Azo & 3-D effect - Urban Legend?

[Kirk Keyes]

Well, if Alex sees it on Polaroid, you have to remember that Polaroid products are on the thin side in terms of gelatin, and the silver stays close to the surface, so this dispels my idea about gelatin depth being a factor.

PE -
I suspect that he is referring to prints made from the Type 55 neg on B&W papers and not in the Polaroid print itself. But what's the resolution on a Type 55 neg - it's not very high at all.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not very high resolution, but yeah, I goofed. Thanks Kirk.

PE

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

I'd differ with you on that Jed. I can get the 3-D effect easily on a 4x5 contact print. I can also see it on a 4x5 Polaroid Type 55 print. I'm using lenses made in the 1940s, either a Commercial Ektar or a Dagor Series III.

You are not differing with me. I wrote that you can observe the 3-D effect on a small size print using a lens of the first part of the 20 th century. However, 4x5" was not the prefered size in Europe, but a little larger 13x18 cm (centimeters!). With some modern lenses, I have to go to at least 16x20" (from a 4x5" negative).
The 3-D effect is well known by painters, since it has been introduced by Leonardo da Vinci. I have studied the effect via photographs by taking photographs in areas where painters used to work. In Italy, Southern France (van Gogh and Cezanne), Spain, The Netherlands, Germany and England. It is interesting to note the differences ( there is more than just a 3-D effect) between the countries with their different climates, and then compare the paintings with the photographs.

Jed

 

[Alex Hawley]

I suspect that he is referring to prints made from the Type 55 neg on B&W papers and not in the Polaroid print itself. But what's the resolution on a Type 55 neg - it's not very high at all.

Actually, I've seen it on all the above. The Type 55 prints themselves, which are contact prints, and contact prints from Type 55 negatives made on Azo, enlarging paper, and Ron's hand-coated paper.

On the Polaroid prints, I suspect most of the effect is due to the coating that's applied after development. That adds a lot of depth.

The thing that struck me when I first entered this thread was the difference I had seen between a type 55 contact print I had made, probably on Azo, and the same negative enlarged up to 8x10. This was one from my barn wood series. I simply could not get as dramatic a print when I enlarged it as I did with the contact print.

I think overall, there are several factors in play here. Perhaps the so-called 3-D effect is not always attributable to one single factor. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the subject lighting and how that plays in the the perceived depth of view. That would get right back to what Jed was talking about with paintings.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I've seen this effect with contact R-prints made from 8x10" color transparencies, so I don't even think it's particularly a B&W effect, so much as the edge sharpness and smooth tonality one gets by removing the whole optical system of enlargement (whether by projection or digital) from the process.

Even a lowly proof sheet from a 120 color negative has that extra "snap" that makes images jump off the page. It's the umami of visual perception.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

So if all sorts of vastly unrelated photographic materials like Azo, Polaroid prints, and Pt-Pd are able to present a 3-D look, perhaps are you guys really referring to what's termed "chiaroscuro" (Italian for clear-dark), which is a term in art for a contrast between light and dark.

It doesn't really sound like this is something that has to do with the paper at all, but merely the ability of the photographer the capture the "atmosphere" of the scene and recreate it on the photographic paper.

So why is there this urban legend out there that builds up the myth behind Azo by all the references to Azo being able to present 3-D effects in prints. I never see people making references to Ilford MGIV RC making 3-D effects... (Sorry Simon, for picking on your fine product.)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kirk;

One thing common to Azo, Pt/Pd and a number of similar processes is a soft toe and soft shoulder. This gives the mid tones the right 'character', but extends the tone scale at low contrast and with high detail. In fact, in my Azo type paper, I use an even softer toe and so in direct comparisons some of my students claim that there is more highlight detail in prints.

I've seen this in prints and it is quite striking. It reminds me of split grade or split filtration printing with VC paper but taken to an extreme in some ways. Maybe triple printing?

PE

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

So if all sorts of vastly unrelated photographic materials like Azo, Polaroid prints, and Pt-Pd are able to present a 3-D look, perhaps are you guys really referring to what's termed "chiaroscuro" (Italian for clear-dark), which is a term in art for a contrast between light and dark.

No Kirk, what I'm referring to is Stereopsis (more complicated than chiaroscuro, but which may include chiaroscuro.).

For Stereopsis examples and theory:

Google Charles Wheatstone and Sir David Brewster

[/QUOTE]It doesn't really sound like this is something that has to do with the paper at all, but merely the ability of the photographer the capture the "atmosphere" of the scene and recreate it on the photographic paper.

So why is there this urban legend out there that builds up the myth behind Azo by all the references to Azo being able to present 3-D effects in prints. I never see people making references to Ilford MGIV RC making 3-D effects... (Sorry Simon, for picking on your fine product.)[/QUOTE]

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Azo and 3D Effect

I have seen some of Sandys carbon prints and can attest to the effect that he describes in his work. It really draws you in when it happens. If I did not have such an inventory of Azo I would be taking a class with Sandy and working with this process.

There is no question that Azo is a very easy to print with. That is the appeal to working with it. But IMHO it takes considerable craftsmanship to make it produce the visually glowing 3D effect that it is capable of that allows you to "walk" into the photograph. The key is unquestionably the mid tone separation that if it is not there allows Azo to be rather dull and lifeless.

I have been working with Azo for a long time and continue to learn more and more about the art and craft of this marvelous paper. If it was easy everyone would be doing it and that is just not the case.

Onward!

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Getting in over my head here but nobody has mentioned the ability of the lens to "capture" what may be a 3D effect and then the paper that can produce it.

Could not the lens play an important part? I'd bet those folks who use AZO or make their own papers are using high quality lenses to begin with.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Could not the lens play an important part? I'd bet those folks who use AZO or make their own papers are using high quality lenses to begin with.

I think its independent of the lens Bruce, although I doubt if one gets the effect with a plastic Holga. My lenses are 1940s vintage. They were top line back then and are still quite good, but newer ones are no doubt better.

Just to throw some more randomness into the discussion, here's a couple more examples from my experience. I did a Type 55 shot this morning. The print does not show any 3-D effect. In fact, the very fine detail (dried sunflower head) doesn't show on the polaroid print at all. Maybe when I enlarge the negative, I'll get the effect.

On the other hand, I have a still life that I did a couple months ago, another dried-up plant with lots of little plant-stuff bumps and horns all over it. I did the test shot on Polaroid Type 654, which doesn't require coating the print. Beautiful depth. Did the final shot on FP4+ 4x5. Enlarged it up to 11x14, printed on Kodak Polymax Fine Art with PPPD developer. I think I could sink into the depth and the detail. However, given the vast difference in size, the much smaller Polaroid has every bit of the depth and detail that the 11x14 has.

So I'm back to those old painters. Paper surface and type plays a part, but I think the lighting and contrast and depth of fine detail are perhaps the dominant factors. Those are common factors to both the paintings and the photographs.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think it is a combination of so many factors - with pt/pd printing, not only is it the extremely long toe and shoulder, but it is also a factor of the emulsion sitting IN the paper, not on top. It is the film one uses, and more particularly, the way in which one develops it. I think because Azo, Pt/Pd, and various other "alternative processes" require customized development to yield an optimum result, development of the negative is done to produce an ideal negative for the medium. When printing on standard VC paper, a very wide range of sub-optimal negatives can be printed acceptably. Contact printing is another factor - because there is no enlargement, there is no optical distortion introduced, and micro-contrast is preserved at an extremely fine detail level.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Interestingly enough, Scott, my Azo type paper sits on the top of Baryta for sharpness, but is in the Strathmore paper. And, I can vary the 'in ness' of it. Cold press has more inness than hot press.

So, this presents some interesting experiments for me and for Pt/Pd printers to consider, as well as Sandy.

PE

 

[Alex Hawley]

But Scott, how do explain how I got the 3-D effect with an enlargement made on a standard enlarging paper? The only "special" (and its really not special) thing I did was develop the negative with extreme minimal agitation in Pyrocat using a generic time, not a tailored one. Also, the polaroid print of the same subject showed the same effect. That's not an alternative process of any sort.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Getting in over my head here but nobody has mentioned the ability of the lens to "capture" what may be a 3D effect and then the paper that can produce it.

Could not the lens play an important part? I'd bet those folks who use AZO or make their own papers are using high quality lenses to begin with.

I would not discount the "lens effect" into the final product but let's remember we are talking about a considerable number of more important variables that go into the net result on the print relative to the desired effect. One needs to chose the best film, make the perfect exposure as well as chose a developer and a developing technique. To continue on the sequence one needs to arrive at the optimal developer temprature, the developer dilution as well as the elapsed time between agitations will have have a serious effect on the results. Because of the fact that there are mathematically endless conbinations of the above mentioned variables that will deliver reasonably acceptable results few understand and appreciate the time and dedication required in the analog domain to get to a truly superior result.

At times when I continue to toil in the darkroom in the pursuit of these lofty objectives I wish I could suck it up and accept the technological fixes for the shortcomings that can happen in the field and the darkroom with Photoshop. Fortunately, I decided a long time ago that I opt to be among the few than one of the many. But I digress.....

Cheers!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Alex- I suspect the extreme minimal agitation is what did it... that technique produces accentuated micro-contrast which shows up as perceptible sharpness. I guess it carries through to the enlargement as well. I'd also not discount your own methodology of production as a contributing factor, since you're not the average bear when it comes to photography.

 

[MattKing]

This is a very frustrating thread for one who depends on the internet for this sort of information.

I just wish someone could show me what they are talking about here.

The closest I have (and it is great) is a reference print that I was able to purchase from Donald Miller. It, however, is an enlargement.

Don't stop the discussion, but somehow this is like hearing people talk about music (grrr!)

Matt

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

This is a very frustrating thread for one who depends on the internet for this sort of information.

I just wish someone could show me what they are talking about here.

The closest I have (and it is great) is a reference print that I was able to purchase from Donald Miller. It, however, is an enlargement.

Don't stop the discussion, but somehow this is like hearing people talk about music (grrr!)

Matt

Matt, maybe an example demo print could be circulated???

 

[gainer]

In this thread I have seen a number of explanations of the feeling of depth one may get from some
pictures but not others. We see perspective, focus including bokeh, resolution, charoscuro, subject
matter, all in every picture but in different degrees, sometimes contributing to and other times
detracting from the impression of depth. Ansel Adams, being an accomplished artist in music as well
as photography, saw analogies between musical and visual art. The chiaroscuro of music is made up
of the tones of the scale, and with many instruments including the human voice, the intentional
variations of pitch, and the intensity of the tones, the way one leads to another. "Phrasing" we
call it.

Everything that we perceive is made up of subjective and objective qualities. The one subjective
aspect of photography that I have not seen blamed or praised for anything is what we might call
"binocularity". It might be the stereopsis mentioned earlier. I think it is instructive to look at the pictures one considers as showing depth as a one-eyed person would see them. I have several photos taped to my wall. I am looking at one now that shows depth to me and strangely, I get more feeling of depth when I cover one eye. It is probably because I am then forced to use only the depth cues that are available to a one-eyed person looking directly at the original scene as if through a window. With both eyes, I can tell
that the photo is a flat surface. It has two of my doggy-people in it, one near and the other far. There is a curved stone stairway leading from one to the other. I am too far from the picture to get the original perspective. There are leading lines and leading tones. The lines are of high resolution. I can see the leading tones through spectacles that my year old great grand daughter has had her sticky hands on.

I do not think that we should look for the objective explanation of perceived depth. I would think of technique as allowing the illusion of depth. As with other art forms, it depends more on who did it than on how. Michalangelo saw David in a block of marble and freed him from it by cutting away everything that was not David. Nobody else would or could have used that block of marble the same way.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

In this thread I have seen a number of explanations of the feeling of depth one may get from some
pictures but not others. We see perspective, focus including bokeh, resolution, charoscuro, subject
matter, all in every picture but in different degrees, sometimes contributing to and other times
detracting from the impression of depth. Ansel Adams, being an accomplished artist in music as well
as photography, saw analogies between musical and visual art. The chiaroscuro of music is made up
of the tones of the scale, and with many instruments including the human voice, the intentional
variations of pitch, and the intensity of the tones, the way one leads to another. "Phrasing" we
call it.

Everything that we perceive is made up of subjective and objective qualities. The one subjective
aspect of photography that I have not seen blamed or praised for anything is what we might call
"binocularity". It might be the stereopsis mentioned earlier. I think it is instructive to look at the pictures one considers as showing depth as a one-eyed person would see them. I have several photos taped to my wall. I am looking at one now that shows depth to me and strangely, I get more feeling of depth when I cover one eye. It is probably because I am then forced to use only the depth cues that are available to a one-eyed person looking directly at the original scene as if through a window. With both eyes, I can tell
that the photo is a flat surface. It has two of my doggy-people in it, one near and the other far. There is a curved stone stairway leading from one to the other. I am too far from the picture to get the original perspective. There are leading lines and leading tones. The lines are of high resolution. I can see the leading tones through spectacles that my year old great grand daughter has had her sticky hands on.

I do not think that we should look for the objective explanation of perceived depth. I would think of technique as allowing the illusion of depth. As with other art forms, it depends more on who did it than on how. Michalangelo saw David in a block of marble and freed him from it by cutting away everything that was not David. Nobody else would or could have used that block of marble the same way.

Patrick, Stereopsis, binocular vision and 3D vision are synonyms. The first objective descriptions of human 3D vision and explanatory theory I am aware of are those published by Wheatstone and Brewster in the 19th century.

Wheatstone showed that the retinal images from two independent sources could be fused into a single image giving the immediate impression of depth and that this effect was due to the DIFFERENCE of the images, not their similarity.

The human mind does its best to make sense out of what it sees.

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

Matt, maybe an example demo print could be circulated???

This will be done . On January 26 (two weeks from now) we have in the Netherlands an APUG meeting (also with the Belgian APUGERS) where the subject is exactly perspective (depth) in photography. On this meeting, we will go 'in the field' with our (view) cameras and we will demonstrate and explain how to get depth in the final print. But, as Gainer says,there is much more to it, like the expression of feelings. Therefore we will at the APUG meeting discuss other topics as well. And, of course, we will look at existing prints and the photographic results of the APUG meeting.

Moreover, in September last year, there was an exhibition of photographs (opening of the B&W factory in Belgium) where one could see prints with the depth effects.

Jed

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tom;

Interestingly enough there is a form of stereo vision based on color and on size. People who have surgery for cataracts see images of different sizes in some cases afterwards, and when this is so, they see a TV screen in pseudo 3D or with a sense of perspective based 3D.

People with strong prisms in their glasses (as I do) see color based stereo with color in layers on a flat surface. Therefore, blue and green objects seem to stick out at me and red objects are far away with black and white at the surface. This is strange on TV when a red tie is worn with a blue jacket by a person. The tie is behind them and the jacket appears to hang in front of the TV.

It becomes even worse for both the peple with cataract surgery and with me and my prisms with real 3D objects which then take on a distorted perspective in which green traffic lights appear as bars projecting out of the signal towards me, and the red light seems buried behind the signal.

PE

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Tom;

Interestingly enough there is a form of stereo vision based on color and on size. People who have surgery for cataracts see images of different sizes in some cases afterwards, and when this is so, they see a TV screen in pseudo 3D or with a sense of perspective based 3D.

People with strong prisms in their glasses (as I do) see color based stereo with color in layers on a flat surface. Therefore, blue and green objects seem to stick out at me and red objects are far away with black and white at the surface. This is strange on TV when a red tie is worn with a blue jacket by a person. The tie is behind them and the jacket appears to hang in front of the TV.

It becomes even worse for both the peple with cataract surgery and with me and my prisms with real 3D objects which then take on a distorted perspective in which green traffic lights appear as bars projecting out of the signal towards me, and the red light seems buried behind the signal.

PE

Wow! - and my eye Doctor says I have cataract surgery in my future,

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

Tom;

Interestingly enough there is a form of stereo vision based on color and on size.

This 'form of stereo vision' is the ability to estimate distances. And that is something different than experiencing space. Stereoscopic seen is seen with two eyes or with a camera with two lenses. The normal camera has one lens and has no stereometric abilities.
People with one (normal) eye can estimate distances. They can drive a car because they have that ability. The physics of the ability to estimate distances is based on color (hue) and size. A full description can be found under the keyword ' aerial perspective', which is more important than the central perspective, and has physics nature, instead of a mathematical.
But, since the normal camera is a one eyed instrument, the aerial perspective is the basis for 'depth' in photography. And that is why I take this as a starting point.
Under certain circumstances, the central and aerial perspective are not in line and one will get strange sizes on the photographs. Stieglitz used that once in a photograph he made NYC. Abnormal buildings one would say. Just the result of an illusion as the result of perspective.

Jed

 

[ilya1963]

There is one thing that has not come up here and it is the light that you view the print under ...

I have AZO prints that look flat until viewed under a direct light source , when placed there the prints aglow with radiant light , I always have contributed that to AMIDOL/AZO combo, I can't get that no where else or have I seen it anywhere else in this drastic amount. It could be the reflective ability of this chemical combination that causes this ,I do not know , but it is definitely not a mind trick it is an ability of this surface to reflect light.

One more thing ,

I have been able to get this effect with Chinese Amidol and AZO , but there are some prints with this Chinese stuff that my eyes can not focus on , I mean fine details in the print seem to have distortion , I have to look away and focus my eyes on the hard object to see if my eyes are OK...

ILYA