Enlarging on Azo is now a reality

[Michael A.Smith]

Tonight Paula and I had the privilege of being the first, besides the inventor, Pat Brady, to test his new light source for enlarging on Azo paper.

Heretofore, Azo has been a paper for contact printing only. It is a slow paper and if one wanted to enlarge on this most beautiful of silver papers, the enlarging times were unduly long--easily getting to 15 minutes to one-half hour with a conventional enlarging head. A few years ago Durst came up with a 5000 Watt bulb so that one could enlarge onto Azo, but the cost is $6,000, I believe, and most folks would have to get their wiring upgraded to carry such a load.

Pat Brady's invention, by comparison, is a dream--no extra wiring, no hot lights, and short exposure times.

His invention is to use a set of four custom-made bulbs that put out light in the near-UV part of the spectrum. The four bulbs insure even coverage of the negatives. By using that part of the spectrum that Azo is most sensitive to, enlarging times are shortened considerably. Paula and I enlarged 4x5 and 2 1/4 negatives. Our exposures ranged from 30 seconds to two minutes and that was with our Super XX film which has a fairly high film base + fog density. With modern films, the exposure times should be less.

The housing for the light fits Beseler and Omega 4x5 enlargers and comes with its own voltage-regulated solid-state power supply. Each of the components is handsomely designed.

Although we will not be enlarging our LF negatives, because of this new light, at some point I look forward to reprinting all of the 35mm work I did during my first year as a photographer.

I understand that the light will be going to a few others to test during the next couple of weeks. After that, it will be at the LF Conference in Monterey in April and, I believe, it will be for sale at that time.

Paula and I think this is a great invention, and we hope it will help increase the sales of Azo as this slow paper will now be able to be used by those who only make enlargements. And that will help keep Azo in production.

[David R Munson]

Any idea what it might retail for?

[Michael A.Smith]

Not doing enlarging, I was under the impression that it would sell for what a cold light head sells for, and I thought that was about $1,000. I understand that the light for enlarging on Azo will be a bit more--that it will sell for "between $1,500 and $2,000." My guess is that the final price will be somewhere near the middle, but that is only my guess.

[Graeme Hird]

Michael,

How well did the negs print? Were you happy with the enlarged prints after contacting printing for so long?

Graeme.

[Michael A.Smith]

The prints were fine in every regard, although they did need one-half contrast grade higher than when they were contact printed. We went up a grade and used a water bath. As a result, if I were making nagatives to be enlarged I would make them with the same contrast range as for contact prints, not with the normal more compressed range one would make for other enlargements. It appears that it is the use of Azo, with its long scale, that is the determining factor here, and not the mere fact that the negative is being enlarged.

I must say that I did not enjoy the process of enlarging as much as I enjoy contact printing, although it seemed to go as smoothly as possible. What I think I didn't like the most was just having an enlarger sitting there. It made the work space less airy. But that is just a personal quirk. I had not used an enlarger since early 1967.

[Graeme Hird]

Thanks for your thoughts Michael.



One day I'll get some AZO from you, but I'll have to convince the wife I NEED a ULF camera first! :-) (I know I could make cute little 5x4 contacts, but I like big prints).



Cheers,
Graeme

[Michael A.Smith]

Then you can get this light head and 20x24 Azo and enlarge onto it.

Or get a box or two of 8x10 Azo and enlarge onto it--or make contact prints on it. You just might like them so much you might forget enlarging altogether. That has happened to others who work in 4x5.

[Tim Curry]

Michael, it sounds as if there are now no limits placed on azo, so perhaps others will get a chance to see what a good black & white print looks like. Sounds like it was worth the wait.

Was the filtration system easy to use?

Was focusing the same as would be expected? Was there another light source for focusing, or did the filter system allow this part of the process?

With the Omega D5-XL dichroic head, is it simply a swap situation where I would be able to remove one head and install the other and just continue working?

And wonderful indeed it is to hear about it on St. Patrick's day.

[George Hart]

Excellent news! Before we all pile in with requests for the new head(s) to be compatible with our enlargers, here's a bid for mine, the humble 6x9 Durst M805!!! It would be good if a set of adapters could be fabricated, like for the Ilford Multigrade head.

[Michael A.Smith]

Was the filtration system easy to use?

There is no filtration. Azo is a graded paper. Although the light comes with a UV filter for placing over the grain magnifier, and another for putting on the filter ring when focussing, so you are not looking directly into UV light.

Was focusing the same as would be expected? Was there another light source for focusing, or did the filter system allow this part of the process?

Focussing was as you would do it with any light source.

With the Omega D5-XL dichroic head, is it simply a swap situation where I would be able to remove one head and install the other and just continue working?

Yes. It will take five minutes the first time you do it and two minutes (at the most) to set up every time thereafter.

And wonderful indeed it is to hear about it on St. Patrick's day.

Yes, Pat was here on St. Patrick's day. If many who enlarge buy this light, I believe it will insure the long-term survival of Azo. So maybe Patrick Brady is the real St. Patrick.

Paula is printing some 35mm negatives right now and it is going smoothly. Exposures are a minute and she is using a lens for enlarging 4x5s. With the proper lens for enlarging 35mm negatives the times would be under 30 seconds. (The lens would be much closer to the paper.) And she is printing a dense negative. The print has those wonderful contact-print tonalities.

[Michael A.Smith]

Pat's found that 80% of the enlarges in use are Omegas and Beselers so that is why he had adapters made for those enlargers. I'm sure if there is enough demand, he would make adapters to fit other enlargers as well. I'll pass your request on to him. There are huge costs to make parts like this so I am sure he will not promise at this time.

[e]

What is the biggest neg the head will cover? 5x7 or more?

[Michael A.Smith]

The largest negative that can be enlarged with this light source is 4x5.

[Joakim Ahnfelt]

Michael, you wrote. ”...light in the near-UV part of the spectrum.” Could this light source perhaps be used for enlarging onto pt/pd paper? The exposure times would be a bit long but we're already used to that. BTW could you damage an enlarger or a negative by running a, say 20 minutes, exposure?

[Michael A.Smith]

Yes, the light source could be used for printing on platinum, although the exposure times would be long. It is probably worth a try.

No damage can result from the light left on for a long time. The light is not hot, but cold.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Michael,

Just playing a bit of devil's advocate here (but I am totally serious)...

Enlarging on Azo (and Pt/Pd) has been possible indirectly for several years. Of course, I am referring to making enlarged negatives and then contact printing from those negatives. Originally this was done using a conventional enlarger and projecting the original onto silver based film. Lately it has ben done digitally by scanning the original, outputting an enlarged "negative" using an inkjet printer, and then contact printing from the digitally enlarged "negative". You may be familiar with Dan Burkholder's work in this area.

I have not personally tried either method. So, I have no axe to grind and am not championing one over the other. In fact, I don't have all the necessary equipment to do either at this time. But, I am very curious to see how the results compare on the final prints and the cost and other trade-offs of both methods.

Ulitmately, what I'd like to see, is a side-by-side comparison of enlarged Azo prints (say 16x20 or 20x24) made from 4x5 originals. One print made from a digitally enlarged negative and one made using Pat Brady's new light source. It would be most interesting to compare "best" prints made from the same original using both methods.

As for the cost of both methods. I personally don't own a 4x5 enlarger (I have access to a very nice rental darkroom). So, to use Pat's light source, I would need both a 4x5 enlarger, lens and the light source from Pat. You said the light source will be between $1500 and $2000. So, I'd be looking at something in the $2500 - $3000 total for the equipment needed to print using this method. For the digital method, I already own a computer that is easily up to the task, but even if I didn't, I could get one for $700 - $1000. I also have an Epson 2200 printer that cost $600 (but would only allow me to print enlarged negatives up to 13 x 19). If I wanted to go larger, I need something in the $1800 range for the printer. I could get a desktop scanner for about $400 - $600, or just pay a service bureau to drum scan my originals. I guess the point is the total equipment cost doesn't look to favor either method considerably.

So, we're back to the quality of the final prints (which should be what really matters anyway. Maybe we could get someone like Dan Burkholder to participate in a comparison. Ultimately, I think both methods would have their own advantages and disadvantages and some photographers would favor one, some would favor the other. In the end, I think promotion of both methods would be good for the long term availability of Azo. Right? Whether folks are using Pat Brady's new light source, or digitally enlarged negatives, they could enjoy the benefits of printing on Azo. Seems like a win:win situation. Any comments? Would you (and maybe Pat Brady) be interested in participating in such a comparison? The goal would not be to show one method as "better", but to show how both methods could be used to produce fine Azo prints, show the subtle differences in the final prints and let users then determine which results they prefer and which method is best for them.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Michael,

Just in case I didn't make it clear. I am not favoring one method over the other. I am just genuinely curious as to how the results would compare. I have no pre-conceived notion of how the final prints would look, and no personal stake in one method or the other "winning" such a comparison. The engineer in my likes to look at multiple solutions to every problem, carefully consider the viable alternatives and if posible evaluate the results of multiple solutions.

Kerry

[Michael A.Smith]

Kerry,

You raise an interesting point and made it very clear that you were not argiung for one method over another. In terms of Azo usage it certainly does not matter if one is printing enlarged conventional negatives, enlarged digital negatives, or making enlargements directly onto Azo from small negatives.

There have been a number of discussions over at the "Azo Forum" at www.michaelandpaula.com about exactly the point you raise.

I think it is a question of how one wishes to work, not a question of which method is better.

Digital negatives may work just fine, but if I were making enlargements from small negatives, I would do it directly, not with digital negatives. Why?

Cost is one thing. No extra equiment to buy, and to constantly have to buy again every few years when significant upgrades appear and eventually become mandatory.

Skills are another. No additional skills to learn. I still do not know how to use PhotoShop. I have learned to scan, barely--have done it once or twice. When we have scanning to do, we have an assistant do it for us.

Time is yet another. It takes a lot of time to scan a negative, mess with it in PhotoShop, output it (assuming you have the equipment to output it), and then make the print. Seems to me that it would take a lot less time to just make the print directly from the small negative.

Not everyone likes to work digitally on photographs. The couple of times I opened up PhotoShop, I can't stand doing even the simplest things, like getting rid of dust spots from the scanning process.

Not everyone feels as I do about digital processes, so I think it is and will be a matter of personal preference which way one approaches this.

At some point, we will be undertaking tests with digital negatives versus those negatives enlarged directly.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Michael,

Thanks for your prompt and honest response. I appreciate your candor.

I agree with your assessment that it really comes down to personal preference of the working methods involved. While you favor the conventional wet darkroom approach, I know others who prefer sitting at a computer and blanche at the idea of working with chemicals. Comme ci, comme ca.

I started doing my own black and white printing when I was in my early teens and have been working with computers nearly as long. I have also done a fair bit of my own conventional color printing. To be honest, I consider myself reasonably competent in both conventional wet darkroom and digital imagining. Unfortunately, I consider myself an expert at neither. I'd like to get there someday, but current demands on my time (full time job and three small kids) don't allow me sufficient time to practice either as much as I'd like. And I do think to get really good at either process requires considerable hands-on effort.

As far as equipment costs, I think it really depends on what someone already owns. In this day and age, many people already own an amazingly powerful home computer, but not an enlarger or dedicated home darkroom. For me personally, I have to use a rental darkroom when I want to make conventional prints (bedrooms for the kids won out over a home darkroom). Again, this will vary from person to person. There is no "right" answer for everyone.

Although I mainly shoot large format color landscapes, I have always appreciated good photography of all types. I can get goose bumps viewing a great black and white portrait, or a color still life. Although I don't practice it, I also really enjoy great architectural photography (both color and black and white). To me, good photography is good photography. The driving force behind my original post is largely academic. Only time will tell if I adopt either method, but I'd still like to see how the results compare (I guess I just have a very curious mind).

When you do get around to running some comparisons of the two methods, please let me know. I am genuinely interested in the results. Besides, I'm interested in anything that allows me the opportunity to view some great prints, regardless of the methods chosen by the artist.

Kerry

[Graeme Hird]

Hi Michael,



Earlier you said "Then you can get this light head and 20x24 Azo and enlarge onto it." Unfortunately, I'd also have to buy an enlarger, then close off a room in the house and turn it into a darkroom. I'm set up for digital prints, scanning my 5x4s, though at a pinch I could contact print. I'm more likely to make enlargements via the route Kerry suggested.



I'm always very tempted when I read about Azo, but have yet to be motivated enough to start yet another process for my prints. I keep thinking of the article on Magic Bullets and I resist.

Cheers,Graeme

[Tom Duffy]

Kerry, I don't think a determination of which method is objectively best becomes a real world part of the decision.

Equipment you already own and your inclinations (enlarger vs. digital internegative) pretty much predetermine your approach.

Although I own the requisite computer, printer and flatbed scanner, I wouldn't consider printing AZO via an enlarged digital negative.

Either method will probably yield better much better results than printing with an enlarging paper, but for many, the ability to make an enlarged AZO print directly via an optical enlargement is an option we've been waiting for a long time.

Take care, Tom

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Although I own the requisite computer, printer and flatbed scanner, I wouldn't consider printing AZO via an enlarged digital negative.

Why not? Just curious...

Kerry

[jantman]

Sounds quite interesting. I haven't tackled AZO or the alternative processes yet, but hope to sometime this summer. I think that a UV exposure source for contact printing (box-type) will be my first project. Perhaps, if I find it worth the time and money, I'll try my hand at such a source for an enlarger.

This one sounds great, but is way out of my budget. I have seen the Durst unit, and thought it sounded interesting. Perhaps a home-brew alternative, though not as good as this new one, could be constructed using either UV flourescent tubes, or with some sort of mercury vapor or xenon source.

[Tom Duffy]

Kerry, Probably the short, honest answer is the learning curve associated with developing sufficent mastery of the software, the additional time calibrating, and tweaking to make all the components work well together don't offer much enticement.

I've read Dan Burkholder's book - the ramp up time, the committment just don't seem worth it. I made my first print (in a high school darkroom) almost 40 years ago. Optical print production is very familiar territory to me. I print my wife's digital pictures making rudimentary adjustments to her raw files, and that's as deep as I want to get.

As a weekend photographer, I'd rather spend my minimal available time taking pictures, not mastering software. If I shot more color, i might also be more interested in digital output, wet darkroom color work being such a pain in the butt.

For now, this new head seems to be a great way to print my smaller negs on AZO using my Omega enlarger.

Take care, Tom

[Bruce Barlow]

A minor quibble. In talking about this head with Dick Arentz in Monterey, I asked him if it could enlarge onto Pt/Pd. He pretty categorically said no, because the UV wavelengths needed by Pt/Pd would be absorbed by the lens on the way through ("why does only your arm on the open window get a sunburn in the car? Because the glass blocks the UV in the rest of the car..." I like concrete examples). I sure ain't gonna argue with him about Pt/Pd... I had thought to try it with Pt/Pd, but was waved off, more or less.

Otherwise, I'm gearing up to test it. Eagerly, I might add. Mr. Simmons wants the article, Mr. Brady actually approached me and asked me to do it, and volunteered to loan me a head. Michael has said that he'll coach me on Azo, and we'll compare it to the house favorites here (Forte Elegance and Galerie). Paula had asked me why I hadn't tested Azo first time around, and she's so charming who could possibly say no to her? We'll add Amidol to the developer tests, too, although I won't promise to test it with the entire range of papers I tested before. Certainly with Forte and Galerie.

Don't hold your breath. This is going to take a while if I'm going to do a good job with these materials. If I can't do the best job possible for me, it's not worth it and unfair to the parties involved.

[wiggywag]

Hi!

Is anyone still doing this "Enlarging on Azo" thing? Are there light heads for this in production? Since LED technology is getting cheaper and better year by year and Lodima is available, this should be a good option in 2012.

[Drew Wiley]

Forget LED's. Azo is easy to enlarge on given any powerful color mural colorhead or other
intense halogen source, combined with a reasonably fast enlarging lens. The problem with these things is heat. You need a helluva cooling system. The internal components of the mirror boxes, gaskets, bellows, etc also need to be heat and UV tolerant. Not a task for your average enlarger. Also think fire hazard is you don't do it right. Simple enough to design, but last I heard, too much liability for any potential mfg - at least if it's powerful
enough for Pt/Pd too (which would require UV-transmitting glass). Azo is kinda marginal,
depending on just how big you'd need to go compared to the size of the original neg.

[John Bowen]

Yes, I have one of Michael Smith's Azo heads and on occasion enlarge a 35mm to 5x7 on Azo. The bulk of my photography is using 5x7 and larger negatives, so this head doesn't get much use.

[Harold_4074]

An interesting, if sort of historical, thread.

Does anyone who followed this subject happen to know if the question of "chemical focus" versus "visual focus" was ever addressed? It would seem that the need for a UV-blocking filter while focusing would invite focus error (if not various aberrations) when exposing, particularly since stopping down to critical aperture would be problematic.