There's No ♪♪ Azo Like ♫ the Old♫♪ Azo...

[Richard K.]

My friend Alan comes over today and shows me a very nice print.

"Wow! What's it printed on?"
"Azo"
"AZO!?!!?"
"Well 1971 Azo..."

It's been a while since I've seen such print quality. Probably not since seeing an exhibit of Brett Weston's New York contact prints. These were also on (even older) Azo and Conviva, Convira, etc.

My question: why can't we make paper like this anymore? I know I know; I've read previous threads - something to do with Cadmium etc. (But what?) But honestly, what a shame! As recently as 10 years ago I sold a huge box of Neogaz and Azo as well. Wish I had kept them. The new contenders by Foma, Adox and Lodima are nice but not even close. Sigh, back to my (upgraded to 25-year-old) Glen Morangie...

[John Bowen]

It would probably be an interesting comparison to see a photograph of Michael Smith's printed way back when and printed again with Lodima and the last of the Azo.

[Keith Tapscott.]

My friend Alan comes over today and shows me a very nice print.

"Wow! What's it printed on?"
"Azo"
"AZO!?!!?"
"Well 1971 Azo..."

It's been a while since I've seen such print quality. Probably not since seeing an exhibit of Brett Weston's New York contact prints. These were also on (even older) Azo and Conviva, Convira, etc.

..You might want to buy this then. :D
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vintage-KODAK-AZO-printing-paper-100-sheets-UNOPENED-/290461617346?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a0dc8cc2

[Richard K.]

You might want to buy this then. :D
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vintage-KODAK-AZO-printing-paper-100-sheets-UNOPENED-/290461617346?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a0dc8cc2

Too bad about the size!

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

PM sent

[Curt]

$75? I have three boxes that are a little smaller in size but each box is 500 sheets. I opened one and it printed like it was new. The age? I'd have to look but it's old. 3 1/4 4 1/4 or 1/2, something like that. I also have two 500 sheet boxes of the last Azo MS sold. I need to use it for what it was intended, proofing sheet film. That's what a camera store owner once told me. Guess he never saw a Weston print.

[John Bowen]

$75? I have three boxes that are a little smaller in size but each box is 500 sheets. I opened one and it printed like it was new. The age? I'd have to look but it's old. 3 1/4 4 1/4 or 1/2, something like that. I also have two 500 sheet boxes of the last Azo MS sold. I need to use it for what it was intended, proofing sheet film. That's what a camera store owner once told me. Guess he never saw a Weston print.

Curt,

I guess it was you I was bidding against for those 500 sheet boxes of old Azo over the past few months. I too have 3 boxes and the it performs as though it was manufactured yesterday. Absolutely NO sign of fog. I tore a sheet in half, fixed one half and developed the other half for 1 minute in MAS amidol. I dare anyone to tell me which half was which. I recently picked up a 'blad and figured this would make for some lovely MF contact prints.

Best,

[Curt]

I've had mine a couple of years. It is really fine paper.

[Michael Kadillak]

One must remember the mindset and the point in time you reference in this post. First of all the general trend was toward small and easy and quick with 35mm and the concept of automation that freed the photographer of the endless mental requirements to work with large cameras and contact prints. Remind you of what we are going through as we speak with digital?

Every photographic manufacturer of paper produced a fine contact print product. As time progressed they simply suffered from the perils of poor economics and one by one they went away.

While many of the old formulas could be researched the chemistry used in them and the nomenclature referenced was so antiquated with insufficient technical backup materials available that current emulsion engineers quickly concluded (as in the case of Lodima) that it was easier and more efficient to start virtually from a blank piece of paper and begin the process from inception with new materials. The R&D alone was a daunting task because there is a limited amount of resources and time to accomplish said objective does to the market for this product in terms of volume and price. Many pitched a massive bitch about the price of Lodima being high but I contend that considering the mountain of logistics and infrastructural investment that went into bringing a brand new product into a niche market it was a modern miracle bar none.

We can explore the universe with astounding resolution. One would have to think that we could produce superior papers than in years past. With unlimited resources it would be a sure thing and at least we have what we have.

Why can't we get Bill Gates passionately interested in Large Format photography and contact printing? We would be standing in tall cotton. Course then again he may screw the daylights out of us with the price.

[Jim Galli]

You realize you just said it was the violin, and NOT Josh Bell that made the beautiful music, right??

The truth is, Josh Bell could make an $80 Ebay violin sound sensational and I couldn't make a stradivarius do anything but horrific squeals.

[Kirk Gittings]

good point Jim....

[Brian C. Miller]

You realize you just said it was the violin, and NOT Josh Bell that made the beautiful music, right??

Jim, what thread are you and Kirk replying to? It may just be me, but I don't see a connection between Azo, the lack thereof, and a previous post from Kirk. (You need some of my home roasted coffee too, eh?)

[Jimi]

Azo is just old timey dino stuff. The older the better, huh? ;)

[Greg Blank]

I think its a bit of both, good materials certainly are nicer to work with. Sometimes though understanding the quirks allows you to produce great work on what others would discard. For a while i struggled using early Forte paper, once I understood it's specific attributes I was able to make better prints than ever before.


You realize you just said it was the violin, and NOT Josh Bell that made the beautiful music, right??

The truth is, Josh Bell could make an $80 Ebay violin sound sensational and I couldn't make a stradivarius do anything but horrific squeals.

[Brian Ellis]

Jim, what thread are you and Kirk replying to? It may just be me, but I don't see a connection between Azo, the lack thereof, and a previous post from Kirk. (You need some of my home roasted coffee too, eh?)

I'm not Jim - wish I was, I'd have some really nice lenses - but I think his point was that the gorgeous print the OP saw was less a function of the material it was printed on and more a function of the photographer/printer's talent.

[Bill_1856]

Frankly, I don't agree that prints on old medium such as AZO and Platinum/paladium are all that great.

[Richard K.]

You realize you just said it was the violin, and NOT Josh Bell that made the beautiful music, right??

The truth is, Josh Bell could make an $80 Ebay violin sound sensational and I couldn't make a stradivarius do anything but horrific squeals.

If you're referring to MY initial post, Jim, I didn't say nor imply that. If I was to show you a small square of one of Brett's New York prints and asked you to consider how the highlights go on forever in creamy luminous gradations, that would be a characteristic of the paper and you just might be impressed/depressed enough to to vocalize about how they don't make them like that any more. They don't. OTOH we could and probably would be impressed enough by Brett's seeing that we could easily abstract that apart from the properties of the paper. Yes of course it was initially the impact of the vision. The fact that he was able to perform it with a Stradivarius just adds to the appreciation.

[Richard K.]

Frankly, I don't agree that prints on old medium such as AZO and Platinum/paladium are all that great.

Are you talking about vintage prints or your own? :) :D

No, seriously, are you saying that you weren't happy with the prints you made with those materials? If so, what have you found to be better? Or are you saying you weren't that impressed with the paper quality in Brett's vintage New York prints?

[Michael Kadillak]

Frankly, I don't agree that prints on old medium such as AZO and Platinum/paladium are all that great.

I can understand and appreciate a difference of opinion. If they do not work for you then so be it.

As a reference point on topic I remember reading when Ansel was struggling to find inspiration at the point in time when he was trying to make the commitment to full time photography, he went to New Mexico and had a chance to meet Paul Strand and see his prints first hand. Strand acquired platinum paper and recoated it with another layer of platinum to attain his optimal print. Ansel was so impressed and inspired by viewing Strands prints that he stated that he knew at that point that he would pursue photography with his full energy. My point is that sometimes there can be considerable inspiration in the print viewing process. Other times for one reason or another there is no connection at all. What I have seen in viewing several Edward and Brett's Weston's prints in person I find it hard to believe that one could not be in awe of their capability to express themselves visually, but that is just my opinion.

[Keith Fleming]

Michael, it wasn't Strand's prints that Ansel Adams saw, but Strand's latest negatives. To make sure my memory was right on that point, I checked Mary Street Alinder's biography of Adams. However, I agree with the thrust of your post.

Keith

[Merg Ross]

Are you talking about vintage prints or your own? :) :D

No, seriously, are you saying that you weren't happy with the prints you made with those materials? If so, what have you found to be better? Or are you saying you weren't that impressed with the paper quality in Brett's vintage New York prints?

I would be very careful in attributing Brett's New York vintage prints to the use of Azo paper. Where did you hear that bit of trivia. If they were vintage, in the true meaning of vintage, Azo most likely was not the paper that he was using.

[Richard K.]

I would be very careful in attributing Brett's New York vintage prints to the use of Azo paper. Where did you hear that bit of trivia. If they were vintage, in the true meaning of vintage, Azo most likely was not the paper that he was using.

You are right to take me to task on this, Merg. I really wish that I had better support for my attribution than just my memory, but that's what I remember being told when I inquired of staff at the ICP (when it was still on 5th Ave). SO, yes I/they could be wrong about the paper! BUT, I'm not wrong about the fact that they were vintage prints and that the paper qualities were memorable (if not the brand)! I do apologize if my memory is wrong and this turns out to have been Convira or Cykora or Varigam etc. The real point I was making is that regardless of what the specific paper was, it was beautiful and there isn't one like it today.

Merg, you have previously (in a similar thread a few years back) stated that these prints were "stunning". What would be YOUR best guess as to the paper used (40s vintage) and why would you eliminate Azo?

[Brian C. Miller]

I'm not Jim

Surely you're not Shirley!
(with no appologies to Leslie Neilson)
(or, "Shirley, you're not Shirley!" which would really confuse Shirley)

[Richard K.]

Surely you're not Shirley!
(with no appologies to Leslie Neilson)
(or, "Shirley, you're not Shirley!" which would really confuse Shirley)

Or "Shirley you're not, Shirley" which would present Shirley with a frightening ontological problem...
PS, like your artist statement, Brian!

[Merg Ross]

You are right to take me to task on this, Merg. I really wish that I had better support for my attribution than just my memory, but that's what I remember being told when I inquired of staff at the ICP (when it was still on 5th Ave). SO, yes I/they could be wrong about the paper! BUT, I'm not wrong about the fact that they were vintage prints and that the paper qualities were memorable (if not the brand)! I do apologize if my memory is wrong and this turns out to have been Convira or Cykora or Varigam etc. The real point I was making is that regardless of what the specific paper was, it was beautiful and there isn't one like it today.

Merg, you have previously (in a similar thread a few years back) stated that these prints were "stunning". What would be YOUR best guess as to the paper used (40s vintage) and why would you eliminate Azo?

Richard, it was not my intention to take you to task, and I do agree with everything that you have said about the prints in question. It is a real treat to view Brett's work, from any era, on any paper.

Azo gets a lot of press because it was the last commercially available chloride paper. It is not surprising that the staff at the ICP would suggest the prints being on Azo; would they have known about #2 Convira? Perhaps, but not likely.

Did Brett print on Azo? Yes, and I have seen the prints. Was it his favorite paper? No. However, he was a good craftsman, and got the most from the materials at hand. Even his later prints by projection on the Oriental papers are superb.

[Drew Wiley]

Merg -- this just raises another issue .. There's no Seagull like the old Seagull ..

[Merg Ross]

Merg -- this just raises another issue .. There's no Seagull like the old Seagull ..

True, and the beat goes on!

However, if Brett were alive, (his centennial is next year), he most likely would still be turning out marvelous prints with the materials available. Consider all of the excellent papers that disappeared in his lifetime, and then look at his last prints.

[Michael Kadillak]

Consider all of the excellent papers that disappeared in his lifetime, and then look at his last prints.

Bravo.

Perspective has a far deeper meaning than how one manages an image on the ground glass.

[Drew Wiley]

There are certain papers I too miss, but as far as projection papers per se, there are
options on the market today better than Seagull ever was (or is). The funny thing about Brett is that I could stand clear across a room and spot even a 5x7 of his. The
ingredients weren't all that special, though they helped; what made the magic was the
relationship between the tones.

[Bill_1856]

There have been several times that I've gone to a museum show with walls of large prints by many of the great names in photography, and spotted from across the room an 8x10 print which put all the others to shame. No doubt about it, even when the image may have been mundane, Brett Weston was possibly the greatest printer of the 20th Century.
I wonder why his prints of EW's project prints are so clearly inferior to EW's own originals?

[Merg Ross]

I wonder why his prints of EW's project prints are so clearly inferior to EW's own originals?

Perhaps, because that is your comprehension. I have owned both, and would not consider, "clearly inferior", as a term in evaluating the prints.

For such an evaluation, you must consider the 832 project prints by Brett, and the 832 printed by Edward. I have, over the years, had such an opportunity. Yes, there are differences between the prints. However, to dismiss Brett's as, "clearly inferior", is not an assessment with which I agree.

Please elaborate on the inferiority aspect, suggested in your comment.

[chris_4622]

Merg,

Did Brett print Edward's negatives darker (more contrast) than Edward did himself?

[Merg Ross]

Not to my eyes. They were all printed on Industro, although Edward had used different papers through the years.

However, to get the master print was often a long process, with Edward sending Brett back to the darkroom until he had the print that Edward wanted. And then, the additional prints were made to match the master.

For instance, I have the master print for Iceberg Lake, and it is faithful to Edward's vintage print of same.

Brett's own work is a different matter; he liked to print to a higher contrast than his dad.

[Bill_1856]

Please elaborate on the inferiority aspect, suggested in your comment.
Perhaps, as you say, it is just a perception. Also a lack of "exposure" to many sets of prints.

[Herb Cunningham]

I have old (Canadian) AZO and Michael Smith's Lodima. For the amount of printing I have done on each, I prefer the Lodima, which is a commercially available silver chloride paper-I bought some today. (and it is double weight-yay!).
Contact printing large negatives looks like a great way to go when the origin was a medium format or 4x5 negative that has been printed into a large (digital) negative.
Count me as a fan of the silver chloride papers.

[Vlad Soare]

Why can't we get Bill Gates passionately interested in Large Format photography and contact printing?
No, no, no, no, no! No way! :eek:

Photography with Microsoft products would be a disaster.
At least five sheets out of every film/paper box will be defective. Microsoft will dismiss all complaints, saying it's a user or camera error.
Cameras will use a dedicated tripod mount, to make sure they only work on Microsoft tripods (which will have one leg shorter than the other two, will sustain reliably only 40% of their stated maximum load, and will be designed to break within one year).
Cameras will freeze every once in a while for no apparent reason.
All parts of a camera will be regarded as consumables. Moreover, spare parts will be available only for cameras from Microsoft's current lineup. No support of any kind will be offered for discontinued models.
Shutters will be regarded as accurate if the actual speeds are less than two stops away from the nominal speeds.
Any attempt by a third party to design and/or build a better camera/lens/shutter/film/paper/etc. will be dealt with immediately. Potential competitors will be bought off.

What a nightmare! God, please keep that man away from large format photography! :D


Frankly, I don't agree that prints on old medium such as AZO and Platinum/paladium are all that great.
Azo by itself won't make a print great. Bad prints can be made on every kind of paper, including Azo or Lodima.
Azo/Lodima cannot turn a bad print into a great one, but can help a master printer achieve that last tiny bit of quality that distinguishes a great print from a very good one.
The difference is subtle, and not always evident, but it is there if you know what to look for.

[Michael Kadillak]

No, no, no, no, no! No way! :eek:

Photography with Microsoft products would be a disaster.
At least five sheets out of every film/paper box will be defective. Microsoft will dismiss all complaints, saying it's a user or camera error.
Cameras will use a dedicated tripod mount, to make sure they only work on Microsoft tripods (which will have one leg shorter than the other two, will sustain reliably only 40% of their stated maximum load, and will be designed to break within one year).
Cameras will freeze every once in a while for no apparent reason.
All parts of a camera will be regarded as consumables. Moreover, spare parts will be available only for cameras from Microsoft's current lineup. No support of any kind will be offered for discontinued models.
Shutters will be regarded as accurate if the actual speeds are less than two stops away from the nominal speeds.
Any attempt by a third party to design and/or build a better camera/lens/shutter/film/paper/etc. will be dealt with immediately. Potential competitors will be bought off.

What a nightmare! God, please keep that man away from large format photography! :D


Azo by itself won't make a print great. Bad prints can be made on every kind of paper, including Azo or Lodima.
Azo/Lodima cannot turn a bad print into a great one, but can help a master printer achieve that last tiny bit of quality that distinguishes a great print from a very good one.
The difference is subtle, and not always evident, but it is there if you know what to look for.

Poor choice of billionaires in my write up and you make some excellent points. That is why I switched to Apple exclusively in my business. I should have put down Warren Buffet as someone to get interested in LF/ULF.