Fomalux Contact Papers

[Vui Shin Chong]

Hi,
Unable to source azo papers in the UK. Found some eastern European contact papers made by Foma - Fomalux. Has anyone tried these papers before? I can't find much information on the net. Any experience shared would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Chong

[Herb Cunningham]

are these papers silver chloride or silver bromide? Azo is silver chloride.

[tim atherton]

I thionk the Fomalux contact papers are silver chloride

never tried them though

[Vui Shin Chong]

Hi,

Yes, Tim is right. The supplier website mention it is silver chloride. Will try it out later and see how it behaves.

Regards

Chong

[Jim_3565]

Michael Smith will ship Azo anywhere in the world.

http://www.michaelandpaula.com

[Jim_3565]

BTW, contact printing papers are neither cameras nor lenses.

[Sven Schroder]

Hi Chong
I have some Fomalux in the fridge, not yet used, are you aware its PE or resincoated. Anyway I will be looking to return to contact prints soon, and am looking for a contact paper available in the UK . Linhof&studio have the following listed :-
Prestige Art Contact 2
High quality glossy premium weight 300g with baryta coating and a contact emulsion.
Grade 2. 25 Sheets 27.9 x 35.5 cms / 11 x 14”
Made by Bergger and maybe worth investigating.

It will be nice to get back to print making, I'am at the brink of my Final Show (September) of
my masters dergree, which is being printed by a lab I trust, it still feels funny not printing it myself, I've been working in colour and am not a skilled colour printer so needs must.

[Paddy Quinn]

Sven

a colleague has a pack of the Prestige Art Contact 2 that Bergger sent him to tryout. I keep trying to get him to open up and run it through some developer. It's supposedly a silver chloride fiber-based double-weight contact paper.

Hopefully some of these new papers will offer some alternatives to deal with the shortcomings of azo. The more options the better, especially now there won't be any more of it made

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

Shortcomings of Azo?

[Paddy Quinn]

Amoing other things, apart from its poor repsonse in most other developers other than amidol, there is the lack of grades and sizes available as well as the annoying nature of its single weight.

As Smith says, he is working on getting on a new contact type paper that will be even better than azo, although he doesn't seem intent on any improvement to the weight.

[Jim_3565]

"although he doesn't seem intent on any improvement to the weight"

To most of us who've used Azo a lot, making it heavier is not an improvement. I much prefer that the new paper be a single rather than a double weight one.

BTW, the lack of grades and sizes of Azo is a shortcoming of Kodak and not of Azo.

[Michael A.Smith]

I have said this many times before. The Bergger paper is NOT a silver chloride paper and is not a contact printing paper, despite what they call it. Anyone can call anything a contact printing paper. Heck, you can contact print on any enlarging paper. Does that make it a contact printing paper?

Fomalux? Don't know a thing about it.

I have printed on Azo single weight and double weight. I, and most everyone who uses it, though not all, prefer the single weight. Besides mounting nicer, single weight paper is half as expensive as double weight. And once you learn to handle it, there are no problems. Yes, there is a five-minute learning time for to learn to handle it properly. If there is anyone out there (or a consortium of people) who have deep pockets and who prefer double weight, we can get that made if you commit to an entire master roll.

Quinn: Have you tried Azo? In several developers?? Including Amidol? I bet not. How do you know how it responds to developers other than Amidol if you have not tried it. Amidol goes so far and is so easy to mix that it ends up only marginally more expensive than other developers, especially when prep time is considered.

Shipping to the UK is less than one week usually. And you pay in dollars, not pounds. With the weakness of the dollar, Azo is not expensive at all, even with shipping included.

[Paddy Quinn]

"The Bergger paper is NOT a silver chloride paper and is not a contact printing paper, despite what they call it"

From the information sheet that came with the new paper "Bergger Prestige Art Contact 2 - A Silver Chloride, single grade fiber-based, double-weight contact printing paper"

Note that this is not the Berrger Bergger Prestige Fine Art or such

"Have you tried Azo? In several developers?? Including Amidol? I bet not."

Try not to make assumptions. Amidol and several other developers. My own favourite being Neutol WA at 75c. I also don't generally chose a developer based on how cheap it is?

[Vui Shin Chong]

OK guys. Cool it. I just want to find out more info on Fomalux papers and don't wish to cause a 'war' happening here, especially as a new comer. I will give these Fomalux papers a try and may order some azo from you, Michael, in near future. Could you give a rough estimate how much postage would be to UK.

[Michael A.Smith]

Despite what Bergger says (and I am good personal friends with them) their contact paper is not a pure silver chloride paper.

I assume that if people have not gotten Azo from us they haven't really tried it. Since we started handling the paper (to save it) we have been the only supplier of Grade 3. No other supplier has been willing to commit to the large minimum purchase required. And because I know of no one who only needs one grade of paper to print their negatives, I assume that they haven't really tried Azo. Apologies if my assumption is mistaken here.

Shipping to England with handling is $47 for a box of grade 2 and grade 3. $29.10 for one box. No insurance. We value low for customs purposes. Insurance is your choice. We ship Azo overseas several times a week.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Despite what Bergger says (and I am good personal friends with them) their contact paper is not a pure silver chloride paper."

Damned Frenchy's, never could trust them! (is Bergger still French). I just looked at the photocopy I have of the info sheet - it actually says "a Silver Chloride Iodide, single grade fiber-based, double-weight contact printing paper" - so what's a Silver Chloride Iodide paper?

"I assume that if people have not gotten Azo from us they haven't really tried it. Since we started handling the paper (to save it) we have been the only supplier of Grade 3. No other supplier has been willing to commit to the large minimum purchase required. And because I know of no one who only needs one grade of paper to print their negatives, I assume that they haven't really tried Azo. Apologies if my assumption is mistaken here."

I bought a fairly large batch from Freestyle when they were selling it off, as well as some from B&H and from a place in Chicago that had some they couldn't sell.

[Jay DeFehr]

"Despite what Bergger says (and I am good personal friends with them) their contact paper is not a pure silver chloride paper. "

Michael, can you tell us exactly what the Azo emulsion contains, and how it differs from the Bergger emulsion? I can find no source that confirms that Azo is a "pure silver chloride" emulsion, whatever that means. Are you claiming that Azo contains no Iodides or other sensitizers of any kind? If so, I'd appreciate a referrence that confirms this assertion. I would also like to see a definition of "contact prinitng paper" that disqualifies the Bergger paper from inclusion. Thanks.

Jay

[Michael A.Smith]

There is no definition of "contact printing paper." However, contact printing papers have usually been thought of as silver chloride papers. That is what they were historically. As I said, you can contact print on any paper. Does that make it a contact printing paper? By some definitions, yes it does. You can catch a baseball with a glove you wear in winter to keep your hands warm. Does that make it a "baseball glove"? By some definitions it probably does. But not mine. Not for baseball gloves or contact printing paper.

Silver chloride is a silver halide. The chloride is the sensitizer.

Iodide is used in film manufacture. It is the "fastest" halide. It is used to increase film speed, which is much, much faster than paper speed. Using iodide in paper manufacture makes the paper fast and changes the paper characteristics. Silver chloride seems to be the only halide that provides the long, smooth scale that is the hallmark of silver chloride contact printing paper.

Azo contains only silver chloride as the sensitizer. I do not have a reference handy.

Good for you, Paddy. When Freestyle stopped selling Azo they offered all they had left to us. We bought it and became dealers. Previously, Kodak had offered us a dealership, but we turned it down (lack of time) and contacted Freestyle and asked them to become dealers. (Kodak had told us someone had to do it and asked us to contact someone.) This was in 2000. In 2002 Freestyle decided to stop carrying it. (They had changed ownership and the new owners applied the 20-80 rule (20% of the products account for 80% of the profits). Azo was not in the 20%. So, reluctantly, we became Azo dealers.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the presence of an iodode in the Bergger paper disqualifies it from being classified as a contact printing paper, according to your definition, and further, Azo contains only silver chloride, but you have no referrence to support your contention that Azo does not aslo contain some other sensitizing agents, such as iodides or bromides, etc. Would it be fair to say that you know no more about these emulsion formulae than what's printed on the packaging? Isn't it true that contact printing papers have traditionally been classified by their printing speeds, and not their specific emulsion formulae? I have seen many paper emulsion formulae that contain combinations of sensitizers, and are too slow for projection printing. Are these not "contact printing papers"? It seems that you are only interested in a definition for "contact printing paper" that excludes all papers but Azo, even though you don't have any authoritative information regarding the emulsion formula of Azo. Now that Azo has joined the ranks of discontinued papers, it seems that the Bergger paper might be among the few "contact printing papers" still in production, along with Centennial P.O.P., and perhaps Fomalux.

Jay

[Michael A.Smith]

All of the contact printing papers, originally called "gaslight" paper because they were exposed by gaslight, including Convira, Haloid, Velox, and the many others that once existed were all silver chloride only. They were, as Azo is, of a very slow speed. The Bergger paper is a far faster paper.

No reference. I am a photographer, not a scientist, nor a scholar. I do have the information somewhere among my many technical books, but have no time to do research. But you, or anyone else doesn't have to take my word for it or believe what I say. You can call any paper whatever you want to call it. Those who have used silver chloride paper, however, do know the difference between it and papers that are not so constituted. I respond so that those who haven't used silver chloride paper know that there is a difference. And there is a difference. Some may find the Bergger paper preferable to Azo. But it is not the same and prints on it do not have the same characteristics as the paper that Weston and Adams, when he made contact prints, used--that depth of tone, long scale, and glowing presence. When printed well, of course. I have seen bad prints on Azo, so you still have to know how to print when using it.

Jay: "Would it be fair to say that you know no more about these emulsion formulae than what's printed on the packaging?"

No, that wouldn't be fair to say.

[Michael A.Smith]

A quick check of one easy-to-access book says under " Contact printing equipment" (page 427 in Henney & Dudley, Handbook of Photography, 1939) (A great book if anyone is interested in the one complete book), "Gaslight or chloride paper used for contact printing . . ."

Further: "Chloride papers are completely developed in about 45 sec. to i min."

Elsewhere in the chapter: " Chloride papers are the slowest and are used for contact printing. "

There are different curves for chloride paper and for chlor0-bromide and bromide paper.

So, Jay, no, definitely no, it is not fair to say I know "no more about these emulsion formulae than what's printed on the packaging." I believe you are just trying to be antagonistic, not for the first time, and not that I am surprised.

[Jacques Augustowski]

Hi,

Does someone have their web site?

Thanks,

Jacques

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

you might consider reviewing your history. Chloro-bromide "Gaslight" papers were originally so-called because they could be exposed by gaslight, meaning they were much faster than the silver-chloride-only papers that preceded them. With the evolution of bromide emulsions, the term "gaslight" came to indicate that a paper was slow, and gaslight papers came to be known as "Contact papers". In fact, "Velox" comes from the Latin for, "quick". I post this correction because some here consider you an expert in the subject of contact printing papers, and might take your misinformation for fact. If you know the formula for either the Bergger paper, or Azo, it would be very helpful if you would share them here. If not, I'll asume you know no more than the rest of us regarding their respective formulae.

Jay

[Mike Lopez]

And here we go.....

Shit.

[Vui Shin Chong]

Hi guys,
I just tried the Fomalux papers and I must say that I am impressed. Exposed for just under 40 seconds for a contrasty negative which give me ample time to do some dodging. I liked the result very much. Definitely will try some more and it is pretty cheap too. (£3.49 for a pack of 10 - 9x12).

Regards

Chong

[Jay DeFehr]

Chong,

where did you find your Fomalux?

Jay

[Sal Santamaura]

From pages 119 and 222 of the First Edition (1984) of the Encyclopedia of Photography, published by the International Center of Photography, Cornell Capa Editorial Director:

"Contact Paper

Some printing papers are suitable only for contact-printing exposures; their emulsions are too slow (insensitive to light) to respond to the intensity of enlarging images. A contact paper is usually a chloride-emulsion paper"

and

"Gaslight Paper

Gaslight paper was a contact-printing, developing out paper with a gelatin-silver chloride emulsion that was slow enough to permit handling under weak artificial light -- from gas fixtures -- but sensitive enough to be exposed by stronger artificial light. If freed the photographer from having to use sunlight for printing-out exposures -- the common practice -- and from the difficulties of obtaining a properly ventilated gas safelight, required with the equally new and more sensitive bromide papers. It was only necessary to keep the ordinary gas jet turned low during set-up, turn it up to full intensity for exposure, and turn it down again for processing. This convenience first made the paper a favorite among amateurs, but it subsequently came into wide professional use as well. The first such emulsion was invented in 1881 by J. M. Eder and G. Pizzighelli, and a paper was manufactured the following year in Vienna by E. Just. The success of gaslight paper really began with the paper produced in London by Leon Warnerke in 1889 and especially with the introduction of Velox paper in 1893 by the Nepera Chemical Co. of Yonkers, New York."

[David Vickery]

Jay, with all due respect, you are being ...... well, I can't think of the right word at the moment. And Azo is a wonderful paper. You might do yourself a favor and give it a try sometime.
David

[Jay DeFehr]

Sal,

are you suggesting that ALL "gaslight" papers were silver chloride-only emulsions? If so, our sources disagree. There were also chloro-bromide, gaslight papers. I recommend Martin Reed's excellent article on the subject, "Yesterday's Papers"....

"'Gaslight' as a term was more an expression than a definition, and has changed its meaning as time has gone by. At the outset of their availability it indicated high speed, in that a chloride or chloro-bromide gelatin paper could be exposed by gaslight in the darkroom, as opposed to printing-out in a frame outdoors. The expression 'gaslight' was still in use even by the 1960s, although by this time it was an indication of the slowness of the paper. The papers of this type remaining in manufacture are now termed 'contact' papers."

David,

With all due respect, I have used Azo, and have never commented on the relative quality of that paper. What does this have to do with the discussion of the terms and definitions associated with contact printing papers? Is someone suggesting that Azo is NOT a contact printing paper? The disagreement here is a simple one; Michael asserts, as always, that Azo is the only silver chloride paper, and as such, the only true contact printing paper. Neither is accurate, regardless of the relative quality or characteristics of Azo. Whenever Michael makes these claims, I challenge him to corroborate them, which of course, he never can. Should we give Michael a pass and allow him to disseminate misinformation as he pleases? If so, why? Could a dealer of any other product expect the same latitude?

Jay

[N Dhananjay]

The silver halides do have differing sensitivities - choride being the slowest and iodide the fastest. Most films contain iodide and are of course orders of magnitude faster than papers. Most emulsions these days are chloro-bromide emulsions. It is also a fact that most papers for a long time were pure chloride papers (tracing back to the roots of silver printing which lie in what are now alternate processes such as POP, which all utilize silver chloride emulsions). In fact, the first bromide emulsions were considered to be pretty poor in quality and it took quite a bit of time and research to figure out how to make 'good' enlarging papers.

The following pages might make good reading. http://www.sharlot.org/archives/photographs/19th/book/chapter_14_section_3.html - see gaslight papers about halfway down the page for a reference to Azo and silver chloride. The references, especially to the Kodak pubs should help.I see no reason to doubt Azo being a chloride paper if only from the speed - it is much slower than other papers. I have not come across any other currently available paper that claims to be a pure chloride paper (as pointed out above, the Bergger aper seems to be a mix of chloride and iodide and it certainly seems much faster than Azo). And Azo certainly seems to have a different characteristic curve from other papers that we 'know' (or strongly suspect) to be chloro-bromide or bromide papers. So, to me Azo being a pure chloride paper is the mot parsimonious explanation for these bits of data.

Cheers, DJ

[N Dhananjay]

Forgot to mention. The link is regarding a book, "Photographs from the 19th century - A process identification guide" by William E. Leyshon. Cheers, DJ

[Vui Shin Chong]

Hi Jay,

Here is the link

http://www.retrophotographic.com/shop/2/9/49/

Sorry, it cost £3.99 (not £3.49) + postage.

I developed the paper in Jessops Econoprint developer and fixed it with Illford fixer. So I think any developers and fixers will work.

Regards

Chong

[Jay DeFehr]

Thanks for the link, and the info Chong. I think I'll give this stuff a try.

Jay

[Sal Santamaura]

Jay, my post above was not meant to suggest anything. It's simply some quotes taken out of what appears to be a reliable source. I hope all who observe these ongoing food fights will reach their own conclusions from the raw data.

[Jay DeFehr]

DJ,

thanks for the well-thought post. Maybe Azo is a pure silver chloride paper, and maybe it isn't. Emulsion design can be very complex, and the characteristics of a given emulsion don't always reflect the general properties of its constituents. There was, at one time, a very slow postcard paper based on an iodode emulsion. Velox was claimed to be 500 times faster than Albumen papers, which were also silver chloride papers. My point is that none of us really knows the formula for Azo, or, if we do, we're not talking. I just wanted to point out that when Michael says a paper isn't a true contact printing paper, what he really means is that it's different than Azo, and nothing more.

Chong,

I followed your link (thanks again), but I can't order Fomalux from the U.S. It isn't even listed on the U.S. site. I might be able to special order it from the U.S. dealer, but I haven't gone that far yet. If you are able to scan your Fomalux prints, I'd love to see one. Thanks for the introduction.

Jay

[Vui Shin Chong]

Hi,
Anyone interested to see how I did with my first contact print on Fomalux paper, here is the link.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3631622

Thanks for looking.

Regards

Chong

[Vui Shin Chong]

No manipulation with software BTW. Contrast is as on print. Cactus exposed for 18 seconds and pot for 40 seconds.

[Jay DeFehr]

Chong,

thanks for posting your image. The screen image looks a little contrasty, (like the negative, I suppose) do you know the density range of your negative? I'm just wondering about the DR requirements of this paper. What film did you use? The notch looks like some of the repackaged films I get here in the states. Thanks again for posting.

Jay

[Jay DeFehr]

Dan,
your own contribution to this discussion is as meaningful and well-thought as ever. Glad to see you here.

Jay

[David Karp]

Well,

At least Gene is not reading this.

[Brian C. Miller]

Angels on pins and needles (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html)

"How many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostling one another?"
-- Isaac D'Israeli (1766-1848)

OK, so the test negative was contrasty. Does Fomalux seem to be a #2 or a #3 paper?

[Brian C. Miller]

I just noticed that Freestyle has begun carrying Foma papers. Perhaps if enough of us write to them, they might consider carrying Fomalux.

[Jay DeFehr]

I tried to contact J&C Photo, who also carry Foma papers, with the same thing in mind, but they've not replied. Maybe I'll try Freestyle.

Jay

[Vui Shin Chong]

Hi Brian,
The Fomalux that I tried is matt Grade 2 paper. The subject was taken against a light box as background and the cactus and pot were lit by touch light for 4.5 minutes. Lens was set at f45. The negative is very contrasty. I tried to print another copy yesterday with less exposure to cactus and more to pot ( 15 seconds for cactus and nearly a minute for pot). I like the second print better.

Regards

Chong

[Vui Shin Chong]

Sorry should be torch light.

[David Vickery]

Jay,
Your statement about what Mr. Smith says;

".......Azo is the only silver chloride paper, and as such, the only true contact printing paper. Neither is accurate...."

So how do you know that Azo contains halides in addition to chloride?? And it is clear to most of us what Mr. Smith means when he talks about Azo. There may now be some new additions to the market, but for a long time Azo was the only contact printing speed paper of its type available. Centennial POP for example, is not the same type of paper. It is a printing-out paper not a developing-out paper, so that, amoung other reasons is why it is not considered similar to Azo--even though it is clearly a "contact printing paper", as are a lot of the other materials that are commonly considered to be alternative photographic processes. Again, most of us know or are able to figure out what Mr. Smith is talking about.

While I for one do appreciate your willingness to contribute your knowledge and experience to this forum, I do not appreciate what seems to me to be your willingness to antagonize other members of the large format community. You may deny that that is what you are trying to do, but it is the way it reads to me.

To be more direct, slow as some of us are, we do not need a Forum Cop to protect us from the, apparently, horribly devious ways of manufacturers and distributors.

David Vickery

[Jay DeFehr]

"So how do you know that Azo contains halides in addition to chloride?? "

I don't, and neither does anyone else, which is my point, as stated here-

"Maybe Azo is a pure silver chloride paper, and maybe it isn't. Emulsion design can be very complex, and the characteristics of a given emulsion don't always reflect the general properties of its constituents. There was, at one time, a very slow postcard paper based on an iodode emulsion. Velox was claimed to be 500 times faster than Albumen papers, which were also silver chloride papers. My point is that none of us really knows the formula for Azo, or, if we do, we're not talking. I just wanted to point out that when Michael says a paper isn't a true contact printing paper, what he really means is that it's different than Azo, and nothing more."

I've made my point with which you're free to agree or disagree, but if you're suggesting I keep my opinions to myself, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've made my points and provided referrences in a polite and respectful tone, without resorting to personal insults, which is more than I can say for you, so I hope you won't be offended if I take your sentiments with a grain of salt.

Jay

[Michael Kadillak]

Choose carefully who you decide to use for your academic conjectures because you may think that you are fighting the good battle, but I promise you that you will lose the war.

If you have completed the subject research and have a factual information to the contrary then state your case and the source and let it stand on its own for all to benefit. Castigating a very knowledgable gracious and reputable individual for not having earned an advanced degree but knows his subject matter through years of experience is in the very poorest of taste.

I take great pride in being opinion neutal because I greatly value my virtual and professional reputation but this one took me over the edge.

Get over yourself. Life is much easier that way....

[David Vickery]

Hello Jay,

I am sure that someone knows what is in Azo. Possibly, quite a few people at Kodak. It may even be that Mr. Smith knows more about it than you are claiming.

Emphatically, it is not your opinions which I object to! I do in fact appreciate the information which you and everyone else freely shares here.

What I do object to is illustrated by your partial statement as follows;

"Whenever Michael makes these claims, I challenge him......"

This illustrates an action, not an opinion. On my first reading it struck me as what I have described previously.

However, all of this is contrary, unbeneficial, and divisive, and I am contributing in the same way that I object to in others. For my part in continuing this, I apologize for these wasted words.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

I can only assume that your comments are directed at me, but if I'm wrong, I appologize in advance. The truth is, I have very little idea what you're going on about. I have never castigated anyone for not having earned an advanced degree, which would indeed be in poor taste, considering that I have not earned an advanced degree myself. Unlike your own, my remarks have been confined to the subject of contact printing papers, past and present, and not petty personal attacks feebly disguised as a call for comity, which is truly in very poor taste. If you have something of substance to say, get your wits about you, and make yourself clear. Otherwise, I suggest you take your own advice and "get over yourself".

David,

When I wrote that I don't know what's in Azo, and neither does anyone else, I meant anyone participating in this discussion. As I've said, If Michael knows the formula for Azo, he isn't talking. You're not obligated to agree with me when I challenge Michael to corroborate his claims, or divulge the definition he's working under when he claims a paper is not a "contact printing paper", but if you're offended by polite disagreement, an internet forum might not be the place for you. If the passage you quoted is the most offensive remark I've made, and it prompted you to post your sarcastic message to me, which was strictly personal with no relation to the topic under discussion, I think you have a skewed view of forum etiquette. This is a well established pattern with which I am intimately familiar. I disagree with Michael, the discussion becomes heated, and Michael's sympathizers take turns making snide, misinformed and often unintelligible comments and personal attacks. Fortunately, I am very thick-skinned. You seem a reasonable person; if you take the time to re-read my posts here, I think you'll agree that nothing I've posted is offensive or hostile, just a polite challenge that again went unanswered.

Jay

[Michael A.Smith]

I was asked by Jay to describe what is in Azo. I replied quoting a reference that contact papers are silver chloride papers. No bromide, or iodide added. Just chloride. Kodak has told me, and many others, that Azo is a silver chloride paper. (One example: Years ago Richard Knoppow, as knowledgeable person as there is who ever contributed to forums (he could run rings around any contributors whose words I have since read), although I seem to have lost track of him, once described Azo as a chloro-bromide paper. I told him he was wrong. He contacted Kodak, where he has very high-level contacts. He replied that I was correct--that Azo only had silver chloride as the sensitizing agent.) I thought I replied to Jay's request. If he was asking me to list every ingredient in Azo, I wouldn't do it, as that is proprietary information information held by Kodak. I have never known Kodak to publicly divulge their formulas. They are trade secrets. But I was told by Kodak that silvere chloride is the only sensitizing agent in Azo. I have no reason to believe they lied to me (or to Knoppow or to others).

Jay and I have had serious disagreements. I believe his reponse here is disengenious--stating that I did not respond to him. There is something in his tone which is offensive, although his words appear on the surface to be most respectful. I once called it passive-aggressive. That others have called him on his tone indicates that others feel it, too.

Since I answered Jay's request to the best of my abilities, if he continues to doubt the truth of what I am saying--that Azo is a silver chloride paper--I ask him to provide a reference stating that Azo has other ingredients in it. It is very easy to say, "you did not provide sufficient information." (I think it would be impossible for me to ever provide Jay with sufficient information.) It is quite another to provide an alternative explanation. That Jay has not done.

My statement that only silver chloride paper are contact printing papers I answered far above in the paragraph I referenced from Henney & Dudley and also in my basebal glove analogy.

The great thing about Azo is the long scale and rich black tones. Fomalux is a mat paper. Mat papers do not have as long a scale as glossy papers nor do they have as arich black tones. Weston's original silver prints were on mat silver chloride paper. They are dull things. Especially when compared to his prints on glossy paper. Occasionally he printed the same negative on both papers providing an easy comparision.

I find it interesting, and amusing, that Jay seems so concerned with developer formula and with making fine prints himself (he uses 8x10 and makes contact prints at least sometimes) and yet, to my knowledge, as never tried Azo--at least not grade 3, which since 2002, when I first encuntered Jay on the Internet as he was getting started, has only been available from me. But, aha, there is another silver chloride paper available, albeit a mat paper, and immediately he wants to know where he can get it. That leads me to believe he is not serious about his photography--not serious enough to try Azo--a paper many, many people have described as a paper that made them say of their own work, often after years of trying to make a fine print, "So this is what a fine print looks like! And it is so easy to use." Is he afraid I won't sell it to him? Does he not want to support my "business"? Or does he just not care that much, really, about making the finest silver prints possible--or in testing whether my many statements that Azo provides those prints is true or not?

That and his comment that whenever I make a claim (I would call it a statement) he challenges me, leads me to believe that for some reason he has a personal problem with me that gets in the way of and derails serious discussion. It is me he is responding to, not the subject under discussison.

[Ole Tjugen]

I usually stay out of these "debates", at least until THIS occurs:
"That leads me to believe he is not serious about his photography--not serious enough to try Azo--"

Can you understand, Michael, that some people might be irritated and even feel a little insulted by statements such as that?

There are other papers than Azo. None of the others are Azo. But then again Azo isn't Bergger Fine Art Silver Supreme. While that is not a slow contact paper, there is no doubt which I would prefer to print on.

[RichSBV]

I read the entire paragraph:

I find it interesting, and amusing, that Jay seems so concerned with developer formula and with making fine prints himself (he uses 8x10 and makes contact prints at least sometimes) and yet, to my knowledge, as never tried Azo--at least not grade 3, which since 2002, when I first encuntered Jay on the Internet as he was getting started, has only been available from me. But, aha, there is another silver chloride paper available, albeit a mat paper, and immediately he wants to know where he can get it. That leads me to believe he is not serious about his photography--not serious enough to try Azo--a paper many, many people have described as a paper that made them say of their own work, often after years of trying to make a fine print, "So this is what a fine print looks like! And it is so easy to use." Is he afraid I won't sell it to him? Does he not want to support my "business"? Or does he just not care that much, really, about making the finest silver prints possible--or in testing whether my many statements that Azo provides those prints is true or not?" --Michael A. Smith, 2005-08-15 05:28:09

As pretty insulting to a whole lot of people...

[tim atherton]

"I usually stay out of these "debates", at least until THIS occurs: "That leads me to believe he is not serious about his photography--not serious enough to try Azo--"
Can you understand, Michael, that some people might be irritated and even feel a little insulted by statements such as that? "

there is an awaful lot of serious, excellent, first class etc photography that was made and is being made that is not being printed on azo as far as I know. Indeed the majority of it probably isn't.

Azo is nice, and can be very nice, but it's not indespinsible to good or seriosu photography, surely?

tim a

"Photography's technicalities are the eternal refuge of the unimaginative camera buff and a perpetual annoyance to almost everyone else..." - Galassi
(my vote for list motto)

[Mark_3632]

"I find it interesting, and amusing, that Jay seems so concerned with developer formula and with making fine prints himself (he uses 8x10 and makes contact prints at least sometimes) and yet, to my knowledge, as never tried Azo--at least not grade 3, which since 2002, when I first encuntered Jay on the Internet as he was getting started, has only been available from me. But, aha, there is another silver chloride paper available, albeit a mat paper, and immediately he wants to know where he can get it. That leads me to believe he is not serious about his photography--not serious enough to try Azo--a paper many, many people have described as a paper that made them say of their own work, often after years of trying to make a fine print, "So this is what a fine print looks like! And it is so easy to use." Is he afraid I won't sell it to him? Does he not want to support my "business"? Or does he just not care that much, really, about making the finest silver prints possible--or in testing whether my many statements that Azo provides those prints is true or not? "

I think Michael wins the big head award.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

thank you for making my point for me. You are a zealot, who believes that anyone who doesn't print on Azo, is not serious about their photography. We get it. I think it says something about you and your work that you believe every photographic image worth printing requires a long scale, glossy paper. What a simple little world you live in.

You are wrong, however, about almost everything else you've written. As it happens, I have Azo, just a few feet from me, in grades 2,3....and4! Apparently you don't have the worldwide supply of Azo tied up as tightly as you believe. Seems there are still boxes lying around in basements and old photo studios all over the world. Also, I never claimed that Azo is anything other than a silver chloride paper, just that I don't know that conclusively, and you can't prove it, or won't.

So, what is a "contact printing paper"? As Michaels so sarcastically stated, we can call any paper "contact " paper, or we can use the traditional definition which used printing speed as the criteria, which would include POP, or we can use Michael's definition , which includes Azo, period. By the first definition we have in current production, the Berrger paper, Fomalux, Fomatone, Centennial POP, and perhaps others, that are described as "contact Papers" by their manufacturers. By the second definition, Centennial, and other POP papers might be the only contact papers still in production. By Michael's definition, there are no contact papers currently in production. So, when Michael claims that Azo is "the only silver chloride contact paper still in production", remember that what he really means is that Azo is the only reputedly gelatin- silver- chloride, developing- out, glossy paper, available on a limited basis, until current stocks are sold. Not quite as catchy, but certainly more accurate.

Jay

[Mike Lopez]

Available on a limited basis until Michael brings something else to market. Given the history of the man's dedication to his craft, does anyone really doubt that he'll succeed in bringing something out?

[Jay DeFehr]

I wish him all the best in his efforts. The more options we have, the better.

Jay

[Michael A.Smith]

Well of course Azo is not the only paper on which fine prints can be made. And it is not the right paper for making certain kinds of prints. But if one is seriously interested in making traditional fine prints and if one is making contact prints and one does not at least try it, then one is shortchanging oneself. If one is not serious, that is another thing. If some feel insulted by being called not serious, so be it.

I cannot understand how photographers can spend many thousands of dollars on cameras and lenses and on setting up a darkroom and then not at least try a paper that, by all reports, not only mine, give superior results for making traditional black and white silver gelatin contact prints. I can only assume they are either not interested in making those kinds of prints, which is fine, or they are not serious if they think they are interested in making those kinds of prints. Not that they have to use the paper for their work, but I would think they would want to try it.

I will be trying Fomalux myself, but I did receive one email that stated: "The paper sucks and is not even a close replacement for Azo." I well know, working as I am now on getting an Azo replacement made, that just because a paper is silver chloride does not make it a good paper.

[Vui Shin Chong]

Hi Michael,
Sorry I have to chime in here with your last comment "The paper sucks and is not even a close replacement for Azo." Don't sounds like it is from a person who is serious about their photography either. I don't think Foma has ever claimed that Fomalux is a replacement for Azo. I haven't tried Azo myself, but what I get from this papers I am quite happy and friends who does B&W did acknowledge that the papers are not bad at all.

Regards

Chong

[fishrdnc]

This is an old thread, much older than when I started to contact print. It began as eliciting opinions on Fomalux, which I have used and compare to the other paper I have used for contacting (Kentmere Bromide FB #2, at ISO 250). I use Fomalux 111 Sp, FB DW glossy, described by Foma as "...silver chloride emulsion used, the paper is designed primarily for contact work...." My own opinion is that I very much prefer the Fomalux to the Kentmere silver bromide in every way for contacting.

The thread shortly became melee concerning Azo, not the subject of the thread. To to come back around to the original subject, has Mr. Smith used and commented on Fomalux as he attested that he would? I.e.: "I will be trying Fomalux myself, but I did receive one email that stated: 'The paper sucks and is not even a close replacement for Azo.' I well know, working as I am now on getting an Azo replacement made, that just because a paper is silver chloride does not make it a good paper." [Not sure what the second half of the first sentence, nor the entire second sentence have to do with things.]

So, what about Mr. Smith's test results? Am I using a readily-available, second-rate paper (Fomalux) and too much of a neophyte to know any better?

N.B. I'm aware that this whole thing is in the wrong sub-forum.

[John Kasaian]

This is an old thread, much older than when I started to contact print. It began as eliciting opinions on Fomalux, which I have used and compare to the other paper I have used for contacting (Kentmere Bromide FB #2, at ISO 250). I use Fomalux 111 Sp, FB DW glossy, described by Foma as "...silver chloride emulsion used, the paper is designed primarily for contact work...." My own opinion is that I very much prefer the Fomalux to the Kentmere silver bromide in every way for contacting.

The thread shortly became melee concerning Azo, not the subject of the thread. To to come back around to the original subject, has Mr. Smith used and commented on Fomalux as he attested that he would? I.e.: "I will be trying Fomalux myself, but I did receive one email that stated: 'The paper sucks and is not even a close replacement for Azo.' I well know, working as I am now on getting an Azo replacement made, that just because a paper is silver chloride does not make it a good paper." [Not sure what the second half of the first sentence, nor the entire second sentence have to do with things.]

So, what about Mr. Smith's test results? Am I using a readily-available, second-rate paper (Fomalux) and too much of a neophyte to know any better?

N.B. I'm aware that this whole thing is in the wrong sub-forum.
Do you like your results?
Thats what really matters, doesn't it?

[fishrdnc]

yup, I really do. That's why its a little harder to jump too many times to something else that may or not be "better." It would be nice to have be some concensus in the body of knowledge. Trouble is, tastes are different. I did play with a couple of pieces of choloro-bromide (Emaks K-888) but couldn't get past the the base color that I didn't like - not a "better" for me. For sure though, the silver chloride is a different looking animal than silver bromide, a difference that I immediately liked.