8 x 10 contact paper-dev

jdef said:

Donald, you're right, I meant to say ES for the Fomatone, I didn't mean to confuse you, I know it can be difficult for you to follow. Fomatone MG can be purchased from J&C photo, and Centennial POP from Chicago Albumen works. Buy as much as you want, and test it to your heart's content. Here's a quote from CAW-



Please understand that your opinion or estimation of me and/or my work or methods means less than nothing to me.

Jay

Click to expand...

Jay,

The problem is, and I am sure that you will understand it, that we want to be absolutely sure that we have representative samples of the paper that you claim to have tested. If that weren't done in that manner, there would always be the possibility that one could claim differences based on emulsion changes by the manufacturer. So what I am suggesting is the only fair test, wouldn't you agree?

So why don't you just be a man of your word and send Sandy or me a couple of 8X10 sheets. Or should I just take this that you were blowing in the wind once again...you have my address...

I will post the actual results of your actions...the next move is yours.

Donald Miller

Little matters what kind of negative you need. What matters is how the paper responds to it. Azo responds very well. It is probably the paper that best shows what is on the negative and that is why is fairly easy to make a great print on Azo. Now for the ones that do not care for those qualities, it is OK. What is good for one, need not be good for others. Thanks god it is that way!
Other papers may exist that need negatives of higher density range, but that is by no means a great quality about them.

Jay,

By the way, I did visit the CAW site and copied the following which seems to be different from what you represented earlier.

"Ordinary photographic negatives with today's printing characteristics may not have sufficient density range to produce vigorous prints on Printing-out Paper. Negatives made with most pictorial films likely will require added development time to produce the requisite density range. However, the resulting higher mid-tone contrast may be objectionable. The approximate density range required to produce vigorous shadows and clean highlights is 1.80."

Also this is not an apples to apples comparision since the coloration and visual appearance are quite different with this material from conventional silver developing out papers since this is a printing out paper. I am not sure that you were aware of the difference in these materials.

I have not used this material myself but it seems that CAW acknowledges a somewhat non linear response by virtue of the comment that follows ... "However, the resulting higher mid-tone contrast may be objectionable."

I thought that you might want to update your records to coincide with what CAW states as opposed to what you reported earlier.

I look forward to receiving a couple of sheets of the other paper.

colivet said:

...
Other papers may exist that need negatives of higher density range, but that is by no means a great quality about them.

Click to expand...

- Nor does the need for high density range for Azo necessarily equate to a greater quality...

I prefer a higher midtone contrast than what I have seen from Azo, while still maintaining smoothness in the highlights and shadows. I choose the paper I use from the negative and how I want the print to look, not the other way round.

Jdef:
" I won't be sending you anything, ever."

Really? No kidding!!!! I wonder why???

Donald Miller

jdef said:

I measure a DR of 2 for Fomatone MG and max yellow filtration. Centennial POP is a silver chloride contact printing paper, and requires a negative DR of around 2. Does this mean that these papers are better than Azo?

Jay

Click to expand...

Jay,

Could be. I've never used Fomatone. (Does JandC carry it?) I intend to enlarge a lot of 6 x 6 cm negatives soon. So far, I've found Bergger VCNB with the yellow cranked up to 80 (I guess that would be grade 0?) to be the only paper capable of handling my negatives from a handheld camera. I develop it the same way I do sheet film. What paper developer do you use for Fomatone?

Jim

Thanks. I'll try it with both Dektol and Amidol. Sometimes even Bergger is too contrasty with the yellow cranked all the way up to what purports to be grade 00. Maybe Fomatone will be softer.

I note that JandC says that this paper is intended primarily for contact printing and that it's 'slow'. They don't mean 'slow' like Azo slow, do they? In other words, is it fast enough to use in an enlarger with reasonable exposure times? If not, its MG designation would seem irrelevant.

c6h6o3 said:

I note that JandC says that this paper is intended primarily for contact printing and that it's 'slow'. They don't mean 'slow' like Azo slow, do they? In other words, is it fast enough to use in an enlarger with reasonable exposure times? If not, its MG designation would seem irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It is slower than typical enlarging paper but nowhere near as slow as Azo. Foma promotes it as a contact/enlarging paper. However, it is much closer in speed to enlarging paper than a pure silver chloride contact paper like Azo.

Azo is unique and Fomatone is not anything like it.

The name calling and verbal abuse being flung back and forth between jdef and Don Miller is entertaining, but it is not really getting us anywhere. After reading their posts, I decided to “objectively” evaluate the claims being hurled back and forth. I used step tests which I had previously done and information I obtained from the Azo web site. The information on Azo was supplied by one Don Miller (the same Don Miller who posted here?) I do not have the silver paper mentioned in the post, but I do have tests from Kodak Polymax Fine Art paper. I think it will be adequate to test the claim by Don that “there is no..I repeat no silver paper that has the exposure scale of Azo grade two…” All of my information was obtained using a Heiland densitometer and stoffeer step wedges. The data obtained was plugged into the BTZS software to obtain the analysis.

Azo grade two: I used the step tablet information provided on the Azo web site by Don Miller for the new grade two. Here are the results.

ES 1.63
DR 1.85
Avg G 1.14
Iso Range 160
Eff Grade 0
Class Normal Toe
ID Max 1.98
ID min .13
E max .97
E min 2.60

Since the issue is whether other non-Azo silver papers have the capability of producing as long an ES as Azo, the relevant number is an Exposure scale of 1.63. I think it is also important to point out that the “Effective grade” of Azo is 0. There is no established standard for setting paper contrast grades. That is why an Illford grade 2 may be softer than a Kodak grade two paper. But, the BTZS system uses set ranges of ES to determine effective grades in papers, such that different papers may be compared.

Now for Kodak Polymax Fine Art Paper. This is a variable contrast grade paper. Using the grade two setting, I came up with an exposure scale of 1.02. But, that doesn’t tell us much, only which filter setting on my enlarger do I use to get a grade two print on this paper. Remember, the issue is CAN this paper, or any other silver paper produce an exposure scale equal to AZO, a scale of 1.63 or greater.

I did a test of the Kodak Polymax with my enlarger set to its softest setting. I have a Zone VI enlarger, and the settings were soft=max, hard=off. Here are the results:

ES 1.81
DR 1.85
Avg G 1.02
Iso Range 180
Eff Grade less than 0
Class short Toe
ID Max 1.92
ID min .07
E max ..30
E min 2.11

So, to answer our first question: Yes, enlarging papers can produce as long an exposure scale as Azo. It is not at grade 2, but then Azo is not really a grade 2 paper by any objective standard.

Sorry Don, but it looks like you owe jdef an apology.

The above shows an interesting point. Don proposed to test the enlarging papers. “My tests will involve testing the papers you mentioned at grade two and comparing the ES of the papers…”

If you were do this, then of course Azo would have a longer tonal scale, because it is a softer paper. But, it is not softer than Polymax at grade 0. I developed the Polymax in Dektol. I presume you could get softer yet by developing it in a soft developer. This is similar to using the water bath for Azo.


Now, does this mean that I am going to quit using azo and just use Polymax at grade 0? No. As shown by all the information provide above, the two papers, while similar, have different characteristics. The average gradient is different and so is the toe. I prefer the way the tones, especially the mid tones are spread in Azo. I do use the Polymax at grade 0 for proof prints of my negatives before moving on to print them on Azo grade 2. I also use it to proof my platinum negs. My grade 2 formula for platinum, produces an exposure scale of 1.73--close enough for gross evaluation of which negs I am going to toss in the bin.

I have many prints hanging on my wall. I have found that the standard silver prints have more punch. People who come into my office are immediately drawn to them. But the punch soon wears off and the viewers linger on the Azo prints. They are more subtle. The Azo fits most of the prints I make, so I use it. For one project, I used Polymax because it got me closer to what I wanted to achieve. Azo is “better” for some projects, Polymax for others. The key is knowing which to use before hand and exposing and developing the neg to fit the process so that I can achieve the end result I want.

Anyway, I hope that this post can at least put an end to the name calling.

I was always under the impression that one scaled a negative for a given paper. Or vice-versa, you use a paper that works for your negatives. Now, all this scrapping seems to have been about Exposure Scale, which is the same, I believe, as the way a paper responds to a particular negative. Obviously, you use a higher contrast paper or filter for a lower contrast negative, etc.

But it seems to me that the real question is about reflection density - i.e., the spread in values between d-max and the paper base. And I don't know the actual values for Azo vs. any other paper. But I would assume the differences are small. I think Allen Friday has hit the nail on the head by saying he likes the spread of tones, the characteristic curve, of Azo. And perhaps there is something about the emulsion layer of Azo that gives it an apparent improved sharpness.

But look how this thread has evolved - one has to think hard about venturing into the non-Azo waters when entering the Contact Printing forum. The original question was "What silver papers, other than Azo do some photographers use?". And it mutated into the usual proseletizing by the die-hard users of Azo. I like both silver chloride prints, and chlorobromide prints. It really depends on the look you want.

Thank you Robert

Thank you Allen

Name calling and mud slinging part two.

I did a quick test of Centenial POP for fun to see what the exposure scale etc. is for Centenial POP. Here are the results:

ES 2.09
DR .97

Emin 2.38
E max .28

ID max 1.07
IDmin .04

Avg G .46
ISO range 210

Effective grade: much less than 0
Class: long toe


I have not done prints on Centenial POP for a year or so, simply because of the long exposure times, and the fact that I don't care much for the copper/orange color of the untoned prints. I do, however, very much like the color of gold toned POP prints.

Yes, the POP has a longer tonal range than Azo. So, round two also goes to jdef.

Allen,

I really want to thank you for taking the time to do this testing...I wonder what your real motivation is...do you have a lot of free time? The reason that I ask is that I may have some other tasks for you to do, at the same wage of course.

By the way Allen, I don't recall having ever encountered your name in any of the photo forums anywhere...apparently insofar as Apug is concerned you didn't exist before 3-30-05. I am normally pretty aware of ULF shooters. It seems really unusual that I haven't ever encountered you somewhere before.

By the way will you be attending the LF conference. If you are I would like to hook up with you. I'll buy you a drink of your choice to repay you for your kindness.

Let me know if you are available for additional free work. Thanks again.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

And now, back to the original question.

The original question was: what silver papers, other than Azo, would people recommend for contact printing?

The short and flip answer is that any enlarging paper that you like can be used as a contact printing paper. I have made contact prints on many different enlarging papers, and they can be beautiful. If you have a favorite paper for enlarging, try it. Personally, I like Ilford MG toned in gold, and ilford Warm tone toned in Selenium.

Now for the not so short and flip answer. Historically, there have been contact printing papers and enlarging papers. The contact papers have different characteristics than the enlarging papers because they use different emulsions. Typically, contact printing papers have a longer tonal scale, longer toes and the midtones are more dynamic. Most of the time when people talk about contact prints, they are referring to the look of prints made on paper specifically designed for contact printing that exhibit the longer tonal scale.

To obtain the look of “contact prints” i.e. prints made on contact printing paper, your options are limited. You mention you don’t want to use Azo because of the difficulties in obtaining it etc. Understood. I know of only two other true silver contact printing papers: (1) The Centenial POP, which suffers from the same problems you want to avoid in Azo, namely, you can only get it from limited suppliers in the US. (2) the Retrophotographic POP. I have never used this paper, but it should be available in Europe. I have done POP on the Centenial, and they are very nice when gold toned. They have the look of old albumen prints and are great for long scale scenes. The problem with POP is that they require very long negatives, which can be hard to get using modern films, and they are very slow. Prints under my exposure unit (10 min for Platinum) can be 60 to 80 minutes for POP. Ouch.

So, that takes us back to enlarging paper. Most people print at grade two for enlarging papers. ES of 1.0. But, there is nothing that says you have to. You can print on very soft grades, e.g. grade 1 or 0 and approximate the look of contact printing paper. The tones will be spread differently than a true contact paper, but only you can be the judge of whether it is right for your work or not. The basic choices are the same as when you first started enlarging. Do you want warm or cold tones, etc.

I think the questions asked above concerning why contact print if you are not going to use contact printing paper as opposed to enlarging paper are valid given the different characteristics of the two kind of paper. Personally, I probably would not shoot my 8x10 instead of my 4x5 and then print them both on grade two Kodak enlarging paper. The difference in result is not worth the extra effort to me. I’m not sure I could tell the difference between the contact print and the 2x enlargement, once they were matted, at greater than arms distance. But, I can tell the difference between a contact print made on contact printing paper and one made on grade two enlarging paper (using negatives tailored to each paper of course).

Allen Friday said:

Name calling and mud slinging part two.

I did a quick test of Centenial POP for fun to see what the exposure scale etc. is for Centenial POP. Here are the results:

ES 2.09
DR .97

Emin 2.38
E max .28

ID max 1.07
IDmin .04

Avg G .46
ISO range 210

Effective grade: much less than 0
Class: long toe


I have not done prints on Centenial POP for a year or so, simply because of the long exposure times, and the fact that I don't care much for the copper/orange color of the untoned prints. I do, however, very much like the color of gold toned POP prints.

Yes, the POP has a longer tonal range than Azo. So, round two also goes to jdef.

Click to expand...

Did you miss a 1 on the DR number? Your average G also seems to be suspect.

From your results a paper that has an ES of 2.09 should have a much greater DR. What your results tell us is that POP has such a small slope and compressed DR that it never reaches full black. This does not make sense, And it would be useless with such a small DR.

I have not ran any tests on azo, but people have reported to me that it has an ES of 2.4, that would indicate that it has a longer tonal range than POP.

Dear Don,

I confess that I hate testing film and paper. If I was not doing the testing anyway, I never would have done this testing just to answer a post on APUG. I purchased a Jobo processor a few months ago and have started to develop my film in it. I went to the Jobo because I was having problems developing my ULF film evenly. So I don’t have to change development between sizes, I want to use the Jobo for everything from 4x5 to 20x24.

In order to tie my film to the papers I want to use, I started to retest my favorite papers. I did the Kodak test a few weeks ago. I did a test of my platinum papers before that. I have not gotten around to testing Azo in my dark room yet, but it is next. I received the Azo head from Michael and Paula, and I am close to having it ready for use. I plan to test the old and new Azo both by projection and using the standard 300 watt bulb.

My goal, if possible, is to be able to use the same negative for Azo and platinum. I want to proof the neg on Kodak polymax and use the print time and grade on polymax as a guide for print times and grades for platinum and Azo. Hence, the flurry of testing. I did the Centenial POP test because I happened to take a box down to my office a few weeks ago to play with. I have a couple of negs that I made for pure palladium prints using PO-1 developer--they are very long scale. I thought it would be fun to try the negs on the POP. Hence, I had the stuff in the next room and decided to test it.

But, once I have my negs wired to platinum and Azo, I’m done testing for a long while--at least until the manufacturers change film on me.

Dave, my advice is to take the top five suggestions that you've gotten in this thread and try them out yourself. Yes, this approach is more expensive and time consuming but that's the only way to find the paper/developer combination that really works for you. Personally, if I weren't going to use Azo (and I couldn't move to Platinum) I would use Forte Multigrade with Agfa Neutol Plus. But the Forte is a distant third for me after Azo and Platinum because of the look _I_ want. So take some of the suggestions you've received, run into the darkroom, and see which paper fits _your_ vision the best.

Cheers, James

I guess I dont rate a response or I am on mr. friday's ignore list, but given the numbers he supplied for POP I would not be giving any rounds to anybody, regardless of whatever pissing contest is going on, They just dont make sense.

As to the original question my advice would be not to lok for a "magic bullet". Pick one paper you like and stick with it. Learn how to use it well and if anything get a book like "Master`s printers course". It is far more important to have an arsenal of weapons than looking for a paper that will make a master piece.

Good luck.

I just noticed this thread and wanted to mention something that has not, so far as I see, been directly addressed, and that is the shape of the curve. The one thing that really distinuishes the AZO curve from other silver curves that I have looked at, both VC and graded papers, is the very long straight line that can be obtained if you develop it in the right developer, i.e. Amidol or Ansco 1:2.

The ES of the new AZO 2 paper is about 1.75 or a tad higher, in contrast to the older material that has an ES of about 1.55. Now, if you look at the actual straight line of AZO #2 in Amidol or Ansco 1:2 you will see that it is actually as long or longer than that of a pt./pd. print, subtracting the toe and shoulder of course.

This fact gives AZO a unique look. You can like the look not, but the fact is that tonal values are rendered differently with AZO than with regular silver papers.

Sandy

Dear Jorge,

No you are not on my ignor list, but i did want to go home last night and I just now got back to my computer. I rechecked the test I did on POP and I come out with the same or similar avg G for the paper using different exposures. When I ran the test, I used 4 step tablets on the same sheet of paper, The first was exposed for 40 min and each subsequent one was exposed for 20 min more. I just ran the 120 min exposure throught the densitometer and here is what I came up with.

ES 2.12
Avg .48
DR 1.03
IDmax 1.07
ID min 1.04
emin 2.25
Emax .63

Below are the individual step readings so you can veriify or disagree. If I am not correct, I would like to know. But, I am reacding the info directly off the BTZS software.

1. 1.18
2. 1.18
3. 1.18
4. 1.15
5. 1.09
6. 1.03
7. .90
8. .80
9. .69
10. .56
11. .47
12. .39
13. .30
14. .23
15. .17
16. .12
18. .06
19. .04
20. .00
21. .00

Please analyse the data and let me know if you come to a different result.

Good differentiation over 18 steps of a Stouffer 21-step tablet - that's very much like my own experience with POP. I can't say anything about the rest of the resutls, as I don't use BTZS (anything).

Allen Friday said:

Dear Jorge,

No you are not on my ignor list, but i did want to go home last night and I just now got back to my computer. I rechecked the test I did on POP and I come out with the same or similar avg G for the paper using different exposures. When I ran the test, I used 4 step tablets on the same sheet of paper, The first was exposed for 40 min and each subsequent one was exposed for 20 min more. I just ran the 120 min exposure throught the densitometer and here is what I came up with.

ES 2.12
Avg .48
DR 1.03
IDmax 1.07
ID min 1.04
emin 2.25
Emax .63



Please analyse the data and let me know if you come to a different result.

Click to expand...

I appeaer to be missing something. Your numbers suggest that the maximum reflective density of POP is about 1.18. Is that correct? Is that typical of POP? If true it seems incredibly low to me.

The only printing I do with silver papers is AZO. With the right negative it has a very impressive range from maximum to mimimum density, from a high of about 2.20 to a low of about 0.06. Figures of 2.06 or so are easy wtih most negatives on AZO 2. Is there any VC paper with an exposure scale of 1.75 that can reach a reflective density of 2.0 or higher?

Sandy

Thank you for your response Allan. IMO there is something wrong with your test. Looking at your step tablet numbers we see that your paper Dmax is only 1.18.

Unlike other people I will admit I have never printed with POP, but from what I understand I thought you had to tone POP to obtain a representative sample of tones. I think the reddish intial tones are interefering with your densitometer or the print really needs to be toned before any measurements are taken. For example even pure pd prints have a Dmax and a DR greater than what you report for POP. This does not make sense. For example, my pure pd prints have a Dmax of 1.32 and I am well aware that there are some people out there who can get up to 1.45 or even 1.5 in their pt/pd prints.

In addition a DR of .95 tells us that POP is compressing the negative tonal range even more than pure pd printing and that for you to get a printable negative you would need a negative with a density range anywhere from 2 to 2.2 If this was the case nobody would be able to print with POP as there is no modern negative material capable of getting this DR easily.

For example my results for a pure pd print made on arches platine with no restraining in the FO and developed in PO with potassium dichromate as the restrainer at a concentration of 1 ml pot dic/200 ml PO are the following.

Avg G .71
DR 1.17
ES 1.66

IDmax set at 90% of Maximum black is 1.21

As you can see I have a hard time accepting that POP has a lower maximum black than a pure pd print IDmax with almost no restrainer, the slope of a pure pd print with almost no restrainer is almost twice of what you reported for POP, hard to beleive. Look at the DR, it shows a great tonal compression, yet even this is higher than what you reported for POP.

I have the feeling that you printed on POP and then took the numbers right of the printed step wedges without toning them. If I was going to do this to settle a dispute I would have done it in a way that compares apples with apples, for example toning the step wedges in a combination of gold/sodium bicarbonate to obtain the most similar tones to that of an azo print. Also dont forget that with toning the maximum black of a POP print is increased by a substancial amount.

I have no dog on this fight and I really dont care what are the results of the resident expert in all things photographic, but I would not call this round in favor of jdef just jet.