8x10 negs

You may not recall but I made that offer here some months ago

Click to expand...

Drat... I missed the offer.... is there still a chance of acquiring 50 sheets of each grade?

Paula and I have discussed this and you are absolutely right. To increase our Azo business we should give away samples. A few problems do arise, however. Three or four sheets are just not enough. someone would need at least ten of each, and for that amount we would have to charge for the paper, plus for the time to sort it out. We were selling those few 25-sheet packages for $35 (Grade 2) and $45 (Grade 3) so that our time was covered. I thought that anyone who would pay that much was crazy and should get the 100-sheet box for little more than twice as much and I tried to talk those few who wanted to buy a 25-sheet package out of it, but they insisted.

But to get back to the point of this. As I said, Paula and I discussed this and you are absolutely right. To increase our Azo business we should give away samples. And yes, we would like to sell as much Azo as possible--but not to make money. We would like to sell as much Azo as possible so we can keep the paper in production.

However, unlike Fred Picker with Zone VI, and unlike camera stores, selling paper is not our business. We make so little from it each year and it already takes valuable time away from our real work--making photographs. We make our living by selling our photographs, not by selling paper. Paula and I discussed it and decided that, although it may be good business, we simply do not have the time to do this--nor does our assistant have the time. We can easily keep him busy 24 hours a day as it is.

So, if those who do not want to commit to buy the paper in 100-sheet boxes because they are afraid they won't like it, do not buy it, they do not buy it. I can't help that. Photography is not an inexpensive venture. I am aware that the cost of a couple of hundred sheets of paper can loom as an overwhelming expense for someone. I've been there, and much worse. But somehow, if I heard that something might be better, somehow I always came up with the money to buy it. Usually that meant taking on more debt. I do not expect others to do that, but if people really want something they will find a way to get it.

I would think that there have been enough comments about Azo floating around since I first wrote about it in View Camera back in 1996, to convince anyone who desires to make excellent silver contact prints to try it. If my comments and those of others are not convincing, that's okay, no one has to use Azo.

But it is a good idea, and if Paula and I were in the paper-selling business, we would do what has been suggested.

We have thought of selling the inexpensive Azo print, a la Picker. But a few years later, we have not yet had the time and peace of mind to even pick out which prints we would use, let alone make them. One of these days we hope to get to it.

Hi Michael,

By the way, how are azo sales going? Do you think Kodak will continue to hang in there? I definitely want to try this paper at some stage but most likely will not be ready for it until late next year. I have also been told my large format pulse xenon enlarger might be able to enlarge onto azo, so I may experiment with that too...

"We have thought of selling the inexpensive Azo print, a la Picker. But a few years later, we have not yet had the time and peace of mind to even pick out which prints we would use, let alone make them. One of these days we hope to get to it."

One thing you could do. Make some 'teaser' azo example prints, take a black permanent marker and on 1/4 of the print write "AZO SAMPLE PRINT". Then post the print in our sales gallery. I would think many people would buy them up for a reasonable price, $10-30? This way people could get a general idea of the quality and you do not have to compromise your Gallery level prints. Just a thought..

Luke, may the force of the pulse xenon be with you. I may be a rube but I can't see how using AZO can be such a silver bullet. It's my understanding that you cannot utilize all the bullets available with conventional papers, like flashing, split grade printing, water bath development, selective contrast control, bleaching etc etc etc that master printers routinely use to produce stunning prints. Conventional papers and their chemistry is easily available and relatively cheap. And don't try and tell me you don't have to do all that stuff once you switch to AZO, I don't believe it for one minute. If AZO was so great all the best printers would be using it. They aren't so that speaks volumes to me anyway.

In my experience it all has to do with the size of the negative that determines the paper. I like contact printing because my negatives are quite large, my smallest is 8x10. I am able to limit the need for a fully equipped darkroom. I used to have an 8x10 enlarger and it was a pain to live with. I doubt I would be considering using AZO if I was shooting 35mm or even up to 6x9. For me it is just not big enough. I will be ordering one box of each grade in 8x10 because I do not think it is expensive for all that it could potentially give me. Not the least of which is convenience. And I do like the Bergger paper too but I need something to compare it by in order to frame a more educated opinion.

EricR said:

Luke, may the force of the pulse xenon be with you. I may be a rube but I can't see how using AZO can be such a silver bullet. It's my understanding that you cannot utilize all the bullets available with conventional papers, like flashing, split grade printing, water bath development, selective contrast control, bleaching etc etc etc that master printers routinely use to produce stunning prints. Conventional papers and their chemistry is easily available and relatively cheap. And don't try and tell me you don't have to do all that stuff once you switch to AZO, I don't believe it for one minute. If AZO was so great all the best printers would be using it. They aren't so that speaks volumes to me anyway.

Click to expand...

Eric,
You are correct that there are many good papers available and there is a great deal in the way of printing techniques available. In fact I use a couple of papers other then Azo in my efforts.

So why would I use Azo if I am able to get good results with other papers? Simply because the quality is far and away better. No, the need for pre-flashing, split contrast printing, masking, etc does not exist with Azo. The printing with Azo involves burning, dodging, and occasional water bath development...That is as difficult as it gets. Azo is a longer scale material and it will carry more information over a greater contrast range.

I have no axe to grind here. I already know how to do the manipulations that other printers use and a few others that they haven't figured out yet.

Let's face it carrying a 4X5 is a small matter compared to carrying an 8X10 or 12X20. 4X5 is a heck of a lot less work then exposing the big negatives, it costs a whole lot less, and I find that the results are an indication of the effort and money saved. Azo is a contact printing paper...that means exposing big negatives. How many of these other great photographers/printers shoot anything larger then 5X7?. Most of them, I have found, shoot 4X5. That may be the single greatest reason that most of the other "great" printers do not use Azo.

Eric,

"If AZO was so great all the best printers would be using it."

Using Azo means making contact prints. I am assuming that the "best printers" you are referring to are making enlargements. Azo is not realistically an option for enlarging, at this time.

THE best printers are using Azo. That would be Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee. Their prints are the best I have seen, ever, and I've seen prints by most of the "big names."

However, I don't believe that any negative will print better on Azo. One of the reasons for the print quality of Michael and Paula is their negatives; it's not just the Azo. And of course their experience and taste.

I've been using Azo for about a year now (though I had been making contact prints for 15 years) and learned how to use it from the information available free on Michael and Paula's web site. My prints are significantly better thanks to switching.

There are some of my negatives that still benefit from the local contrast contral that split-printing permits, and this can't be done with Azo, since it is a graded paper (or at least not in the same way). And I still enlarge onto other papers. But for contact printing Azo is clearly superior to enlarging papers, for most negatives, in my opinion.

George

Yes, Sean, you should be able to use a pulse xenon light source to print on Azo. I have seen it done by someone who makes huge enlargements on Azo. (Not the fellow who is inventing the new light source.)

Kodak is committed to continuing to make Azo. They are currently making a new run of both Grade 2 and Grade 3. So it looks like, for a few years in any case, we don't have to worry. It does not hurt us to stay vigilant, however.

As others have stated, Eric, and you can believe it or not--all of that flashing (though very occasionally still do that even with Azo), selective contrast control, bleaching, and masking, are simply not necessarty with Azo. Water bath development is often used. But nothing gets easier than doing that.

And also as stated, those you call the "best" silver printers generally do not make contact prints.

In his book, Examples, when discussing the photograph, Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain, Ansel Adams wrote, "Many years ago I made a print of this negative on a contact paper that, when fully toned in selenium, had a marvelous color. It is one of the most satisfactory prints I have ever made, and I have not been able to duplicate it with contemporary enlarging papers. The paper I used might have been Agfa Convira or Kodak Azo. Both were coated with silver-chloride emulsions, which tone faster and give more color than the predominant bromide or chloro-bromide emulsions of today." These statements make me wonder why Adams didn’t use Azo more often. Surely he saw that it was a finer paper than the enlarging papers he was using.

Both Edward and Brett Weston printed on exclusively on contact printing paper. Brett, until the 1970s, used Azo. When he started using small negatives and enlarginghe did switch. I could never understand. All connisseurs of the fine print prefer his contact prints.

Bottom line is tha you do not have to believe me or what anyone else says about this. But if you really care about quality, and if you make contact prints, it would seem to me that you are shortchanging yourself if you don't at least try printing on Azo.

After watching Art Wright's DVD on Brett Weston, the answer as to why he switched from large to medium format ( & from contact printing to enlarging) was his subject matter - close-ups that were more conveniently done in medium format ( Nancy Newhall's conclusion in audio portion of DVD). I, too, like his subject material, and find the 4X5 a convenient size ( & alot less strain on my back).

For those like myself who don't shoot 8X10 or larger, yet who appreciate the results of an Azo print, enlarged negatives either via digital route or internegatives may be an answer. Ed Buffaloe's site has a good article on internegatives http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html For those like the original poster who already have the 8X10s, Azo is worth the investment for the almost 3D quality & tonal range of the print.

Michael A. Smith said:

These statements make me wonder why Adams didn’t use Azo more often. Surely he saw that it was a finer paper than the enlarging papers he was using.

Click to expand...

But Michael, if Adams had stayed with contact prints he wouldn't have been able to justify that huge 8x10 horizontal enlarger, reportedly built as part of a government contract. What a toy it must have been!

Lest folks think big negatives are required for contact printing on Azo, I've begun contact printing negatives I make with my 2-1/4x3-1/4 Speed Graphic. They can be very nice if put in a place where close viewing is possible.

And thanks to JandC for importing sheet film for this camera again.
juan

Paula has been talking about wanting a Hasselblad (good luck) and making only contact prints with it. This coming weekend she will be borrowing a friend's camera and using it for the next month while we are in Europe printing our books.

And just last night we received an email from a fellow who uses 35mm and makes digital negatives. He was making Piezo's and tried to print on Azo. His comment: "After seeing one of my photos printing on Azo in Amidol I can see why you love it. Absolutely gorgeous. Much better than Piezo. I've just
ordered 6 more image setter negs."

So, yes, Azo is not only for those who use very large cameras.

"shooting with a large camera might become a very hard sell"

unless you are adamant that the 'final image' is not 'all that matters', and you do not want the soul of your image destroyed by interpolation and other photoshop nasties

Yeah Sean... Explain! hehe

Ah, it's just me being over the top, and I'm only speaking for myself here...
I have this thing with how digital images are captured and controlled, including traditional images converted to digital. I feel that digital is only a numerical representation of what was actually there vs. the physical 'capture' of light that film provides. Digital seems to be a highly altered numerical representation that's almost a false truth, a trick in some sense to the human eye. I think the difference between film capture and digital capture are extremely different. The image that hits the ccd/cmos in a digicam, has a lot of missing information, sort of empty gaps in what couldn't be realised by the sensor. Software then fills in these gaps with best guess information. -BAM- right there the truth begins to deteriorate rapidly. When light is burned into film some may say developers and lenses add or remove information too, just like digital does -I disagree. I think film is very different than digital because with digital the original information from the scene no longer exists and becomes unnaturally altered in the digital realm. I hold up a piece of film and there is no denying that an essence of that moment of light lives in the emulsion, it's physically there, stored in the film. That's very important to me because I photograph moments of my life, and I want a physical record not only of the moment, but the light of that moment burned onto the film. It's special to me. When I print, the moment becomes even more magical, giving the original moment more life of it's own. I have never felt the same with digital capture (I own 2 digital cameras by the way). Digital just seems lifeless in that regard. The digital capture alters the information, then you apply levels or filters in photoshop and everything is lost, not to mention the good ole clone tool, layers, removing info adding info, then it's printed by a machine. It's just not my cup of tea and never will be. Digital has it's uses there is no doubt, but I believe photography as an artform needs to be analog and hand crafted to be truly valid. I know that's a bold statement to make, and I may be wrong, but I follow my heart and my heart doesn't feel computers and fine art photography mix. There is Photography and there is Digital Imaging, two different art forms.

I always see more detail in the original in-camera negative than the one scanned. Something is definitely loss in the transfer. On the other hand, it is great for cataloguing my negatives quickly. I personally could never use it for fine prints. I cannot get all the original information and detail to show itself.

I think the phrase "soul of your image" makes a very good point. Its soul is as a photograph; once you digitize the image it becomes a graphic. Any conversion loses information, especially converting to 1's & 0's. Interpolation tries to add information that's not there anymore. We live in a digitized world closer to the Matrix than we realize. Traditional photography enables me to step out of the digital rat-race (I'm a programmer), at least for awhile.

Photographic paper (even some enlarging papers) are sharp enough to reproduce the structure of the actual grains of the film. While it may be claimed that a scan (or other digital capture) has as much image detail as a film/paper combination, the film detail is inadvertently lost.

This is also why a MF negative enlarged to 8x10" can never look like a 8x10" contact print: It lacks the ultra-fine structural detail. The difference isn't visible to the naked eye, or even with a 10x loupe, but the "soul" is lacking.

Actually, I have begun to think that shooting with a large camera 8x10 is the simplest way to go. More and more of them are coming on to the used market at lower and lower prices. Used lenses that are excellent for producing negatives for contact printing are getting cheaper all the time.

On the other side of the equation you have no need for an enlarger, you can stick with one paper, AZO, one developer, maybe or maybe not Amidol, and have a pretty consisce data base available from Michael's site. To me, this is about as simple as it can get and have outstanding results. And I don't think you are going to waste a lot of paper getting good prints. You may use a lot of paper discovering you need to adjust how you expose and develop negatives to take advantage of AZO, but a negative exposed for the range of the paper makes printing pretty straight forward.

Well, it is something how these threads split into various discussions.

To, first, get back to the question of quality. A friend recently gave me and Paula a book, "Wooden Boats: In Pursuit of the Perfect Craft at an American Boatyard." We do not sail and have no interest in boats, and he knew that, but he knew of our continual pursuit of excellence and thought we would enjoy reading it. I finished the book last night. (Recommended, by the way.) These lines, I thought, were relevant to the discussion we had been having:

"The danger was not that they would cease to be built, but rather that they would cease to be built well (italics in the original), and that we would therefore lose our understanding of what was good and what was inferior. That inferior standard would then become accepted as the norm. And once inferior workmanship became the norm, the value of the thing itself would diminish . . . "

So it is important to make the finest crafted prints one can possibly conceive of (I hope it goes without saying, that a well crafted print can still be insipid, or worse), but that without the "best" excellent prints, something is truly lost.

The soul of a print: I’m not sure there is such a thing, but I wouldn’t say there isn’t either. I do know, and have known for a very long time, that there is a special relationship between a photograph and what was photographed, and between a negative, developed or undeveloped, and what was photographed. This relationship does not exist for a reproduced photograph or once there has been an intervening digital processing. It seems to have something to do with the light itself.

I cannot say exactly what this relationship is. But in the book "The Secret Life of Plants," there is a chapter, "The Radiance of Life" I believe it is called, where a business that two scientists had is described. One of them, I recall, was a professor at Princeton University. These men had a business of eradicating farmer’s fields of grasshoppers and other pestilent insects. They did this by photographing the fields and then putting the photographs on a Radionic device. When they sprayed the photograph with insecticide while it was on this device and "tuned in" (it has to do with vibratory frequencies), they found that 90% of the pests died. (I have always believed that the 10% that did not die were in the shadows and that no light from those parts reached the film.) In an experiment, they covered a corner of the photograph so it did not get any insecticide. When they went back to the field they found that 90% of the pests had been killed in that part of the field corresponding to the part that had been sprayed. But 0% had been killed in that part of the field corresponding to the part of the photograph that had been covered.

This business was thriving and was conducted with full Department of Agriculture knowledge and approval. It ceased when lobbyists from the chemical companies asked the Department of Agriculture to close it down.

The implication of this is clearly that there is indeed a special relationship--an energetic connection--between the photograph and what is photographed. I believe that this connection is, at least in part, what gives photographs their power and ability to further connect us as viewers to the world and to each other. I further believe that the more "in tune" the photographer is with what he or she is photographing, the more powerfual this connection can be, and the greater the power that can potentially inhere in the photograph. (For the photographer is an integral part of the process and not an automaton who is just pushing a button.)

Perhaps the Indians and other so-called "primitive" people were right when they refused to be photographed because they believed that a photograph could capture their soul.

Jay, I have 2 prints made by Dan Burkholder and the quality is excellent. The contrast range is beautiful, and the prints are very beautiful. Of course if you look real close you do see some "graining" caused by the stochastic method he uses, but really it is not objectionable. I have to say though that these were done from negatives made at a service center and are not from an ink jet printer and they are more than 10 years old, so I am sure he has advanced in his technique. I do not know how well the negatives made on a printer will work, but given enough care and patience you can make some damm good digital negatives.

I have seen terrible prints from digital negatives, and I have seen fine prints from digital negatives. It depends on the dpi of the negative and the skill of the maker. As with everything else (including Azo, Platinum, etc.) ultimately it is not the process that makes the difference, it is to what degree of excellence the work is done. Here at the printing plant, they make digital negatives for contact printing and the resultant prints are excellent. Their image setter sets the dpi at 10,140, I believe, and with the strongest loupe it is impossible to see any dots whatsoever.

The LensWork Editions are made with digital negatives. I saw one of those once and it was certainly very, very good. With a loupe, however, you did see a dot pattern. Is that important? Not necessarily--one does not look at photographs with a loupe.

jdef said:

Well, that's encouraging, but what about the "soul" of these prints? Is there some indefinable quality lacking in these prints that would favor traditionally enlarged negatives?

Click to expand...

Not that I can see, I have had this prints for long time and still like them after all this time.