Alternatives to Azo/Amidol

[David A. Goldfarb]

My impression is that Freestyle is selling Efke Emaks graded, which is the same paper as J&C Nuance (the grading system might be different, but relatively, it should be the same paper).

 

[juan]

I used Azo exclusively. Then in November, I made the decision to use Polywarmtone exclusively. Obviously the end of paper manufacture is my fault. I'm afraid to choose another. Maybe I'll do salt prints on school notebook paper.
juan

 

[removed account4]

Maybe I'll do salt prints on school notebook paper.
juan

that is what i am going to be doing -
salt prints and cyanotypes on scrap paper.
at least i know the stationary store won't stop selling paper ...

--john

 

[Alex Hawley]

I used Azo exclusively. Then in November, I made the decision to use Polywarmtone exclusively. Obviously the end of paper manufacture is my fault. I'm afraid to choose another. Maybe I'll do salt prints on school notebook paper.
juan

Pretty much the same situation I fell into Juan.

 

[donbga]

If Lodima paper were to not become available, I would simply find another paper available. Preferable single weight and graded.
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

We could always dream that maybe Ilford might someday produce a silver chloride paper.

 

[Travis Nunn]

We could always dream that maybe Ilford might someday produce a silver chloride paper.

I don't shoot LF and so I have never printed on AZO, but what is the reason that no other company produces a silver chloride paper? With the obvious popularity of AZO I'm suprised that it has been left to MAS to try and come up with a replacement rather than a company that already produces photographic paper.

 

[noseoil]

Azo was a contact printing paper. Due to its UV sensitivity, it wasn't good for enlarging, as times would be too long with conventional enalrging equipment. Because it occupied a small market niche, the economics of B&W in general, the use of digital technology and the reduced demand for film and paper in today's market, it isn't too attractive as a money maker. tim

 

[donbga]

Azo was a contact printing paper. Due to its UV sensitivity, it wasn't good for enlarging, as times would be too long with conventional enalrging equipment. Because it occupied a small market niche, the economics of B&W in general, the use of digital technology and the reduced demand for film and paper in today's market, it isn't too attractive as a money maker. tim

Never say never!

 

[sanking]

Azo was a contact printing paper. Due to its UV sensitivity, it wasn't good for enlarging, as times would be too long with conventional enalrging equipment. Because it occupied a small market niche, the economics of B&W in general, the use of digital technology and the reduced demand for film and paper in today's market, it isn't too attractive as a money maker. tim

My view is that a slow silver chloride paper makes more sense today than in the past since the slow speed makes it easier to work with in contact printing, and lots of people are going to be making silver prints with digital negatives in the near future, IMHO.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

We could always dream that maybe Ilford might someday produce a silver chloride paper.

What I am wondering is this.

Assume that Kodak gave Ilford the AZO formula and they do a run of Ilford AZO. Should we expect that this paper would have the same characteristics as the AZO paper produced by Kodak? I understand that there is a lot of *art* as well as science in emulsion making.

Perhaps PE would comment?

Sandy King

 

[skillian]

Sandy,

How do you think folks will make these digital negatives?

 

[Scott Peters]

In speaking with the Kentmere folks, I asked the same question, why not a silver chloride paper...they said, they looked into "AZO papers but it would have taken a huge amount of work to adapt "our" old formulation to use modern raw materials (we last made it over 22 years ago). Regrettably the volumes were insufficient to justify such a project". So, there is one response.

Not sure what Ilfords would be.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Not sure what Ilfords would be.

I think Simon Galley answered that question here a while back with pretty much the same answer.

 

[blaze-on]

What I am wondering is this.

Assume that Kodak gave Ilford the AZO formula and they do a run of Ilford AZO.
Sandy King

IIRC, MAS mentioned at last years Silver Conference in his quest to find a producer for azo substitute that his calls to Ilford went unanswered.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm sure that Ilford has a chloride contact paper formula and would be glad to produce it under contract.

I don't wish to speak for them, but I do know that both Ilford and Agfa produced chloride papers in the not so distant past, but when the market dried up only Kodak chose to continue. The earliest Agfa paper was called Lupex. It was almost identical to Azo.

PE

 

[sanking]

I'm sure that Ilford has a chloride contact paper formula and would be glad to produce it under contract.

I don't wish to speak for them, but I do know that both Ilford and Agfa produced chloride papers in the not so distant past, but when the market dried up only Kodak chose to continue. The earliest Agfa paper was called Lupex. It was almost identical to Azo.

PE

PE,

I take that to mean that in your opinion, *if* Ilford did elect to produce a silver chloride paper it could be made with similar characteristics to AZO?

Sandy

 

[sanking]

Sandy,

How do you think folks will make these digital negatives?

Now, now, don't draw me into a digital discussion on APUG.

There is a hybrid site, an off shoot of the gray area that used to be here, where such topics can be discussed.

Sandy

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Yes, there is a lot of art in making any paper. A few stories about this are detailed on the Azo Forum and in our current newsletter (at www.michaelandpaula.com) and in my other writing. PE, however, doubtless knows much more about this aspect of things than I do.

Kodak will not license the formula. They claim they do not even have the formula. We have a formula. The paper is being made. The economics are poor. We have a lot of pre-orders--a lot of them--but they do not begin to come up to minimum quantity requirements for two grades. They do not even come up to minimum quantity requirements for one grade. Which is why Paula and I wil be pouring a lot of our own money into this--hard-won money, I might add. It is not that we have anything extra--we do not--no investments, savings, health insurance, etc. (we are not complaining here). The work is the most important thing and we feel we have our priorities straight. And yes, we are willing to go out on a limb financially because we, too, need the paper. And we probably use more of it than anyone else. I cannot imagine a real company sinking money into this on spec. Real companies want to make a profit. We just want the paper.

It amazes me that folks who have used perhaps one or two boxes of paper talk as if they are experts. But that is one of the problems with Internet Forums--you often do not know the expertise of those giving advice or suggestions.

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE,

I take that to mean that in your opinion, *if* Ilford did elect to produce a silver chloride paper it could be made with similar characteristics to AZO?

Sandy

This is correct Sandy.

In fact, this was even true of Kodak with the last batch. They could only make an Azo like paper. My paper is 'like' Azo as well in terms of characteristic curve and speed (see Alex's review), as well as image tone, but it is on different paper and has different spectral sensitivity to name two of its differences.

So even what Michael proposes will give us an Azo like paper. I'm sure that they will give us only the best though. Their efforts should be applauded by us all.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If we're lucky, maybe they could give us a Haloid Industro like paper.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

All I can say is that it wil be a silver chloride contact printing paper. We hope it will be even a finer paper than Azo always was. We are working toward that goal and are confident we will reach it.

Another thing someone said--and which I agree with: a good print on enlarging paper is better than a bad print on Azo. Silver chloride paper is not a magic bullet--although it is so damn easy to use that it sometimes feels that way. You still have to know what a good print is--and I believe the only way to know that is to have sat down and viewed hundreds of great prints--prints on silver chloride paper and prints on enlarging papers. And have looked at them side by side. And then have taken your own prints and set them side by side with the great prints. This used to be easy to do--museums, and individual photographers were open to it, but that is less likely to be the case now, although with effort that can still be done.

I remember one evening visiting a collector--he set a photograph of mine on his mantelpiece so he could view it from a distance. It happened, just by chance, to sit there next to two very famous photographs--iconic photographs--enlargements, however, on enlarging paper--by two very famous photographers. Even though I had compared my photographs many times to prints by great photographers, I had never set them next to these two prints. I was shocked by the difference. The other prints paled in comparison to mine. This was certainly not due to any greater skill I had. Those other photographers no doubt had greater skill than I did--they had to to make the prints they did on the paper they used. My print was a finer print and had more glow and "presence" because it was printed on silver chloride paper.

Which is why we are having a silver chloride paper made and why we will not stop until it is produced.

 

[sanking]

All I can say is that it wil be a silver chloride contact printing paper. We hope it will be even a finer paper than Azo always was. We are working toward that goal and are confident we will reach it.

Michael,

People who have seen your work and know your committment to the craft would never doubt this.

Along with many others, I hope, and am confident, that you will reach your goal.

I would say, however, that the quality of your work is due more to your mastery of the skills than in the materials. And that was not said to in any way detract from the qualities of AZO/silver chloride papers, whicih are my favorite silver papers.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

You still have to know what a good print is--and I believe the only way to know that is to have sat down and viewed hundreds of great prints--prints on silver chloride paper and prints on enlarging papers. And have looked at them side by side. And then have taken your own prints and set them side by side with the great prints. This used to be easy to do--museums, and individual photographers were open to it, but that is less likely to be the case now, although with effort that can still be done.

Michael,

How about throwing in hundreds of other great prints of different process, say albumen, collodion, carbon, gum bichromate, cyanotype, palladium and platinum, etc. etc.

Your analysis suggests that the only great prints are silver gelatin prints. I don't believe you really mean that?

Sandy King

 

[Michael A. Smith]

No, I do not mean that prints other than silver cannot be exquisite. It is just that I am comparing one type of silver paper to another. I make a lot of photographs and if I used an alternative process I would be printing all year--and I have other things to do. Printing on Azo is relatively easy, and very quick. If the results were not beautiful I would not care about ease and quickness. You do what you have to do--however long it takes. but if ease and quickness come with it, hey, I'm all for that.

Some albumen prints by Watkins and others are as rich and as beautiful as any photograph I have ever seen. They make the richest silver prints look, well not weak, but not all that rich either. The blacks in albumen prints can be astonishing. And carbon prints can be incredibly beautiful.

I do not like "flat" prints--and some of the alternative processes often yield flat, dull prints.

Take platinum. I have seen so very many platinum prints that people say are beautiful just because they are platinum, but in reality the prints are flat and dull--lifeless, to put it in a word. Now, as some of you may know, Paula and I have had platinum prints made of some of our work. Large platinum prints--mine, from 8x20 negatives are one meter wide. Paula's from 8x10 negatives are 23 x 29 inches and are printed on hand-made Japanese paper. These platinum prints are printed by the printer of our books and they are rich with a full tonal scale. The blacks have densities of over 2.0. Each print is printed from 5 enlarged digital negatives (printed in register)--which are made from drum-scanned negatives of ours. This is nothing I could ever do, nor could anyone who does not have the equipment the people who do the work have. George Tice, who was the first one in "modern times"--beginning in the late 1960s--to revive platinum printing, saw our prints and he is having his platinum prints made by the same folks. He has said, " They do things that I cannot do."

So, I'm not opposed to alternative processes. It is just that I find something very special and emotionally stirring about a sharp well-seen long scale silver print. And if the print is not well seen--forget it. A great print (print-quality wise) of something poorly seen is worthless. The seeing comes first. Always. And I never forget that. Nor should anyone else. But these discussions are about materials.

 

[haryanto]

.......

--and I believe the only way to know that is to have sat down and viewed hundreds of great prints--prints on silver chloride paper and prints on enlarging papers. And have looked at them side by side. And then have taken your own prints and set them side by side with the great prints. This used to be easy to do--museums, and individual photographers were open to it, but that is less likely to be the case now, although with effort that can still be done.

I remember one evening visiting a collector--he set a photograph of mine on his mantelpiece so he could view it from a distance. It happened, just by chance, to sit there next to two very famous photographs--iconic photographs--enlargements, however, on enlarging paper--by two very famous photographers. Even though I had compared my photographs many times to prints by great photographers, I had never set them next to these two prints. I was shocked by the difference. The other prints paled in comparison to mine. This was certainly not due to any greater skill I had. Those other photographers no doubt had greater skill than I did--they had to to make the prints they did on the paper they used. My print was a finer print and had more glow and "presence" because it was printed on silver chloride paper.

Which is why we are having a silver chloride paper made and why we will not stop until it is produced.

I've seen your print, in my friend Galley, Dearno Gallery, I agree with your statement, your print seem more glowing, and more tonal rich compare to the others photos by great photographers that use enlarging paper, side by side stand in that gallery (the photos that made from Enlarging paper is very very beautiful photographs)

Very tempting, so sad both amidol and azo beyond my reach, too expensive for me

I hope and pray for your succes to making that lodima,
GBU