8 x 10 contact paper-dev

Allen Friday · May 14, 2005

Lets back up a minute. I tested the POP for one purpose, to determine the ES and to see if it was in fact 2.0 or greater. My first test showed that it was greater than 2.0. I had the extra available data because I ran four step tables through instead of one. The second step wedge showed that it was greater than 2.0.

Yes, the maximun reflect density I came up with was 1.18. There are some caveats on this however. First, this is untoned POP. The untoned prints are quite different from the gold toned prints. I suppose I can gold tone them later, but it will have to be next week as I am going to be gone most of this week on a family trip. Second, this is in the exposure unit I use for my platinum prints (Edmonds light unit). I don't know if the result would be different in the sun or under a plate burner. Visually, the step wedge print looks like I remember prints done in the sun. But, I have not done step wedges that way to test for a difference. Third, I am using slightly old POP paper. I mentioned in one post that I have not done POP prints in a year or so. I did not test fresh pop paper because I did not have any.

The reason I tested at all was to find out the exposure range of the pop. I have no idea if this is infact representative of all POP, but the ES reading is in line with that published by CAW.

Ole · May 14, 2005

POP is not developed - and has lower D-max due to the brown tone. So the results above are about as I'd expect. The D-Max can be increased with toning with gold or palladium, the range can be decreased and contrast increased by (rapid fix) bleaching. Any bleach more aggressive than very dilute rapid fix tends to take away too much "image". Even KRST bleaches too much too fast!

Allen Friday · May 14, 2005

I will make the time to gold tone the paper after my son's soccer game this afternoon. I should have results of the toned print for you tomorrow.

As an aside, I tested untoned prints because toning adds another varible. I normally use gold tone for the POP. But others will use platinum, selenium and sepia. Also, different dilutions and times will produce differnt results. The tests I did on Kodak paper and platinum were all untoned to give me a base line for later testing the effects of toning. I figured apples to apples meant untoned to untoned.

Allen Friday · May 14, 2005

I gold toned the POP after my son's soccer game. It is now dry. My wife wasn't too happy about me going back to the office. for some silly reason, she thought I should spend some time with her. But what is a little marrital discord compared to the search for photographic truth?

I toned the strips in B&S gold toner following the instructions in the kit. 50 ml ammonium thiocyanate (2%) and 50 ml gold cloride (2%) to 1 ltr of water. I toned the strips by sight and guess, as opposed to doing a detailed study of the effects different dilutions and time would have on the tests. I toned for 20 minutes, which looked about right when I moved it to the fix, 20% Sodium thiosulphate. I did not expect it to continue to darken in the fix as much as it did. Consequently, I think the strips are over toned from what I would do in the future. I did print one image on the POP, which was in the oven while I was watching the game. I toned the print for 10 minutes and it look pretty good for a first attempt.

The 120 minute strip I tested above is too dark once toned. The 100 and 80 minute exposures are much better, so I read them with the densitometer. The results are as follows:

80 min test:

ES 1.98

Allen Friday · May 14, 2005

Sorry. I hit the wrong button and posted when I simply wanted to tab over.

80 min test:

ES 1.98
Avg. G .92
ISO range 200
Eff grade much less than 0
class long toe
emin 2.60
emax .62
DR 1.81
idmax 1.85
idmin .04

100 min test:
ES 2.02
AVG G .88
ISO range 200
Eff grade much less than 0
Class long toe
DR 1.78
emin 2.78
emax .76
idmax 1.82
idmin .76

The 120 test was overexposed when toned, but still had an ES of 1.82, and a DR of 1.80.

Here are the step readings for the 100 min test if anyone is interested.

1. 2.02
2. 2.02
3. 2.02
4 1.97
5. 1.93
6. 1.78
7. 1.58
8. 1.32
9. 1.03
10. .76
11. .56
12. .43
13. .32
14. .23
15. .16
16. .11
17. .08
18. .05
19. .04
20. .00
21. .00

The print that I did is very interesting. I compared it to the platinum print I did for the same neg a week ago. the platinum print has a little more sparkle, especially in the mid tones. But I attribute that to the neg being a little thin for POP. It has me interested again in POP. I think this winter I may have to investigate it further.

A year ago when I did POP printing, I printed very few of my own negs on it. Mainly, I was printing glass negs from a photoshop in my home town. They were exposed between 1880 and 1920. The early ones were wet plates and the later were dry plates. They printed exceedingly well on the POP. It will be interesting to see if modern films can be tricked into looking as good.

Jorge · May 15, 2005

Allright, now these numbers make a lot more sense. Notice that there is still a bit of tonal compression as shown by the DR numbers, from what I understand the one big advantage of azo developed in amidol is that the corresponding ES/DR values are almost 1 to 1. For example If we plotted the steps and got an ES value of 2.2, the corresponding DR would be around 2 to 2.1.

Once again I have to say I do not print with azo, but the anecdotal experience many have reported here and in the MAS forum says that azo is capable of getting a Dmax when toned in selenium and developed in amidol of around 2.4. If I had to make an educated guess as to the ES of Azo under these conditions I would say it is around 2.2. If this is the case, then Azo has a greater tonal range than POP and if the pissing contest was about which paper had a greater tonal scale, then round two would have to go to Don.....

sanking · May 15, 2005

Allen Friday said:
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.

BTW, I was running some tests on AZO 2 for another purpose and just decided to plot a curve. My figures for the new AZO 2 paper turned out to be virtually identical to those provided by Donald in that the the ES I got was also 1.63, and all of the other numbers matched up very closely as well.

I also did the same for AZO 3, and there is a huge difference. For AZO 3 I got a ES of 1.07, which puts it in the range of a regular silver #2 papers. Interestingly, the maximum reflective density of AZO 3 turned out to be quite a bit higher about 2.20 for AZO 3 compared to 2.06 for AZO 2.

Development was in Ansco 130 1:2 for two minutes.

Sandy

Ole · May 15, 2005

jdef said:
Allen,

it might be an unconventional suggestion, but you might consider J&C Pro 100. I tested the sheetfilm recently and found it capable of VERY high contrast and density range. Besides, it's really cheap.

Jay

There are several films which can do this - especially with the help of a staining developer. The bad news is that the best one is APX100, which s no longer made in sheets...

EFKE PL25 is great, as is Ilford FP4+.

Ole · May 15, 2005

jdef said:
I don't want to hijack this thread...

This is APUG. Half the fun is trying to guess what we were originally supposed to be discussing when the thread morphed into something completely different, and there was some useful information about LF films on page 15 of a thread about 42mm screw lenses...

Phillip P. Dimor · May 15, 2005

Brook said:
..In the end really great light trumped all the exotic materials.

I think that many people forget about the quality of light in favor of finding the best materials and equipment.. I know I am guilty of it as well but really, after all of these years I am finally looking at the LIGHT!

Ole · May 15, 2005

Jay,

I wish I could answer that question. But I have no densitometer, and besides I never get around to real testing. So all my "knowledge" is empirically derived, by seeing how films handle real-life situations. I believe APX100 to br capable of significantly more expansion than FP4+, but I have no evidence to back this up. On the other havd I accidentally overdeveloped a sheet of 9x12cm APX in Pyrocat-HD: A low-contrast scene turned into my first negative tailored for POP!

Michael A. Smith · May 16, 2005

To change the subject here and follow up on somethiing Jorge wrote--something abour Dmax of Pt/Pd he was getting. I do not have his numbers at hand, but his results seemed awfully low and would yield extremely weak platinum prints.

I just read an old interview from the 1970s with Laura Gilpin and she said that "platinum prints are too weak these days--there are no deep blacks."

I will be working with a platinum printer that gets a Dmax of up to 2.4. Very black blacks. Those platinum prints are rich.

I do not test anything, but just evaluate photographs visually. It was most interesting to read what Sandy wrote about the scale of Azo being such as to give more separation between each of the tones. (That's my way of explaining it.) That would explain why Azo prints, when properly printed, seem to have a glow in the middle of the tonal range, whereas prints on enlarging paper, relatively speaking, appear lifeless.

Jorge · May 16, 2005

Michael A. Smith said:
To change the subject here and follow up on somethiing Jorge wrote--something abour Dmax of Pt/Pd he was getting. I do not have his numbers at hand, but his results seemed awfully low and would yield extremely weak platinum prints.

I just read an old interview from the 1970s with Laura Gilpin and she said that "platinum prints are too weak these days--there are no deep blacks."

I will be working with a platinum printer that gets a Dmax of up to 2.4. Very black blacks. Those platinum prints are rich.

I do not test anything, but just evaluate photographs visually. It was most interesting to read what Sandy wrote about the scale of Azo being such as to give more separation between each of the tones. (That's my way of explaining it.) That would explain why Azo prints, when properly printed, seem to have a glow in the middle of the tonal range, whereas prints on enlarging paper, relatively speaking, appear lifeless.

Michael, give it a rest, ok? I fail to understand why anybody would want to make a pt/pd print that looks like a silver print....having said that, many here have bought my prints, maybe they can tell you if they are "weak" as you say...... :rolleyes:

sanking · May 16, 2005

Michael A. Smith said:
I just read an old interview from the 1970s with Laura Gilpin and she said that "platinum prints are too weak these days--there are no deep blacks."

I will be working with a platinum printer that gets a Dmax of up to 2.4. Very black blacks. Those platinum prints are rich.

I believe it is important to recognize that many people do not see the issue as right or wrong in terms of a maximum reflective density for platinum prints. If we look back to the past we find that there have been several periods when the look of compressed tonal values and low Dmax was considered more artistic than deep blacks and a wife range of reflective densities.

There is also something called believable black, i.e. a black that the eye sees in a print and establishes as a convincing black for this print, when viewed by itself. Compared side by side with another print that has a much higher maximum black, you will see a difference, but not when you look at the print by itself.

That said, the practical maximum Dmax that even the best Pt./Pd. printers in the world are able to get on the drawing and water color papers typically used is on the order of 1.45 - 1.55, and even that is only possible with a perfect negative. In my own work I typically get something on the order of 1.45 with both straight palladium and palladium toned kallitype, with an occasional print that hits 1.52. But virtually anyone with a little attention to technique can get a Dmax of about 1.4 or so, if that is desired.

Some people, Craig Koshyk for example, have experimented with printing platinum/palladium on fixed out photographic papers and I have one of his prints. It is quite beautiful and has a maximum reflective density of about 1.85. However, except for the edge strokes I would not be able to tell the difference between it and a toned silver print on the same surface paper. However, I think we would have to recognized that platinum/palladium prints on silver type papers would have an advantage over regular silver in terms of permanence.

Sandy

Ole · May 16, 2005

The measurable Dmax is influenced by the paper surface, while the perceived "blackness" may be completely different. My favorite (silver gelatin) paper for deep blacks is Bergger Prestige, which is COT320 with an emulsion. No subcoating, so the paper surface shows through. I doubt the Dmax is higher than 1.7, yet the shadows look deeper and more velvet-y on this paper than on any other I have tried.

Kirk Keyes · May 17, 2005

Donald Miller said:
Be that as it may, the sensitometric characteristics of the material take this assessment out of the subjective arena and bring it into objective reality...there is no...I repeat no silver paper that has the exposure scale of Azo grade two...

By comparison grade two Azo has an exposure scale of 1.65-1.75. That is the equivalent of two more complete stops of density contained on the camera negative that Azo grade two can contain when compared to conventional silver paper.

Yes, let's be subjective about this and discuss sensitometry, Donald.

Here's the results of my testing of Ilford MG IV RC - developed in Dektol 1+2, untoned, under a Saunders 4500 at 200Y filtration, with the step tablet projected - I get an exposure scale (range) of 2.20 (!) with a Dmax of 2.07. I like to think of it as a Grade 000 paper!

So there's an example of an everyday, common, conventional, RESIN-COATED enlarging paper that has an exposure scale much longer than Azo.

Now Donald, if you would like, I could send you some paper to test for yourself...

Now granted, I'm sure the RC surface of this paper will keep it from looking like Azo, and as Sandy pointed out the H&D curve of the Azo is probably MUCH smoother (although the MG IV RC is fairly smooth, actually better then in the Grade 0 to 00 range), this will probably give the Azo a smoother look.

But all this "Azo has the longest exposure scale" bull is simply that - bull.

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

Michael A. Smith · May 18, 2005

I don't think it matters which paper has the longest scale by the numbers. A more important thing is the shape of the curve. As Sandy pointed out, Azo is mostly all straight line, so separations in the middle of the curve are greater than on other papers and this is an important facor in giving prints on Azo their glow.

Ultimately, which paper you use should be a function of which looks best to you. Because of the shape of its curve, Azo not only can give a special glow in the middle, it also will reveal more detail in both the highlights and the shadows. These areas are less likely to block up on Azo than they are on other paper.

The look that gives suits me. And these days it seems to suit many others as well. But not everyone's taste is the same and Azo is not for everyone. When I first wrote about Azo 10 years ago almost no one had heard of it. Now it has almost become its own category. But really, it is just another silver paper.

Paula Chamlee and I will be at the View Camera Conference in Sprpingfield. We are not only making a number of presentations, we'll also have a booth for our Lodima Press books. And we'll have lots of prints with us, including examples of our new work from Iceland, so those who wonder what an Azo print can look like, do stop by and take a look.

Photography is a visual medium. Photographs should always be evaluated by how they look, not what numbers they show when read on a densitometer.

noseoil · May 18, 2005

All numbers aside, I would urge anyone who is interested in this discussion (and attending the conference as well) to visit with Michael & Paula at their booth. Take a look at the prints and forget about the bull$hit and numbers for a while. I was able to go last year and found their work to be beautiful (my subjective take on their work, only).

They were generous with their time and input on my fledgling attempts at printing. Take advantage of the showing of prints at the beginning and put out a print or two for peer review and feedback. I met some wonderful people (Bill and Aggie, Michael and Paula come to mind) and found a good family with a common interest.

It's all about film and paper people. tim

rhphoto · May 18, 2005

Michael A. Smith said:
Ultimately, which paper you use should be a function of which looks best to you.

But not everyone's taste is the same and Azo is not for everyone.

But really, it is just another silver paper.

Photography is a visual medium. Photographs should always be evaluated by how they look, not what numbers they show when read on a densitometer.

Michael,
My respect for you just went up a notch. I get a little irritated when any artist, musician, whatever, goes evangelist about their particular thing. I learned long ago that good quality materials can yield good results in the right hands, and there are no magic bullets. Your statements here support that, and, who knows, I might be buying a box of Kodak Silver Chloride paper from you soon.

Ps - I'm not far from the Mass. get together - can I get in to see your work for free, or do I have to attend the workshop, etc.
Thanks

noseoil · May 18, 2005

Robert, the conference costs to get in, then the rest is basically "free" to attend and walk around. You can pay for some other things, but the cost can be recovered by the hand-outs by Fuji, Kodak, Ilford and others, just by getting a bag and having a few things given to you as you walk around the vendor area. By all means, GO! tim

Jim Noel · May 18, 2005

There is no second choice worthy of mention.
Bite the bullet and order some Azo and you wil lnever go back.

Jon Shiu · May 18, 2005

I believe the trade-show booths are free to attend.

Jon

Michael A. Smith · May 18, 2005

Robert Hunt,

Thanks. While I do think Azo has qualities that other silver papers do not, whether one chooses to use it or not is a function, ultimately, of one's world view, and what one is attempting to do with one's photographs. We all do not have the same world view and we all do not want to achieve the same thing. My choice of this paper came about through a long (9-year) series of events and influences. I wrote about it over 20 years later never dreaming that it would become almost an alternative process with its own cachet, and certainly never intending to be an Azo dealer. When Kodak first offered a dealership to us we turned it down. We only became dealers later to save the paper from extinction.

The "trade show" part of the conference is free. At the conference, Paula and I will have about 300 prints with us. Hopefully, at our booth (where we will have our Lodima Press books for sale as well as a few boxes of Azo) we will have the room to set up print bins so that people can look through them. (And maybe even buy a few.)

8 x 10 contact paper-dev

Allen Friday

Ole

Moderator

Allen Friday

Allen Friday

Allen Friday

Jorge

sanking

Ole

Moderator

Ole

Moderator

Phillip P. Dimor

Ole

Moderator

Michael A. Smith

Jorge

sanking

Ole

Moderator

Kirk Keyes

Michael A. Smith

noseoil

rhphoto

noseoil

Jim Noel

Jon Shiu

Michael A. Smith

8 x 10 contact paper-dev

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency