced print sharpness, better tonal representation, and better local contrast then what I had produced before.
Not totally unreasonable many would say since this may be due to the change of enlargers. But I will go on to say that this is true when compared to my Azo contact prints too. I next approached individuals with varying degrees of photographic experience in a blind print evaluation. The prints that invariably were the most highly favored where the condensor enlarged prints on JandC Polywarmtone Classic and Oriental Seagull fiber graded paper. The most common comments were that the enlarged prints had greater depth and presence; that they exhibited more of a "glow' then the Azo prints and the diffusion enlarged prints.
So what is the purpose of this account? It is to simply indicate that one should find their own way. Determine their own best equipment and materials. The recommendations of Ansel Adams and others is based in their application of certain materials. There are alternatives to those materials and sometimes the acknowledged "epitomes" turn out to be something else.
I have a couple of questions about your "blind print evaluation:" 1) Where all the prints the same size? 2) Where they all mounted and matted the same?
Sometimes people respond to the presentation of a print and then justify it with all kinds of fluff to back up their feelings.
Just asking, not to defend AZO, but just to know more of the details of your testing. There are no silver bullets in photography, only hard work and knowledge about their materials. And on the materials part, what works for some, will only hold others back, each and every one of us must find our own way.
I think the key is to have the look of the print in one's mind and then to go find a way of achieving that look. Everyone has his/her own preferences and ever material has its uses. I love the look of AZO but am not a huge fan of glossy papers. The day they make AZO in a semi-matte (probably never) is the day I switch to one paper for everything. Again, if you know what you want the end result to look like, you can then set about achieving it. Otherwise, you may be searching and trying different materials forever.
The prints that I subjected to evaluation were of the same subject matter. These were prints that were unmounted and unmatted. The prints were 8X10 inch size. These were contact prints in the case of the Azo prints and 4X5 enlargements to 8X10 in the case of the enlarged prints. There were 6 prints of two different images (one each Azo, one each diffusion enlarged, one each condensor enlarged). I made the best prints that I could produce from all of the materials. The prints that most favored were as I indicated above.
I am not promoting any materials nor am I diminishing any materials in this account. My purpose was to indicate that one should find one's own way.
Thanks for your question and I hope that I have answered it.
Donald, after this test, will you continue to do your 12x20 contacts on AZO? Or what instead? I ask because I have a 12x20 camera on order and am gathering info about contacting materials.
Could the difference between the condensor and the diffusion prints just be a matter of contrast? If you developed the negs a bit more for the diffusion enlarger do you think that would change your results? I am finding that I prefer a more contrasty negative for my diffusion head and then printing on a lower grade of paper. I think the reason for this is more local contrast, but I am not sure at this point. Maybe I should put the condensor head back on for the difficult negatives and see if it makes a difference. I have never printed on Azo nor seen it so I can't comment on your central premise.
Could it be negative related? I mean it takes negatives of very different qualities to print on enlarging papers than on contact papers. Negatives for enlarging are extremely thin for contacting on AZO. A negative that prints well on AZO grade 2 can only be printed on grade 0 enlarging paper. How are you comparing?
If I were going to test this more diligently, the way I would determine if it's only the enlarger, would be to eliminate all the other variables.
How about this: Use only one 4x5 negative and one paper. Contact print the negative and also enlarge it to the same size in your 2 different enlargers. Develop all the prints at the same time, in the same paper developer. Process them all identically. Forget all about AZO for now. See which negative you like best. Otherwise, there are so many variables, there's no way to be sure that it's the enlarger.
There are certainly a number of additional variables that could be incorporated into my experience. My purpose as I stated is not to diminish or to promote any one way of doing things. I am simply relating that in my experience doing my film exposure, film development (according to the characteristics of the printing paper used) and paper exposure/development that the results indicated to me that the Durst condenser enlarged print (in conjunction with the two papers that I previously mentioned) gave me more of what I want in a print then either a diffusion enlarged print or a contact print on Azo. This is my experience. Your experience may vary. If you want to evaluate this then you must evaluate it for yourself. I make my evaluation solely on the basis of what I observe in the print...period.
I don't want to start any controversy...my sole aim was to indicate my experience to those who may be considering a change of materials.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks