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.
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.
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]
I read the same elsewhere.Originally Posted by Randy Moe
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I am glad you persevere.
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
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks