What is AZO and where kin I find info about it.

[Mark_3632]

I have been reading a lot about AZO. Now I will plop the ignorance on the table. What is it. I have read that it is better than PT. If this is the case why are more people not doing it? I looked at michael and paula's site but to tell you the truth could not see much difference between say a standard B/W print and one on AZO. I am sure a lot was lost in the scan as it usually is. I am interested in learning more but I can't find much about it.

[JC_3595]

I would start my visiting one of the best places to get info on Azo:

www.michaelandpaula.com

There is a forum dedicated to Azo on their site and you can order paper as well.

[Michael A.Smith]

You can't tell from the scans. You must see real prints to see the difference, and the differences and superior qualities are immediately obvious.

I'm sure you are aware that Azo is a contact printing paper. It is too slow to enlarge on, although someone is working on a light that will adapt to any enlarger and make enlarging exposure times sort on Azo. He thinks it may be ready before the end of the year.

Beautiful prints can also be made on Pt/Pd paper. But few prints on Pt/Pd paper are truly beautiful. Usually, they are muddy (some would say "dreamy") and do not often have rich blacks. The Pt/Pd process is slow, so if you do a lot of work you will spend a lot of time printing.

It is quite easy to print on Azo. Because of its long scale, only about 20% of the dodging and burning that one would do with enlarging papers is necessary. Once one gets the hang of it, and it is not that difficult to do so, one can easily make 5 prints from a new negative within an hour.

Here are some comments we receieved recently from people using Azo for the first time:

"Finally acquired everything I needed to try Azo today and nine hours later...

"Wow! From the very first print, I was simply stunned by the results. I've been a bit frustrated with my printing for the last couple of months and this was the most fun I've had in the darkroom in a very long time. I may have a different perspective in the morning, but seemed like I was able to get strong prints from practically any negative I touched - including some I had given up on long ago. In particular, my older contrasty PMK negs printed very nicely on G2 (most of them are dogsh**) on my enlarger) whereas my more recent WD2D+ negs often needed G3. Could not believe the feeling of control I felt like I had with this paper - especially when combined with water development. Always thought I could never go back to graded papers after getting used to split grade VC printing but felt no hinderance whatsoever. A complete joy to use."

And this:

"Just for the sake of comparison, I took my two favorite images that print well on Azo grade 2 and printed them on Oriental Seagull grade 2 paper. The Oriental paper is my favorite enlarging paper for prints from 35mm and MF negs. Oriental is a good paper, simply beautiful for enlargements, and easy to print on. But let me tell you, it doesn't hold a candle to Azo for contact prints. The biggest problem is at the low end, down in the shadow areas. You get this featureless black on the Oriental Seagull paper where Azo gives you much better separation between tones. You can see more shadow detail on the Azo prints. The highlights aren't as profoundly different, but there are still differences. Once again, you can see into the high values better with Azo. Azo clouds have more character than Seagull clouds.

"Bottom line, I like Azo better than anything I've ever printed on. If you could enlarge onto it, I'd use it for everything. But since it's too slow for enlarging, I'll continue to use Oriental Seagull developed in Amidol for all enlargements. For silver contact prints, I'm quite certain I'll never use anything other than Azo again. There is simply nothing better than Azo. "

And there are the comments on our web site and so many others that I can't find right now.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It is not a matter that azo is "better" or worse than pt printing. It is only different. If you like the silver look then azo is a good paper to use, specially the way Michael uses it with amidol.

OTOH I must disagree with Michael`s assesement of pt prints. WHat he describes was probably true at the time of the resurgence of pt printing, but presently with the work published by Arentz, Sullivan and Weese, given correct controls of the process it is possible to make pt prints that have the "depth" and "hardness" that equal any silver paper including azo.

Bottom line is more what you like and what process fits your style of photography better. ALso, if you are a little bit technically inclined and are able to make testing and controls procedures, printing in pt is far easier than any other process. Rarely do pt printers have to dodge or burn, etc if they have learned to control the process.

So the question is not which one is better, the question is wich one YOU like better.

[Mark_3632]

I love the pt/pd prints I have seen. From what i was reading on other forums AZO had a much longer tonal range, was easier to use, cooked dinner and after all was said and done it did the dishes. I just wondered what constituted such praise. I guess I need to see one in real life. It would be neat to see a posting of a neg printed on regular paper and then on AZO right next to each other. That would show some of the differences on a computer screen.

thank you for the information.

[Michael A.Smith]

I do not believe any scan on the web could reveal the differences. But at some point (not soon--about to head out for five weeks to print our Tuscany books) I will try. I do have a print that was done both ways. It was done for Kodak on Polyfiber Fine Art, or whatever it was called, as wel las on Azo, so that they could see the difference.

One major reason that Azo is still in production is that the powers that be at Kodak saw the difference and were willing to talk to me about continuing its production. Those two prints were a major part of it.

I'm afraid Jorge and I will continue to disagree for quite some time about Azo vs. Pt/Pd. Yes, ultimately it is just a question of taste. I have seen many terrible prints on Azo. And I have seen exquisite PT/Pd prints. But, really, so very few. Most are muddy. Many that have rich blacks in them have little separation on the dak tones--in prints where that separation is warranted. (There are many prints where you might want the dark areas to be pure black.)

And I would think the inability to dodge and burn is a severe limitation. I usually do not do much, but often, just a very little fine tuning makes a gigantic difference.

Someday, Jorge and I will meet and look at each other's prints. Then we will our ongoing discussion with both of us having more knowledge.

[Jim_3565]

"it is possible to make pt prints that have the "depth" and "hardness" that equal any silver paper including azo"

Where can I see such a pt print? I know that your statement above is true, because I've seen pt prints at the Library of Congress by Paul Strand which bear you out. But those prints were made in the early 30's, while precoated platinum paper was still available. No platinum work made after that time that I've seen rivals them.

Even most of the platinum and carbon prints made by Steiglitz in the first part of the 20th Century are dull as dishwater. But many of his gelatin silver prints made then are breathtaking.

[Per Volquartz]

Yes, you can make enlarged prints on AZO! Durst-Pro-USA makes a special AZO head for 8X10 enlargers.

Come to our Free Large Format Photo Workshop along the Oregon Coast in 2004. We will be spending a whole day at the Durt-Pro-USA facility in Portland trying out their various enlargers in their demonstration darkroom.

Edward Weston only made contact prints, first platinum prints, later prints on AZO using Amidol developer. But ask yourself this question: "If Edward Weston had the funds and the opportunity to make enlarged prints on AZO would he have done so?" My personal answer is yes!

If you are interested in participating in the Free Oregon Coast Workshop (to find out out how enlarged AZO prints look like) - in spring of 2004 please email me: volquartz@volquartz.com

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Where can I see such a pt print? I know that your statement above is true, because I've seen pt prints at the Library of Congress by Paul Strand which bear you out. But those prints were made in the early 30's, while precoated platinum paper was still available. No platinum work made after that time that I've seen rivals them.

Even most of the platinum and carbon prints made by Steiglitz in the first part of the 20th Century are dull as dishwater. But many of his gelatin silver prints made then are breathtaking.



You can see prints from Dan Burkholder, Dick Arentz, Butch Welch, Flor Garduño etc.



Jim Galli, Pete Galea, Eric Rose, Gray Wolf and a few others here on the forum have seen my prints and I think they will tell you they have nothing of the "dreamy" soft quality many people associate with pt/pd and that there is no muddy "veiling" in them. As I have said before, it is all in learning to control the process and making correct printing and film developing tests.



Machine or hand coated has nothing to do with the outcome, the important part is the paper one chooses to coat the emulsion, some papers produce less contrast than others.



OTOH Jim, it is well known you are one of the staunchest defenders of Azo, and I suspect nothing will ever please you if it is not in azo. I tell you what, since you print in azo with stained negatives they should also print well in pd , if you want to send me one of your negatives of a print you like I will be glad to send you back the negative with a pd print that will prove my point. Let me know what you want to do.



Per, yeah Durst is making those heads, but at $10,000 each, I rather buy a 16x20 camera and a life time supply of film....:-)



Michael, it is possible to dodge and burn when making pt/pd prints,I do it when the print needs it. I dont know where you got this idea, but you are mistaken in this case, as a matter of fact, in his book Dick Arentz is shown dodging a print.

[Peter Collins]

Hey, gang! Let me in! Please tell me the secret! What do PT and PD mean? Thanks.

[Wayne Firth]

Peter:

PT = Platinum

PD = Palladium

They are the metals often used in combination for making beautiful contact prints.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Mark. I'm afraid you'll find little objectivity regarding the differences between Azo and Platinum prints on this forum, partly because its contributors are strongly biased towards their own process, and partly because it is, in the end, a subjective question. Quoted endorsements from Michael's costomers are meaningless, just as Michael's own opinions are meaningless. I've seen both and have my own opinions, which are also meaningless. Beyond which print you prefer for your own work, is the question of which process you prefer. Although Azo and Platinum/Palladium are both contact processes, they differ greatly in many important ways. Platinum paper is coated by hand, and Azo is bought from a factory. Azo is most sensitive to visible light, and Platinum to UV. Azo comes in only two contrast grades, and Platinum prints' contrast is controlled chemically to wide variations and the list goes on. Do a little investigating and you'll find a lot of information on either process on the web, but for meaningful comparisons you'll have to see real examples of each process, but be aware that a lot of variation exists in the prints from either process, and no one photographer produces definitive results. Good luck with your research.

[CP Goerz]

I don't think EW would have used an enlarger. They had them in his day, they also had smaller cameras too which he didn't use for his own work. He did use a small Graflex but the pics he took were family snapshots etc.

CP Goerz

[Michael A.Smith]

I know it is not happening tomorrow, but Paula and I will be participants at Steve Simmon's LF conference in California in April, and we'll be happy to show hundreds of our prints to anyone who is interested in seeing what Azo prints can look like.

Interesting that Jay's vendetta continues. He does manage to turn each of these threads into a personal attack on me. At least he recognizes that his own opinions are meaningless. If he had spent almost 40 years in photography studying prints in collections and museums around the world and that much time making them perhaps his opinions wouldn't be meaningless.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I dont know that it is a vendetta Michael. Jay is pointing out a very legitimate point that if it comes down to taste, your, his or my opinion are meaningless, it is up to the individual to judge what satisfies them more.

Of course this animosity is in partly created by your statement that pt/pd prints are "dull", "lifeless" and "muddy" every time this subject comes up. As if nothing is comparable to Azo and nothing ever will.

Instead of answering Mark, is up to you there is not one "better" process, I could have simply said that I thought pt/pd were better because they were richer, had color and tonality that not one silver paper, even azo can ever acheive, and that any experienced darkroom printer can produce a good silver print without having to use Azo that will look just as good as an azo print.

Perhaps I have not been studying prints for 40 years, but I have been doing so for 20 years and I know with certainty that your opinion, given your bias and your print taste is not an absolute truth. Since I dont do workshops nor do I sell pt/pd supplies I do not have "testimonials", but those people who have had the same question, azo or pt/pd and to whom I have sent a small 4x5 print to compare to an azo print have decided to go with pt/pd. So really, your opinion regardeless of how many years you have been printing is as meaningless as mine, is up to the individual and I think this is what Jay was trying to say.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael, your tender ego is becoming tiresome. My message was about the subjectivity of taste, and individual preference being incompatible with blanket statements that masquerade as objectivity. Your experience gives you no authority in questions of taste, which is the subject at hand. Everything is not always about you, Michael, so give it a rest.

[Michael A.Smith]

I believe, Jorge, I did say that I have seen very beautiful Pt/Pd prints. They are not all muddy and dull. Just most of them are.

Azo: I was talking about Azo for years before I was selling it. All of the "testimonials" on our web site came in long before we started selling Azo. The last two were recent, but they are all unsolicited and have nothing to do with us selling it. This came in tonight from someone who is not a customer: " I came accross a free box of Azo from a friend and fell in love. It really is amazing."

There are opinions and there are opinions. Some opinions are informed and some are not. As I have said before somewhere, I am musical--way in the past have played in orchestras and given concerts in chamber groups--but I am not a musician nor do I have the ear of someone who is really a musician. So I would not dare give my opinion in a forum like this about how good a performance of music was, or about the precise quality of sound on a recording. I have my taste about these things, but my opinion about these things is hardly an expert one and I certainly would not be so arrogant as to express it publicly other than as "my taste." But there are musicians and music critics who do venture their opinion about these things. Their opinion is based on having a great ear and on vast experience comparing the various performances and recordings. And those opinions carry weight and can be usually be trusted.

It is a curious thing about photography: people have the audacity to call themselves photographers when their experience and ability is no further advanced in the medium than mine was in music. They are competent, perhaps, but often that is all. And, in general, their experience is rather limited. They are entitled to their taste and to their opinions--everyone is--but in a critical forum, their opinions really do not count for much.

So, no, Jorge, when you say "Jay is pointing out a very legitimate point that if it comes down to taste, your, his or my opinion are meaningless, it is up to the individual to judge what satisfies them more," that is just not so. There may be some people who regularly participate in this forum whose critical evaluations of these things is as well-founded and experienced as mine, but certainly Jay's is not. He is too new at this. It really does take years and lots of study and experience at looking to have an informed opinion. You, I don't know about. I'll give you credit here and assume that you have a trained eye and vast experience.

So, no. All opinions are not equal. To think they are is to level everything--to deny excellence. I happen to believe that there is excellence in all things and that not everthing is equal--whether it be the beauty of photographs or other works of art, or yes, even of opinions.

Whether anyone wants to take my opinions seriously is, of course, up to them. But they can be assured that my opinions are disinterested, in Matthew Arnold's meaning of the word. All I really care about is excellence.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael, if your taste in music is anything like your taste in photography, I'm not interested in that either. It may take you years to form an opinion, but I'm pretty quick on the uptake. It's interesting that you're ready, even eager to accept the opinions of those who agree with you regardless of their experience, you quote them ad nauseum without the slightest qualification of their experience or "excellence". In one instance a person's first experience with Azo is validated because they gush and repeat your "Azo is the best paper ever" mantra, but a dissenting opinion is dismissed as unqualified. You contradict yourself so often I'm embarrassed for you. By the way, this is not a critical forum, it is a place for people who are interested in Large Format photography to swap ideas, tips, experiences and even opinions. If this is beneath you, then you are under no obligation to post here. I for one could live wihtout your constant self promotion and egomania.

[David R Munson]

This is getting ridiculous. I've had the pleasure to see some of Michael's prints and they really are exceptional. I've also seen many excellent Pt/Pd prints. Both are excellent processes with their own unique ins and outs, and ultimately it's a matter of what one makes of whatever he chooses to use. Neither is perfect, both ways of doing things have significant disadvantages to them, and one can use them to make prints that range from excellent to horrible. But then that's the case with essentially every process that has ever been.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Michael, please....what you are saying goes against every known ocupation in life. Some people can labor for 50 years and never make a good print, some people can be doing it for a few months and make beautiful prints, perhaps even more so than yours or mine.



Some people have innate talent, "feel" for their process and just that "thing" that allows them to succeed where many of us have to struggle.



It is true that you said you have seen "some" beautiful pt/pd prints, but that in general all pt/pd prints are not good and at the same time you imply that most of the people using azo make great prints no matter what is their experience.



Take for instance this statement you make:



It is a curious thing about photography: people have the audacity to call themselves photographers when their experience and ability is no further advanced in the medium than mine was in music. They are competent, perhaps, but often that is all. And, in general, their experience is rather limited. They are entitled to their taste and to their opinions--everyone is--but in a critical forum, their opinions really do not count for much



Just how are you able to make this kind of judgements? How do you know what is everbody's level of competence? Are you really saying that the only measurement of a person knowledge and ability can only be accepted by the time they have spent doing something? Do you really think that because you have been doing phtographs for 40 years, your opinion is actually more valuable than other person who has not?



You say Jay is too new, but who is to know that he is Mozart to your Saglieri? The shame of it Michael is that in a way you are correct, your opinion should be valuable, but you dilute the value of your opinions by sounding dogmatic about azo. Given two perfectly printed photographs, one in azo and one it pt/pd, if you place them side by side you cannot say that one process is better that the other, or that one print is more beautiful than the other. Perhaps you dont like one, but I am sure next to you someone else with your same level of experience and abilities will like what you dont like. It all comes down to a matter of taste, and that does not need to have many years of experience. You can jump up and down and proclaim that azo is better, but in the end if people does not like it, they wont, no matter how many years of experience you have or how many years you have been using azo.



You mention critics and how it takes many years of study, etc...but even then, regardless of how many years they might have, some of us might find their opinion worthless. When I lived in the US I used to pick what movies I wanted to go see by picking those movies that Roger Ebert did not like. You might say here is a guy who has years of experience, etc, etc. But in the end for my taste he could not pick a good movie if it rised up an bit him in the ass.

So I have to agree with Jay when he says that our opinions are really meaningless, it is Mark who has to make a judgement to satisfy his taste, and nobody here can say that azo or pt/pd is the best process or produces the best prints, it is a matter of individual taste and for that your years of experience and study have no value.

[Darin Cozine]

Boy, did Mark ask a loaded question, or what?? =]

[Michael A.Smith]

Okay, one more, last, time. At this point this has nothing to do with Azo. It has to do with the nature of informed opinion.

Making prints: Yes, some people can labor for 50 years and never get it. Agreed. And others can work for a relatively short amount of time and get it quickly. We're not talking here about the ability to make prints. We're talking about the ability to judge excellence. And while the same may be true regarding the number of years of looking, it does require a lot of comparative looking.

Yes, I have seen some beautiful platinum prints, but very few relative to the thousands I have seen.

I never implied that most of the people using Azo make great prints. I have said that making great prints on Azo is relatively easy and that, given the same print on Azo and on enlarging paper, the Azo print will be the more beautiful print, almost all of the time, if not literally all of the time. And I certainly did say that most of the platinum prints I have seen are muddy and dull.

Jorge: "Take for instance this statement you make:"

MAS: "It is a curious thing about photography: people have the audacity to call themselves photographers when their experience and ability is no further advanced in the medium than mine was in music. They are competent, perhaps, but often that is all. And, in general, their experience is rather limited. They are entitled to their taste and to their opinions--everyone is--but in a critical forum, their opinions really do not count for much."

Jorge: "Just how are you able to make this kind of judgements?"

Very easily,

Jorge: "How do you know what is everbody's level of competence?"

I look at their work.

Jorge: "Are you really saying that the only measurement of a person knowledge and ability can only be accepted by the time they have spent doing something?"

Never said that.

Jorge: "Do you really think that because you have been doing phtographs for 40 years, your opinion is actually more valuable than other person who has not?"

Not because of the time, though, yes, that would be a contributing factor. The time alone is meaningless. It is not the number of years, but what was done during those years--not only the making of photographs, but the study and near endless comparitive looking at photographs that do give my opinions some weight, whether you or Jay or anyone else thinks so or not.

Jorge: "You say Jay is too new, but who is to know that he is Mozart to your Saglieri?"

That is easy to tell from is postings.

Jorge: "Given two perfectly printed photographs, one in azo and one it pt/pd, if you place them side by side you cannot say that one process is better that the other, or that one print is more beautiful than the other. "

If they were both perfectly printed, I would agree. The Pt./Pd. print might even be more beautiful and if that were the case, I would readily say so. It is truly rare, however, that I see a perfectly printed Pt/Pd print. Certainly, some come to mind, but few.

Jorge: "Perhaps you don't like one, but I am sure next to you someone else with your same level of experience and abilities will like what you dont like. It all comes down to a matter of taste, and that does not need to have many years of experience."

We're not talking here about what I like. At least I don't think we are. We're talking about beautiful prints. I can spot a beautiful print--no matter what paper it is printed on. Most people cannot. Too many photographers cannot--in fact, most cannot. One example: few Europeans can immediately recognize a fine print. Fine prints are generally not a concern of theirs. They essentially approach photography from the journalistic viewpoint--a viewpoint in which fine prints are of less importance than what is pictured. Most photographers cannot because they have not done the comparitive studying of other photographers work.

Jorge: "You mention critics and how it takes many years of study, etc...but even then, regardless of how many years they might have, some of us might find their opinion worthless. When I lived in the US I used to pick what movies I wanted to go see by picking those movies that Roger Ebert did not like. You might say here is a guy who has years of experience, etc, etc. But in the end for my taste he could not pick a good movie if it rised up an bit him in the ass."

Of course. Just because someone is an informed critic does not mean they are right for you. But an informed critic will give the reasons for his or her opinions--reasons based on direct observation. You can accept or reject them, agree or disagree, but it is not simply a matter of taste.

What is a matter of taste is the question of "liking" something. Yes, whether ones likes something better than something else is strictly a matter of taste. But where did this discussion have anything to do with "liking"? The statement that Azo has a longer gray scale than enlarging paper, or that good prints on Azo have a glow that enlarging papers do not have--statements I have made--are statements of fact and not of opinion and have nothing to do with taste or liking. As are my stetments that "most platinum prints I have seen are muddy and dull." That is not taste. That is a fact. It is not my opinion that "most platinum prints I have seen are muddy and dull." It is a fact.

Whatever process Mark uses will be a question of his taste, of course.

Jorge: "Nobody here can say that azo or pt/pd is the best process or produces the best prints."

Who said that? Not me. Going back to my original posting here, I said:

"Beautiful prints can also be made on Pt/Pd paper. But few prints on Pt/Pd paper are truly beautiful. Usually, they are muddy (some would say "dreamy") and do not often have rich blacks."

You responded, Jorge: "It is not a matter that azo is "better" or worse than pt printing"

Now, nowhere did I say that prints on Azo were "better." You introduced, what I believe is it called, a "red herring(?)". In these discussions, both you and Jay attribute comments to me that I never made. I never said that prints on Azo were better than prints on platinum. A long time ago I asked you to please read more carefully. I ask you both to do so again. Please do not put words in my mouth and then criticize based on those words I never said. Thank you.

[Chad Jarvis]

Ah...once again the descent into inanity...Don't you just love these family get-togethers?

[Peter Collins]

I feel like the new family member--grafted in by being "just-married to LF"--watching a neurotic eruption, complete with foaming lips, all on account of an innocent newbie asking a question. Wouldn't it be nice if we all knew where the land mines are?

Come on, folks, lighten up and go back to making beautiful prints!

[Mike Lopez]

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't we comparing apples and oranges here? About 2 months ago, I saw an exhibition of what (I'm nearly certain) were platinum/palladium prints. They were at the Josefburg studio here in Portland, if anyone knows what I'm talking about. These prints did not resemble "typical" photographs; the effect of the paper was to make them look like pencil sketches. Am I talking about some other process here? These prints were very interesting to look at, but to make a comparison to Michael Smith's prints would really be to make a comparison between two different animals. These prints had a sepia/brown color and really looked like they could have been drawn by hand. And as I said, I'm nearly certain they were listed as PT/PD (it should be obvious by now how much I know about this process). Jorge, could you link me to any online samples of your PT/PD work? I've never seen any of Michael's prints in person, but if they are better than they appear in "A Visual Journey," as many on this forum have said, they must truly be something to see. I would like to see some of these PT/PD prints, and see how comparison is valid. Thanks.

[Alex Hawley]

Sheesh guys. Mark asked a simple question, seeking to enrich his knowledge. Now it looks like one of those nasty digital/film trash-each-other-to-death debates.

[Crispin Agnew]

Jorge,

Why does is it seem that in almost every LF discussion in which you take a major part you enter into these personal attacks on someone (diatribes)? Please, if you could just discuss in a civilized way rather than this aggressive form it would be so much better. Stick to the question at hand rather than the person discussing it. Or if you have nothing useful on the topic to say - then don't! It wold be much more interesting and useful that way.

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Mickey Smith IS getting tiresome with his ballooning ego. Perhaps he should have his own country complete with adoring peasants worshipping his infallibility.

[lee\c]

here is a link for one of my favorite pt/pd printers

http://www.kerik.com/index.htm

His work on line can give someone a slight idea of what good pt/pd prints can look like.

leec

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,
Why does is it seem that in almost every LF discussion in which you take a major part you enter into these personal attacks on someone (diatribes)? Please, if you could just discuss in a civilized way rather than this aggressive form it would be so much better. Stick to the question at hand rather than the person discussing it. Or if you have nothing useful on the topic to say - then don't! It wold be much more interesting and useful that way.



Well Agnew, it seems you perceive "aggresivness" from people who disagree with you, yes I disagree with you in "that" other thread and in this one you have not even presented a useful comment, so I just as well would rather you stick to the question instead of the person. Or perhaps not participate at all if this is what the kind of comments we can expect from you. As you said if you dont have something useful to say then DON'T



Michael and I have been arguing about this for some time, if you were not new to this forum you would know this. In reality, Michael and I have a very cordial relationship, we correspond privately, he knows I have the outmost respect for him and I think he does for me, or would not be answering my comments. This is merely and example of a discussion Michael and I would have if we were sitting at a bar drinking a beer and talking shop.



Mike, I dont have a web site and it is something that is far down the line of things to do for me, I have no idea how to scan or make a web site and the scans I have done were terrible. If you want to see some of my prints, look for the October issue of Black & White photography, the british magazine.



Michael,
Making prints: Yes, some people can labor for 50 years and never get it. Agreed. And others can work for a relatively short amount of time and get it quickly. We're not talking here about the ability to make prints. We're talking about the ability to judge excellence. And while the same may be true regarding the number of years of looking, it does require a lot of comparative looking.

Not because of the time, though, yes, that would be a contributing factor. The time alone is meaningless. It is not the number of years, but what was done during those years--not only the making of photographs, but the study and near endless comparitive looking at photographs that do give my opinions some weight, whether you or Jay or anyone else thinks so or not.



True we have moved from an azo comparisson to the nature of an informed opinion. Unfortunatelly or perhaps fortunatelly art is not science. You cannot predict or evaluate a work of art based on previous observations, as your evaluation, regardless of how many prints you have seen, it is still colored and biased by your taste.



We're not talking here about what I like. At least I don't think we are. We're talking about beautiful prints. I can spot a beautiful print--no matter what paper it is printed on. Most people cannot. Too many photographers cannot--in fact, most cannot. One example: few Europeans can immediately recognize a fine print. Fine prints are generally not a concern of theirs. They essentially approach photography from the journalistic viewpoint--a viewpoint in which fine prints are of less importance than what is pictured. Most photographers cannot because they have not done the comparitive studying of other photographers work.



Once again Michael, if we had a formula that could tell us "this is a beautiful print" and we all agreed on this, then yes, your experience and comparative exercices would give you an edge, but what is beautiful to you might not be to the next person in line. Isnt this the reason why there are different styles? If we all considered a print "beautiful" the way you do, then we would all be doing the same kind of photography.



What is a matter of taste is the question of "liking" something. Yes, whether ones likes something better than something else is strictly a matter of taste. But where did this discussion have anything to do with "liking"? The statement that Azo has a longer gray scale than enlarging paper, or that good prints on Azo have a glow that enlarging papers do not have--statements I have made--are statements of fact and not of opinion and have nothing to do with taste or liking. As are my stetments that "most platinum prints I have seen are muddy and dull." That is not taste. That is a fact. It is not my opinion that "most platinum prints I have seen are muddy and dull." It is a fact.



Ok you are mixing here measurable facts with opinions. While is true that azo has a longer gray scale, it is not how many grays you can fit in the paper but how you fit them. Take for instance the work by Paul Caponigro, his prints exhibit the same "glow" that you mention, yet his prints are done in enlarging paper. So what you call a "fact" it is not as cut and dry as you put it. The same goes for your pt/pd statement, it is not a fact just because you say so, it is an evaluation based on your taste.



I never said that prints on Azo were better than prints on platinum. A long time ago I asked you to please read more carefully. I ask you both to do so again. Please do not put words in my mouth and then criticize based on those words I never said. Thank you.



True Michael, you have not said it in so many words, but you very clearly imply this when you make your stament about pt/pd prints. If you say pt/pd prints are "dull" and "muddy" then your implication is that Azo prints are not and therefore better. Any photographer would say that a print that is not "dull" and "muddy" is better than one that it is...no? So I dont think I am putting words in your mouth when I make this statement.



I guess this is one more area where we disagree, IMO judging what is a "beautiful" print has a lot to do with taste.

[Mark_3632]

whew! stirred a nest of hornets there didn't I? It was not intentional. I realize now that there is a lot of feeling regarding this subject. OOPS

I guess I did not word my question right. I was not really looking for a better or worse comparison. I was looking for technical information. Of which I cannot find any on the net or books to read about AZO. PT/PD info can be found everywhere, bookstores and net alike. Information on AZO on the other hand is not. I cannot find any technical info anywhere. I was wondering if AZO was capable, in theory or truth, of capturing a wider range of tones than PT/PD, PT, or PD. I realize comparing the final prints of each is like comparing apples to oranges and which tastes batter.

Michael, Jay, Jorge, and others----CAIN'T WE ALL JUS' GET ALONG? (;^})

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Mark. Don't let the spirited debate put you off, it's good clean fun. Your question, as re-framed is a sensitometric one, and a relevant comparison was made here: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Azo3/azo3.html

There is a lot of Azo information, and Pt/Pd as well. I have a hard time getting through these kinds of reports, because, while interesting in the abstract, in the end it comes down to the simple preferrence that we discussed earlier. Enjoy.

[Mark_3632]

I just found that article but it compares AZO to regular silver based enlarging paper not between PT, PT, PD which is known to cover a much larger range of tones than regular silver paper. I too find the papers to be hard to get through at times. I also find that these "scientific" tests cut through the opinion problem. Scientific is not in quotes to insult but to set it aside for the "general observations" like the guy on the ilford forum who feels that his results with ilford MGIV warm tone are just as good if not better than AZO(according to him he learned AZO techniques from Michael and did use it for a long time), and all of those folks who Michael quotes.

[Michael A.Smith]

Mark,

On our web site, www.michaelandpaula.com, under "Azo" then under "Writings about Azo" there are the articles I wrote about Azo. I wrote these articles years before we became dealers of Azo and as said before, but no doubt you missed it , we did not want to become dealers of Azo, but were virtually forced into it. If we were not, the paper would have disappeared. So, please know that these articles were not written as advertising or to be self-serving as others would try to get you to believe.

In addition to the articles that I wrote about Azo there are a few other articles on our site under "Writings about Azo," two by N. Dhananjay, and one by Bob Herbst, which is the one the Jay mentioned, which is also on the Unblinking Eye site.

And there are other articles on our site under "Writings."

Then there is the Azo Forum, also on our web site. There is a ton of information there. Originally, Paula and I started the Azo Forum so that when we answered questions about Azo, and we were getting a couple a week, everyone who was interested could see the answers. But it has become so much more. And to our surprise, Paula and I have learned a lot from it.

All together, our site has all of the extant writing about Azo that I know of, with the exception of a one-page (as I recall) article that Steve Simmons wrote in View Camera magazine when he used Azo for the first time.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jay is right Mark, the article Bob Herbst wrote is very good contrasting the capabilities of both processes. Basically, it is true that Azo has a very long scale and given a negative with a long tonal scale you can fit that tonal scale 1 to 1 in the paper, with pt/pd is different, you actually "compress" the tonal scale into a lower reflection scale. This has its advantages and disadvantages for each process. Pt/pd has better separation in the highlights, azo does better in the dark tones.

Other than Michael's writing on azo, it is difficult to find "technical" info and you have to see an azo print in person to evaluate it. Looking at them in a web site does them no justice and you loose the sense of depth this prints can have.

Michael and I get along just fine and bear no animosity towards each other. Once in a while we get into these discussions but they are just an exchange of ideas.

[Jan Pietrzak]

Ok, Ok, Ok, Ok,

Enough, the processes are different. I would no sooner think of printing my negatives designed for pt/pd in AZO, as I would some ones negatives designed for Azo in pt/pd. And I have tried, The resulting prints will have a different.feeling. This my friends comes from doing IT and SEEING IT. I would like to think that my 20 years of printing pt/pd has not gone for not. And my more than 30 in photography as well. Yes, when I hear the statement that most pt/pd prints are flat and muddy well yes, because most printers have not worked long enought to match vision, process and image to work for them. Some day I may try some AZO when I have a year or 2 free, but now I work in pt/pd and beat the drum softly and slowly. Is pt/pd or Azo for everyone no. Will and Azo or pt/pd print make may work better, just because, NO. Enjoy the fun but remember to shake hands after and enjoy that drink.

Jan Pietrzak

ps for those that want to know who I am go to

www.superlarge.com (circle of confussion gallery) www.freestylephoto.biz (look under advisors)

[Ron Bose]

I thought we left all the arguing over on photo.net

Here's an idea, Quan: can we move threads that get a bit silly over to photo.net ?

[James Phillips]

It is with great interest that I have been observing the developments in this thread. I am one of those amateur photographers about to venture into the Pt/Pd realm. I also should confess that I have been doing a great deal of reading about Azo which has resulted in my decision process being pulled in two directions at the same time. The lure of what I have read about Azo developed in amidol is so powerful that up until this thread I was leaning towards postponing my PT/Pd venture in exchange for Azo printing.

Of course for those of us who are on the outer reaches of civilization (not really but just not a great deal of photographic content locally to be viewed) we must heavily rely upon sources such as this forum to educate us and help in the decision making process. As such I have been constantly reading and see the “praises of Azo” more frequently on these types of forums. I was being swayed towards Azo, but not so much now.

So what has changed?

As in any forum we must attempt to evaluate the contributor of each reply within each thread to see if we not only believe what is being said but also if the person posting the reply is sufficiently qualified and more importantly unbiased as can be reasonably expected in such an environment as an internet forum. I believe that these facts are very important in order that we are receiving as factual as possible, the information being shared. How else can we receive value (from those posting replies) and use these threads as guiding lights in our quest for improvement and knowledge if the content is considered suspect of being heavily opinionated and biased.

Now how does this pertain? Well as stated early by “Jorge” I have been privileged to view some of his work and can fully attest to the fact that these prints “ have nothing of the "dreamy" soft quality many people associate with pt/pd and that there is no muddy "veiling" in them” as stated. The prints I viewed contained a full density range and certainly did NOT leave me with the viewing impression of being soft or muddy.

I have no axe to grind here with anybody, but I do hold a valid opinion on what I feel and enjoy as a good print. As for not having the years of experience to tell the difference between a good or poor print. Hoooeey !!!!!!

Within my lifetime I have known a few self appointed or “paper justified” professionals that go to great lengths to justify their important and valid opinions and evaluations. I need to constantly be questioning their observations. On the other hand when a person(s), in this case Michael J. Kravit or William Blunt and even Jorge Oliveira send me Pt/Pd prints to evaluate with my own eyes, I can then positively attest to the wonderful quality of the process and more importantly the validity and skill of these people and the weight their opinions now hold. To now have somebody especially as well known as you, to come on a forum like this and state that most Pt/Pd prints are muddy and veiled is pure foolishness.

Sorry folks, it is now the time to once again wake up and smell the coffee. This is a visual medium we are involved with. As such if it visually pleases me and perhaps others then it is reaching the objectives I have sought to achieve. I do not accept that you are able to tell me what is a fine print and what is not a fine print. Emotions such as visual stimulation and excitement are immeasurable and as such the evaluation process cannot be an exact science. Years of experience has nothing to do with this process. If you are going to tell me that I am such a newcomer as to be unable to properly distinguish a muddy print from a fine print then I must ask you for precise and definite definition of a muddy print. Not one that is subjective, but one that is based upon measurable criteria that is undisputable.

For this very simple reason you cannot state “They are competent, perhaps, but often that is all. And, in general, their experience is rather limited. They are entitled to their taste and to their opinions--everyone is--but in a critical forum, their opinions really do not count for much.” and expect it to have real meaning.

Perhaps if would have been better stated if you had qualified by saying “that those of us who believe our opinions and viewing skills are far superior to anyone else’s can in a critical forum decide( what is a quality print), while the others ..well... their opinions really do not count for much” This would be a statement I would accept as being an accurate rendition of your opinion.

I still do intend to attempt Azo at sometime in the future and as such hope to buying some Azo paper from yourself and Paula, but now I will be doing this more as a journey for my own curiosity rather than as an expectation of a medium that is far superior to other mediums available. My view has been altered.

When reading threads like this I think of a quote from Konrad Lorenz.

“Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people. The specialist knows more and more about less and less and finally knows everything about nothing.”

A trap I fear that we all must strive to avoid and I hope not to be caught in.

Kind Regards,

[John Kasaian]

Mark, Pssssst: Want to know a little secret? Cheap paper and Dektol! It works for me!;-)

[Mark_3632]

Hmmm. I posted a response and it did not show up. Must have done something wrong.

Michael, thanx for pointig me in the direction of that paper with the comparison. That was what I was looking for. Imagine a paper about AZO in the AZO section of the site----DUH!--it never crossed my mind to look there. Any way it is quite clear that both processes are quite similar, tonal range wise each with it's own quality. In this case it seems evident that neither is better and it all depends on the final vision of the artist.

I would indeed just use regular paper-I would defend to the end the superior quality of zone VI studios VCIII fiber base paper- but I want more. Regular paper just never seemed to have the right look for me.

Thanks for the info Folks.

[Jan Pietrzak]

Mark,

I am happy that you are spending some time in looking at alot of printing processes. There are no magic bullets or pills that make great photographers or printers. Michael as well as I are interested in keeping the film and paper processes alive and I think that we may get a bit over zellous. Spent time looking at work and find what you want to do in photography. It will take time, lots of it. If at some time you want to look at some Pt/Pd prints come to Monterey in April for the large format seminar along with Michael and Paula will be a number of photographers showing work and talking about processes. Oh, yes I forgot I will be one of the presenters for the alt-process panel.

See alot of you in Monterey in April Jan Pietrzak