My thoughts on AZO vs. Ilford Galerie and Warmtone papers

[Corran]

A very kind forum member sent me some AZO to try out. Several users on this forum have told me I should try printing on AZO (or Lodima) and that it is the "Best Paper Ever." On many occasions I have seen AZO sell for more than new Ilford paper in the classifieds. I am not one to buy into hype and I wasn't about to spend huge bucks on a large quantity of paper I wasn't sure about (and that is older than me!) so I must thank my benefactor for sending me this amount of paper to try out.

This morning I contact printed the same 8x10 negative on three papers - the AZO paper I was sent that is Grade 3, as well as Ilford's Warmtone semi-matte paper and some Galerie G2 paper I have on hand. I used freshly-mixed Ansco 130 for all 3 prints.

For the Warmtone, I used a #3 filter since it is multigrade. I left the filter in place for both the AZO and Galerie just to compare directly the exposure differences. I was pleasantly surprised that the Galerie paper had the exact same exposure time as the Warmtone. Since it was G2 I went ahead and overdeveloped it to give it a little more contrast. Finally, the AZO - it ended up taking a couple test strips to dial in exposure because it ended up taking 3.5 stops more light to get a similar exposure. I now understand why bare bulbs were used for contact printing!

I just scanned the now-dry prints and will post them below. Here's a few thoughts on the differences between the prints as I look at them:

- The AZO has some very apparent vignetting on the image, or I guess "reverse" vignetting - darkening of the corners from more exposure. I'm not sure what would cause this. Perhaps because it is old?

- I burned the top half of the image on the Warmtone and Galerie papers, to get a bit more of the highlights under control. The AZO did not need any burning.

- The lower midtones on the AZO seem a bit more contrasty and "luminous." Both of the other Ilford papers seem a bit flat in the lower midtones. However, the Galerie paper is better than the Warmtone, and I think that at G3 the Galerie would look a bit closer to the AZO, perhaps even the same.

- The Galerie has a very flat gloss, while the AZO almost has a bit of texture or mottling of the surface. But not in physical texture, but the look of the printed image. The semi-matte Warmtone paper is not comparable obviously.

- Tone of the image varied only slightly between the 3. The scans kind of emphasize the differences, but don't take them as a scientific comparison of image tone.

- Sharpness of the Warmtone image seemed slightly lower than the other two. Due to the slight textured look of the AZO it seemed slightly sharper than the Galerie. Overall differences though were negligible.

- Highlights seem to be retained a hair more on the AZO, despite burning down the Galerie and Warmtone a slight amount. The Warmtone, as I've seen previously, has the most difficult time printing down highlights. This is pretty amazing results for the AZO - overall I think one would need much less of a dialed-in negative to get a full range print, whereas for the others it better be a great negative or you'll have blocked up shadows and/or blown highlights. That said, I am wondering if the previously mentioned vignetting is actually a byproduct of age/fogging and giving a false impression with regard to highlight retention - perhaps instead it is just a "pre-flash" of the paper, in effect.

- On that note, I did notice on my test strips that if they were left in the developer for a long time, they did develop some slight fog. But only after a long time, longer than the prints were developed for.

Overall, I am really impressed - but I'm not sure I am going to be emptying my bank account to go buy some AZO, or Lodima. If Lodima was on the market at the same price roughly as Ilford Galerie though, I would possibly or probably switch. That said, it can not be forgotten that multigrade paper gives the ability for split-grade printing/burning which I find can be a powerful tool, so the Warmtone is still a valuable paper. All 3 gave excellent prints, and these slight differences are not earth-shattering, but they are certainly apparent when looking at the prints.

Below, I will post the scan of the film, and then the three print scans. Again, the scan of the prints are not completely scientifically accurate representations, so I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on these scans. The image was taken with my Wehman UL 8x10, 120mm f/8 Nikkor, on Delta 100 developed in FX-39:

SCAN:
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/langdaleprinttest-scan.jpg

AZO:
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/langdaleprinttest-0489 AZOss.jpg

GALERIE:
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/langdaleprinttest-0490 GALERIEss.jpg

WARMTONE:
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/langdaleprinttest-0491 WARMTONEss.jpg

[Tin Can]

Great review and interesting results.

[G Benaim]

The vignetting sounds like reciprocity failure because of the long exposure time.
Iow the vignetting is there in your light source, you just don't normally see it because it's very slight. As you go into reciprocity failure that slight difference matters more. Easily solved w a brighter light or taking off the filter even.

[Corran]

Thanks Randy!

GB - interesting thought, but wouldn't the vignetting you describe from the enlarger lens cause lighter edges, not darker? Or is it that the reciprocity of the paper shows from the higher density of the negative in the central portion, therefore needing longer exposure times and exaggerating the vignetting at time of exposure? I actually thought it was exaggerating the negative's vignetting but the scan seems to have such little vignetting that I didn't think that was it, but you may be correct.

I just realized that it may be "wrong" to use my enlarger for contact printing as I do. I usually use a lens to project a circle of light for contact printing. Using the light source with no lens is way too much light for normal enlarging papers I use. For instance, in the examples above on Warmtone/Galerie, exposure time was 7 seconds total, with my lens set at f/11. For the AZO I set it to f/8 and did 1:30 exposure. Now that I say that I realize I miscalculated, it's actually over 5 stops more light onto the paper, not the 3.5 I said earlier.

[Willie]

What paper developer and time/temperature did you use for these papers.
Match Azo with Amidol and your results may be a bit different.
Independent testing over the years by many due to the Azo cheerleaders has shown some excellent qualities for the paper - and now for Lodima. Taking advantage of the Amidol developer will give results a bit different than many "normal" print developers.

[Corran]

Ansco 130 was the developer. I did not measure the temperature, but my DR right now is at 75F so it was likely about that. Many people compare 130 to Amidol, but it doesn't have the staining issues known from Amidol and also has phenomenal shelf life. At this time I'm not really interested in using Amidol. As per usual, I will state here that I am not a grizzled old DR expert with 50 years of experience under my belt. So my opinions are just that, opinions based on my personal experiences using a variety of papers, developers, and techniques learned in the last decade and using mostly modern papers and developers.

Personally I think there is a bit of "magic bullet syndrome" with regard to AZO these days. I can understand the allure, especially compared to multigrade papers, which I have found to be harder to print highlights on than graded.

If someone with a chunk of AZO and Amidol wants to prove me completely wrong and print this negative in their DR, I will send them the negative. If it is clearly head-and-shoulders a better print than my AZO/130 print I will happily scan and post it.

[Peter De Smidt]

Nice work, Bryan!

[Corran]

Thanks Peter!

[G Benaim]

You're of course right Bryan, I got it reversed. But, I think the main point still holds, that the long azo exposure is exaggerating an existing unevenness in your light source and that a brighter light would eliminate the issue. I just use a desk lamp w between a 50 to 150w bulb depending on neg density. As to amidol vs 130 the main advantage to amidol is the water bath, which gives you great contrast control.

[Tin Can]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?42458-AZO-and-Ansco-130&p=407793&viewfull=1#post407793

[Corran]

GB - you may still be right, I will have to test it on another print. I have a couple other negatives I want to try as well, including an x-ray neg.

Randy, that thread reminds me that I forgot to mention my dilution. As someone else mentioned trying for AZO, I use 130 at 1:1 for about 1-1.5 minutes.

Speaking of AZO, I don't know if I've ever seen an AZO print by one of the "masters" in person. Who knows what is on the wall when looking at prints.

[Tin Can]

Wasn't AZO just an EZ to use paper for checking things out and never meant as 'Fine Art"?

As I have some AZO and Lodima I am shopping right now for Ansco 130, but my eyes are still 50% so actual photography is on hold.

We are in a heat wave, I will work inside on my Darkroom for 3 days and see if I can't get it going.

[Thom Bennett]

Corran,

Don't have any AZO but I regularly print with Lodima/Amidol if you'd be interested in seeing the results from that combination I'd like to give it a whirl.

If someone with a chunk of AZO and Amidol wants to prove me completely wrong and print this negative in their DR, I will send them the negative. If it is clearly head-and-shoulders a better print than my AZO/130 print I will happily scan and post it.[/QUOTE]

[Corran]

Wasn't AZO just an EZ to use paper for checking things out and never meant as 'Fine Art"?

I read the same elsewhere.

I have seen Arbus, Weston, Adams, and other "vintage" prints in galleries and it is always striking to see these prints. I do think there was something different with the old silver-rich emulsions and classic papers. I often wonder if modern materials have more technical qualities (higher resolution and the like) while at the same time being more finicky to use.


Don't have any AZO but I regularly print with Lodima/Amidol if you'd be interested in seeing the results from that combination I'd like to give it a whirl.

Thanks for the offer Thom, let's do it. I will message you later. I want to make another print or two from this negative so I can send you it and my print to compare.

[Thom Bennett]

Thanks for the offer Thom, let's do it. I will message you later. I want to make another print or two from this negative so I can send you it and my print to compare.

Sounds good! As an exercise, I'll make the first print without looking at your guide print and see how close or how far I am from your interpretation. Then I'll compare the two and make a second print if necessary. This will be fun!

[Jim Noel]

Wasn't AZO just an EZ to use paper for checking things out and never meant as 'Fine Art"?

As I have some AZO and Lodima I am shopping right now for Ansco 130, but my eyes are still 50% so actual photography is on hold.

We are in a heat wave, I will work inside on my Darkroom for 3 days and see if I can't get it going.

Azo was meant to produce fine art prints. it was not manufactured as an easy to use paper t try things out. And why in the world would a knowing person use contrast filters on it? Some of it's sensitivity and scale must be lost in that process.
If you had ever seen a final print on Azo by a good printer you would know that it's tonal scale is longer and finer than any paper available today.

[Corran]

I think suggesting the contrast filter would change the look of the paper is a specious claim, but tonight I will make a couple more prints for myself and test the vignetting thing out, without the CF and we'll see.

[Tin Can]

I am glad you persevere.

[chris_4622]

Wasn't AZO just an EZ to use paper for checking things out and never meant as 'Fine Art"?

As I have some AZO and Lodima I am shopping right now for Ansco 130, but my eyes are still 50% so actual photography is on hold.

We are in a heat wave, I will work inside on my Darkroom for 3 days and see if I can't get it going.

The beauty of using Amidol for the developer is the ability to control contrast, to a degree, using a water bath. Contact me and maybe I can arrange to send you some.
chris

[Mark Sampson]

Hmmm. Azo and other contact-speed 'chloride' papers go back to the days when most negatives were contact-printed. Enlarging-speed 'chlorobromide' papers came along a little later, and have long dominated the b/w paper market. Azo was used for 'quick-n-dirty' work but wasn't designed for that purpose- it was always a high-quality paper. However it doesn't do well in modern paper developers (in my experience anyway) and would probably do better in an amidol formula. Although 130 seems to do a good job here...
I don't think that there's a magic bullet in this case. If I was going to begin making contact prints as my finished product, I would certainly try Azo and Lodima, in various developers, alongside the enlarging papers I use now. Corran, keep at it! I'm sure you'll find the right answers for each of your papers, learn a lot, and make some beautiful prints along the way.

[Willie]

GB - you may still be right, I will have to test it on another print. I have a couple other negatives I want to try as well, including an x-ray neg.

Randy, that thread reminds me that I forgot to mention my dilution. As someone else mentioned trying for AZO, I use 130 at 1:1 for about 1-1.5 minutes.

Speaking of AZO, I don't know if I've ever seen an AZO print by one of the "masters" in person. Who knows what is on the wall when looking at prints.


You might check with Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, the makers of Lodima paper and champions of Azo and Amidol for decades now. They had the new paper made after Kodak discontinued Azo. They may be able to point you to a gallery or someone in your area with some of their prints you can see.

Beautiful work worth the effort to find a way to see it.

Azo and the contact papers generally work well with a negative that is good for Pt/Pd and Carbon printing. Long tonal scale prints that are simple to make. The developer makes a difference that can be easily seen in many cases.

[Corran]

Thanks Mark, I appreciate it.

Willie, what I meant to say, is that I don't know what papers / developers (or usually even film) was used when I see prints on the wall from classic photographers. But for me, what's more important is seeing prints from my own negative. I think it's easy to see a wonderful print and think "it's wonderful, perhaps because it's printed/shot with XYZ." But that's poor thinking, what I call "magic bullet syndrome." But I like to try things! So I am very happy to try this stuff out to see, and like I mentioned I'll take Thom up on his offer because it's always possible I'm just not a great printer and I'm doing a disservice to the negative. Or maybe it's not a great negative or the light wasn't the best!

I shot some today at a location I have been to before - but today the light was amazing! If I made a print from my first trip on one paper and then today's image on another, it would not be a good comparison, because even though it's the same place the light and timbre of the image will be completely different.

All that is to say, I think it's best to try to compare things with my negative, not an image from someone else without any knowledge of what the negative looked like, what the scene looked like, or a myriad of different things that could be the reason a print looks really excellent. This is also why I think there is a dearth of such comparisons online and why a common suggestion is to "try it yourself." Unfortunately that becomes harder as material costs continue to climb!!

[Willie]

Thanks Mark, I appreciate it.

Willie, what I meant to say, is that I don't know what papers / developers (or usually even film) was used when I see prints on the wall from classic photographers. But for me, what's more important is seeing prints from my own negative. I think it's easy to see a wonderful print and think "it's wonderful, perhaps because it's printed/shot with XYZ." But that's poor thinking, what I call "magic bullet syndrome." But I like to try things! So I am very happy to try this stuff out to see, and like I mentioned I'll take Thom up on his offer because it's always possible I'm just not a great printer and I'm doing a disservice to the negative. Or maybe it's not a great negative or the light wasn't the best!

I shot some today at a location I have been to before - but today the light was amazing! If I made a print from my first trip on one paper and then today's image on another, it would not be a good comparison, because even though it's the same place the light and timbre of the image will be completely different.

All that is to say, I think it's best to try to compare things with my negative, not an image from someone else without any knowledge of what the negative looked like, what the scene looked like, or a myriad of different things that could be the reason a print looks really excellent. This is also why I think there is a dearth of such comparisons online and why a common suggestion is to "try it yourself." Unfortunately that becomes harder as material costs continue to climb!!

Trying and learning on your own is a good way to go but don't discount learning from those who are at the top of their game. A workshop with Michael and Paula will expand your horizons and give you hands on experience with master photographers in their element.

You look at good work so you understand what quality is and use it as a guage for your own printing. If yours does not measure up for quality in the final print you find out why it doesn't and correct it. Since you are talking contact printing Michael and Paula are your resource. If it is enlarging look at John Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum - and yes, I know there are many who are very good, just giving some I know are worth it.

Kodak Azo was a magical paper in many ways. Not perfect and no longer made. Lodima from Michael and Paula is excellent. Small runs and a paper for those looking for that last bit if quality. Why not work with it the way its makers say gives the highest results? You try it as they say works best and then decide for yourself. Not just one print but a series of them so you can see it with different negatives.

Depending on what you like you might find yourself on a journey to hand poured Carbon prints with this material only a stop on the journey.

[Peter De Smidt]

In the last year, I saw an exhibition by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. The prints were excellent, but the quality wasn't better than prints I've seen by other top printers using other tools. In my collection I have two 8x10 contact prints printed on Azo and developed in Amidol. I'm trying to think of the artist.....He was from Alaska....Anyway, again the quality is first rate, but the prints didn't make me want to switch to printing with Azo. It's a good paper, but there are other equally good options, imho of course.

[bob carnie]

In the last year, I saw an exhibition by Michael Smith and Paul Chamlee. The prints were excellent, but the quality wasn't better than prints I've seen by other top printers using other tools. In my collection I have two 8x10 contact prints printed on Azo and developed in Amidol. I'm trying to think of the artist.....He was from Alaska....Anyway, again the quality is nice, but the prints didn't make me want to switch to printing with Azo. It's a good paper, but there are other equally good options, imho of course.

I completely agree, their work is outstanding no doubt about it, but I have seen many shows on different papers that are on par.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I have two 8x10 contact prints printed on Azo and developed in Amidol. I'm trying to think of the artist.....He was from Alaska....Anyway, again the quality is first rate, but the prints didn't make me want to switch to printing with Azo...

George Provost. I have one of his. It looks like an Azo print. The 'long scale' means that, for those accustomed to high-brightness-range daylight scenes as rendered by typical chlorobromide or bromide enlarging papers, high values aren't quite white enough. There's always a hint of gray except for completely specular highlights. Michael Smith espouses that look. It's a definite aesthetic. Old Oriental Seagull is the only enlarging paper I've seen which duplicated this characteristic to some degree.

[LabRat]

Mainly, it's a question of look that works with the image/series/ mood/subject one is trying to acheve, so they are all suitable with possibilities... It's the "palette" one chooses to use...

I agree with Sal that sometimes an image can be too flat and greyish with some long scale paper/dev combinations, so testing is required...

I also think it helps a lot when one makes their own developers and finds dilutions, as that can help trim print characteristics...

I find that some combination can be more pleasing for different moods/conditions such as rainy day, bright beach. night, overcast, etc etc etc...

You are in multiple "zones", so explore differences!!!

Steve K

[Oren Grad]

Here are the curves for the three papers Bryan mentioned to start this discussion. All three of them are specified as having an ISO range of 110 at grade 2. Of course the choice of developer could affect this, as well as the curve shapes, Dmax and image color, to some extent.

179467179468179469

[tgtaylor]

I distinctly recall a Brent Weston that was exhibited in the Out of the Shadows exhibition inSa taBarbara a few years back. The image was looking back towards the west at Mono Lake with the foreground in a greyish snow. I don't think it was the paper.

Thomas

[Corran]

Very interesting discussion on the long scale, and thank you Oren for the charts. Quite enlightening. I can definitely see that hard shoulder in the Warmtone paper!!

I would love to take more workshops, but I can't afford them at the moment.

[Merg Ross]

I distinctly recall a Brent Weston that was exhibited in the Out of the Shadows exhibition inSa taBarbara a few years back. The image was looking back towards the west at Mono Lake with the foreground in a greyish snow. I don't think it was the paper.

Thomas

Thomas, I recall the print, in fact was on that trip with Brett in 1955. The snow has incredible low contrast detail, greyish as you note, due to very early sunrise light; the distance snow has greater contrast. Likely a straight print (contact 8x10), made on Haloid paper, developed in Amidol, Isopan film, ABC Pyro.

[jnantz]

hi Bryan

nice comparison !

one thing about azo paper is you need to have a negative that is a bit different ( dense/contrast &c ) than for other graded or enlarging papers.
if you like using azo go to michaelandpaula.com and read how they suggest to print on it. i don't use amidol but like you ansco130 .
the paper has a nice look and feel to it ( sometimes its kind of greenish some might say ). one thing i like about azo is you can always find a box of it ...
somewhere for cheeps on ebay and even if it is from 60 or 80 years ago, chances are it is still good. you just need a bright light and you are golden.

one thing i am fond of doing is processing my film bulletproof so you cant even see through it, and printing it on RC paper with my 300 watt azo bulb
its good practice for azo :)


good luck with your prints !
john

[Steve Sherman]

Very nice image no matter what it’s printed on !!

I’ve printed on these three papers for years and have some experience to draw on. With all things being equal I preferred Azo...until I ran out of the Rochester Azo, the Canadian manufactured Azo was not only flatter in the same paper grade contrast the mid tone contrast between Rochester and Canadian was noticeable. Hence I switched to Ilford’s Warmtone and recently combine it with the Classic every so often for personal work. The Galiere and Warmtone have been identical emulsions for 20 + years, the Multi Contrast Formula was added to the existing emulsion and came away with essentially the same printing speed.

After switching from Azo to Multi Contrast papers I began to design my negatives more in the direction that the MC papers performed best. An extensive article is here discussing that design change and why MC papers need a much different designed negative than traditionally designed contrast driven design. There is simply no match for the ability to print areas to a specific contrast especially when the highlight density is in line with my negative design. Together with the fact that Ilford recently stopped shipping single graded Galiere in all sizes . Great thread !!
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html

[Corran]

Thank you John and Steve for some interesting continued discussion! And thank you Steve for your kind comment.

Steve, I am curious about your statement regarding the Galerie vs. Warmtone. This is the first I've heard that they "are identical emulsions." From Oren's charts, it seems like they do react a bit different? I like the Galerie and it seems a bit more neutral tone-wise and like it has a bit more space in the highlights for nuanced tones. I could be wrong. Also, what's this about Ilford stopping shipping single-grade Galerie?? Do you mean grade 1 or all single-graded papers?? I would hate that if so.

I will take a look at that article!

PS: I did reprint the negative with a brighter light and no CF and the print is basically identical. I have a hunch this batch of AZO has a slight bit of edge fogging from age that is the cause of the vignetting. Not much though.

[peter schrager]

This thread is so way off base. There is no as in none correlation between these papers. If you actually to use some fresh azo...a proper light source and the proper negative there might some basis for a several page thread
Also the the fact that you do a water bath for the highlights is a completely different approach. To me it seems like you are questioning your own beliefs i.e. should I be printing on azo??
Find someone near you who has made azo.. prints...
You might appreciate the difference or not
I do all kinds of processes and a fair amount of work with azo...there is no magic bullet but there is something called learning a process and sticking with it...
Besides in the end it's what's in the piece of paper...
Imagine 100 years from now your photograph in a museum and the person says "oh that's azo..amidol and water bath
I don't think so...buy a box from Michael make the proper negative and report back
Have a nice day

[Corran]

Never said there was a correlation. I tried out some papers I have used and a bit of AZO someone gave me, to have a look and compare. I'm not questioning my beliefs - I have just had numerous people (online) give me the same ol' line that AZO is "the best" or "the only thing you should use." I tend to try things myself and see what I come up with, and not go with the herd or consensus.

Of course it's about the image, not the paper. But we are on a discussion forum that, like it or not, is focused on gear, technique, and the process.

[Steve Sherman]

Thank you John and Steve for some interesting continued discussion! And thank you Steve for your kind comment.

Steve, I am curious about your statement regarding the Galerie vs. Warmtone. This is the first I've heard that they "are identical emulsions." From Oren's charts, it seems like they do react a bit different? I like the Galerie and it seems a bit more neutral tone-wise and like it has a bit more space in the highlights for nuanced tones. I could be wrong. Also, what's this about Ilford stopping shipping single-grade Galerie?? Do you mean grade 1 or all single-graded papers?? I would hate that if so.

I will take a look at that article!

PS: I did reprint the negative with a brighter light and no CF and the print is basically identical. I have a hunch this batch of AZO has a slight bit of edge fogging from age that is the cause of the vignetting. Not much though.

Complete disclosure, I don't pay much attention to curves and graphs, my tests are the prints I make. Having printed extensively with all three I can offer my opinion, subjective as it is. Please, first understand my main concern with any paper is the mid tone contrast it is capable of producing. Most printers know that surpressing mid tone contrast is quite easy, while increasing those relationships in a smooth yet vibrant way can be quite challenging. As I suggested before, I preferred the old Rochester AZO because of the mid tone contrast and relationships that particular paper produced. Couple that paper with Amidol and the water bath trick and the paper was truly extraordinary. When that went away in favor of the Canadian manufactured AZO, most knowledgable AZO users will tell you that it was disappointing to say the least. When I switched from AZO to Ilford Warmtone I got the impression it was very similar to the my memory of Galiere, both in color and in contrast. One day in the D room I had a full range negative printing on Warmtone, always Glossy stock, I decided to get out some Galerie I had and compare the two. The box of Galeire I had was Grade 3 dated, 1978 - 1979. Using 2012ish Ilford Warmtone I made a straight grade 3 print using a Ilford 500 head set on grade 3 for Warmtone. The printing speed, color as well as contrast was identical to the older Galeire 3 paper from the late '70's. I seem to remember they came up in the developer at different times but when the 2 minute dev. time was complete and prints were fixed I cut the Galeire in half and laid it over the Warmtone, virtually indistinguishable when laying on top of the Warmtone in all tonalities !! This can't be coincidence from the same manufacturer.
Lastly, before the Wynit went out of business I had a wholesale account buying Ilford products and there were indications on the price sheet of 2017 that Galeire single grades would be phased out. Just recently a friend told me he tried to buy some Galeire 3 from a large supplier in the Mid West and was told it was out of stock. I'm simply adding my knowledge of the Wynit price list and the unavailability of the paper in a recent inquiry.

[Corran]

Complete disclosure, I don't pay much attention to curves and graphs, my tests are the prints I make.

That's how I roll as well. Sometimes though I see a statement about a curve or the shoulder and notice that it's exactly what I noticed, from my prints One of those things is the shoulder of the curve on Warmtone, which is very steep, and I notice that in my prints when printing down highlights.

Anyway, regarding Galerie, it's hard to research any kind of rumors since they use that name for inkjet paper and there has been a variety of types/surfaces/etc. For now, I must note that all of the big retailers have it in stock. Doesn't seem to me like it's threatened - and hopefully not because I do really like that paper!

[Oren Grad]

Before an unfounded rumor gets out of hand: Galerie grades 2 and 3 continue to be listed on the Ilford Photo website, and both grades are also included in the new price sheet that Roberts issued this April, after taking over the Ilford Photo distributorship here.

[Corran]

Thanks Oren.

[Steve Sherman]

Before an unfounded rumor gets out of hand: Galerie grades 2 and 3 continue to be listed on the Ilford Photo website, and both grades are also included in the new price sheet that Roberts issued this April, after taking over the Ilford Photo distributorship here.

That’s good to hear, hope it’s around for years

[Oren Grad]

That’s good to hear, hope it’s around for years

There are obviously no guarantees, especially in today's market. But back when he was representing Harman on APUG, Simon Galley said something to the effect that they have a goal of not losing any of the existing Ilford-branded films or papers, though some sizes/formats may come and go with demand. If memory serves, they have so far stuck to that since Harman assumed control of the company in the bankruptcy/reorganization in 2005, assuming one counts the replacement of Multigrade IV FB with Multigrade FB Classic as a further development of an existing product rather than a discontinuation. And they've introduced a couple of other new papers too - MG Art and MG FB Cooltone. So here's hoping...

[Steve Sherman]

There are obviously no guarantees, especially in today's market. But back when he was representing Harman on APUG, Simon Galley said something to the effect that they have a goal of not losing any of the existing Ilford-branded films or papers, though some sizes/formats may come and go with demand. If memory serves, they have so far stuck to that since Harman assumed control of the company in the bankruptcy/reorganization in 2005, assuming one counts the replacement of Multigrade IV FB with Multigrade FB Classic as a further development of an existing product rather than a discontinuation. And they've introduced a couple of other new papers too - MG Art and MG FB Cooltone. So here's hoping...

I agree, I have steadfastly been loyal to all Ilford products for that very reason. However, I’ve had a Wynit price list since 2014 and have seen products scheduled for being discontinued, usually smaller packaging. Let’s hope Ilford’s light sensitive materials are around for a long time.