Azo and Kodachrome, it does not make sense to me.

Kirk Keyes said:

I'll certainly check the scales for linearity.

Click to expand...

Well, I checked the scales, and I'm very happy with the results.

One scale reads 100.00 x 0.01g and the other reads 1000.0 x 0.1g and both were within the last digit of resolution for accuracy. I checked them with an ASTM Class 1 certified weight set and the weights I used were 100, 50, 30, 20, 10, 5, 3, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 grams for both balances and the 100g scale also got 0.05, 0.03, 0.02, and 0.01 grams. Both balances had problems reading the weights at thier lowest reading (0.1 for the 1000g scale and 0.01g for the 100g scale), both indicating 0 gram readings, but I can live with that. I went thought the weights twice and rebooted the scales inbetween and the readings were consistent on each set of readings.

Photo Engineer said:

Here is a fact.

From a dead start in 2005, I am now able to match Azo with the qualifications noted by Alex Hawley and myself here. At the same time and with the same investment any other company could do the same with a dedicated staff in less time. (probably better)

Either they are not able to do it, don't care, or the market is too small. Ilford, Kentmere, Fuji and EFKE can all do it at the present time if they really want to and that is the short list. Or....... the company is incompetent!

I have blocked out the scaling problems, keeping problems and coating problems in this formula for myself, others can too with great alacrity! Yet, we see nothing on the near horizon unless M&P are about to announce something.

I have found that this is not a hard task. It can be done at home and therefore it can be done in the $1M lab such as I had at Kodak. John above asks about Azo. Well, the companies I listed can make a good work alike, but don't. The reason appears to be the market. There is none except that created by a few lovers of Azo. IDK how large that is or whether it justifies the work, that is TBD by the market itself when the time comes.

But, if the market is large enough, the task is simple enough to make money on Azo paper. Or, there is a reason why no one is jumping into it.

That is the crux of the matter.

PE

Click to expand...

Hi Ron,
What about the Lodima Fine Art paper Michael and Paula are trying to bring to market? Seems like they have found someone willing to produce an AZO clone and they seem to have enough of a market to support it.

Dan

Dan;

Please read Michael Smiths posts for any answers. He just started a thread.

I have attained the approximate speed, contrast, tone and keeping that I wanted and you can see the review by Alex Hawley.

If the market could support it, I would think Fuji, which already sells such a product would be selling it in the US. I would think Ilford would also fill that market gap. IDK how large it might be, nor can I answer to the size of Michael Smiths supporters or his market. Please address those issues to him.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Dan;

Please read Michael Smiths posts for any answers. He just started a thread.

I have attained the approximate speed, contrast, tone and keeping that I wanted and you can see the review by Alex Hawley.

If the market could support it, I would think Fuji, which already sells such a product would be selling it in the US. I would think Ilford would also fill that market gap. IDK how large it might be, nor can I answer to the size of Michael Smiths supporters or his market. Please address those issues to him.

PE

Click to expand...

Hi Ron,
Yes - I have read his post and have been following progress on his web site. My only point here, which I probably didn't make very well, was that you stated "there is a reason why no one is jumping into it." However, it seems to me that he is making a great effort to bring it to market and seems to have found a coating facility that believes it can be done profitably.
As to the Fuji paper, I thought that was an RC paper that is only suitable for
making proof sheets - or am I think of something else?
Dan

Dan;

I have explicitly stated that I am referring only to film and paper manufacturers, and I stated that I had excluded M&Ps work from this hypothetical test in a post above.

A contact paper with a scale and speed like Azo is a contact paper. This is apparently what Fuji makes, even though it is on RC. If you think it is only for proofs, then you are putting a box around your imagination. Kodak could classify Azo in that same fashion by that reasoning.

NO reproduction of Azo is Azo. The paper is different, the tint is different, the image tone is different, the reciprocity, LIK, raw stock keeping, tonability and all other factors will be different than Azo paper. Don't lose sight of the fact that only Azo is Azo. Others are merely fair clones.

I am referring here to those that think that Kodak, Fuji and Ilford have markets for Azo papers and Kodachrome films. I am presenting a fair argument that no such market exists for any of those companies, but I cannot speak directly for them, only by inference. I am not speaking for or about the efforts of M&P.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Dan;

I have explicitly stated that I am referring only to film and paper manufacturers, and I stated that I had excluded M&Ps work from this hypothetical test in a post above.

Click to expand...

Sorry - I didn't see that - I must have missed that statement.

Photo Engineer said:

A contact paper with a scale and speed like Azo is a contact paper. This is apparently what Fuji makes, even though it is on RC. If you think it is only for proofs, then you are putting a box around your imagination. Kodak could classify Azo in that same fashion by that reasoning.

Click to expand...

This may be true - However, I'd be willing to bet that right or wrong, most of the AZO lovers in this country will never go for an RC paper- therefore there is no market here for the Fuji product here.

Photo Engineer said:

NO reproduction of Azo is Azo. The paper is different, the tint is different, the image tone is different, the reciprocity, LIK, raw stock keeping, tonability and all other factors will be different than Azo paper. Don't lose sight of the fact that only Azo is Azo. Others are merely fair clones.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is here I agree with you on this. I didn't think I said that Lodima would be AZO. I do think that given how much time M&P are devoting to testing, that they're trying to get as close to Azo as possible - i.e. they seem to be trying to make a good clone instead just a fair clone.

Photo Engineer said:

I am referring here to those that think that Kodak, Fuji and Ilford have markets for Azo papers and Kodachrome films. I am presenting a fair argument that no such market exists for any of those companies, but I cannot speak directly for them, only by inference. I am not speaking for or about the efforts of M&P.

PE

Click to expand...

I agree with you on this - however, I think you also stated there was no market for a niche company - it is this statement that I question.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just asking some questions.

Dan

Dan;

The point is that M&P are doing a very hard job to replicate Azo, and just as Fuji paper, it will not be on the same support. It will be whiter and may even be double weight for all I know. Any supposition as to whether it will be acceptable to all is based on the fact that Fuji never made it with their paper, as closely as they tried to make it to Azo, but for one tiny (I laugh) difference - RC paper support. M&P will do better, I'm sure.

Oh, and I'm also saying there is (probably) no market for niche products from bigger companies. At least I think this is closer to what I've been trying to say. It is becoming very hard to sustain Kodachrome and was impossible to sustain Azo. This is not at odds with M&P's efforts to produce a near work alike to Azo. It is also not at odds with my making it for occasional use in the darkroom.

At a reasonable time commitment, I could make 10 sheet packs of 8x10 available in 3 grades and 4 surfaces right now, for about $5 - $10 or so / sheet. I don't intend to, but that is possible given the price and market I think. I could also make 4x5, 5x7 and 11x14. M&P are doing something on the same order but less expensively and in greater volume.

That is a niche market that seems to be sustainable. I don't think we are far apart in opinion on any of this.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Dan;

The point is that M&P are doing a very hard job to replicate Azo, and just as Fuji paper, it will not be on the same support. It will be whiter and may even be double weight for all I know. Any supposition as to whether it will be acceptable to all is based on the fact that Fuji never made it with their paper, as closely as they tried to make it to Azo, but for one tiny (I laugh) difference - RC paper support. M&P will do better, I'm sure.

Oh, and I'm also saying there is (probably) no market for niche products from bigger companies. At least I think this is closer to what I've been trying to say. It is becoming very hard to sustain Kodachrome and was impossible to sustain Azo. This is not at odds with M&P's efforts to produce a near work alike to Azo. It is also not at odds with my making it for occasional use in the darkroom.

At a reasonable time commitment, I could make 10 sheet packs of 8x10 available in 3 grades and 4 surfaces right now, for about $5 - $10 or so / sheet. I don't intend to, but that is possible given the price and market I think. I could also make 4x5, 5x7 and 11x14. M&P are doing something on the same order but less expensively and in greater volume.

That is a niche market that seems to be sustainable. I don't think we are far apart in opinion on any of this.

PE

Click to expand...

I agree - we are very close in this opinion. The big companies business model simply doesn't allow for niche products. I have read M&P's site and they state Lodima will be single weight. I'm curious as to why you think it will be whiter than Azo? Is there something special about Azo's support that is very difficult to reproduce, or have you just read this somewhere?

Thanks,
Dan

dslater said:

I agree - we are very close in this opinion. The big companies business model simply doesn't allow for niche products. I have read M&P's site and they state Lodima will be single weight. I'm curious as to why you think it will be whiter than Azo? Is there something special about Azo's support that is very difficult to reproduce, or have you just read this somewhere?

Thanks,
Dan

Click to expand...

I believe that Michael stated this somewhere.

Azo support was custom made by EK and contained a tiny amount of a pigment to give it a slightly buff warm tint. Other papers available today are almost all untinted. Therefore I can also infer it without a statement from M&P and be about 95% sure.

PE

The death of both of these products share one key characteristic, that being a self-sustaining, downward spiral.

Azo no doubt started to die when enlargers and small format negatives started to take over the bulk of photography. When the vast majority of prints ceased to be contact prints (snapshots from 120/620, 616/116, postcard size, etc., and professional work from large format cameras) and became enlargements, the death of contact papers started. So Kodak sees sales of Azo starting to fall off. So they discontinue the 'odd' grades (1, 4, 5). So Azo becomes less 'flexible' than chlorobromide 'enlarger' papers. (After all, you can contact on enlarger papers -- that's most of what I do.) So some more people switch. Then VC papers become the norm. So more sales fall off and Kodak drops grade 3. Still more sales drop off... So they start discontinuing sizes... These things feed on themselves!!!

With Kodachrome, the death started with the invention of Ektachrome. It accelerated with the introduction of E-6 and greater processing options -- 20 years ago, I could get E-6 back in two hours. Kodachrome took 3-4 days, minimum. Kodak sees sales fall off so they start closing their labs. Kodachrome processing becomes even slower! So they close more labs... Discontinue K25... And on it goes.

Personally, I can live without Azo. Would a nice, chloride contact paper be nice? Sure!!! But it doesn't keep me from making pictures. Plus, even if M&P do start marketing their paper, if seems they are married to it being single weight. I HATE single weight paper.

Kodachrome I will dearly miss. In the 80's, I shot 2-3 rolls a week. Today I might shoot 2-3 a year! Why? Because it is a PITA to get processed!!! And yes, I know Kodak tried -- they came out with 120; they designed and built a whole new processor; they tried to enlist pro labs around the US to offer K-14 processing. And it was all for naught! People just didn't buy it!

So to blame Kodak for all for all of this is just plain wrong. Folks, we have met the enemy and he is we.

Ed

dslater said:

As to the Fuji paper, I thought that was an RC paper that is only suitable for
making proof sheets - or am I think of something else?
Dan

Click to expand...

I think you are thinking of the Foma contact paper that freestyle sells. Another thread stated that the Fuji paper is fiber based.

Neanderman said:

Personally, I can live without Azo. Would a nice, chloride contact paper be nice? Sure!!! But it doesn't keep me from making pictures. Plus, even if M&P do start marketing their paper, if seems they are married to it being single weight. I HATE single weight paper.

Ed

Click to expand...

It's not so much that they're married to single weight paper - it's that their options were either single weight or triple weight and they felt triple weight was too thick.

3Dfan said:

I think you are thinking of the Foma contact paper that freestyle sells. Another thread stated that the Fuji paper is fiber based.

Click to expand...

You're right - that is what I was thinking of.

Paula and I are hoping that the paper we are having made will be even better than Azo--better in our subjective opinion. What would make it better? Even better print color, with a matched tonal scale and equal DMax. We do have a choice of paper bases and will select the one that will give us the most pleasing (to our eyes) print color.

RC paper, as most of us are aware, doesn't cut it. The tonal scale is all wrong and the prints have a dullness to them--when compared to baryta paper.

We published a book by an Australian photographer. He had sent us about 80 prints--three or four were baryta, the rest were RC. When we had the book sequenced and ready to go to press we asked him to make baryta prints. He replied that he thought the RC prints we had were good enough. We insisted. He reprinted. There was no comparison--the baryta prints blew the RC prints away and he could readily see that.

It is encouraging to see Michael & Paula sticking with this venture; but it doesn't answer directly Ron's question of whether there's a market.

I think we have arrived at the place where such 'niche products' cannot be manufactured and marketed using the 'business-as-usual' practices of the large industrial manufacturing conglomerates of the past. So newer business models have to be developed, including micro-scale coating shops, as Ron has been proving on his own.

And new mental models for how these products are marketed need to be devised. I can't help but think that there's some validity to what some of the posts have said regarding a death-spiral of a product's demise. What needs to change is perception. Demand for products isn't something that's intrinsic to the culture; it has to be actively developed; marketed; hyped. Think of how Apple revolutionised the public demand for portable MP3 players; they didn't invent the gadgets, but instead invented a marketing model for how to create entirely new demand for such products - the buzz, the hype - that's what they created. They defined for their future customer base the lifestyle benefits that such a product would deliver, and the public liked what they saw, and bought into the vision.

Silver gelatin photographic materials are certainly a legacy product, from the century before the last century (Azo literally was.) What needs to change is that contact printing onto silver chloride paper has to be hyped and talked about and promoted; a 'buzz' has to develop. And that won't happen through the traditional manufacturer/supply chain relationships of traditional large-scale industrial manufacturers. I see what Ilford/Harman has done with silver gelatin papers and films is certainly a step in the right direction, engaging in a dialog with their customer base, and ensuring them that they are in it for the long haul.

There needs to be hype and buzz developed to promote traditional darkroom work, for starters. You can't contact print without that; there's a starting place. And the unique attributes of contact prints need to be promoted and talked about. We need more shows where people can see for themselves. We need the high priests of the art to get out of the ivory towers and come down to the people and show them the way.

Think about the buzz, hype and mystique that's developed for mechanical rangefinder cameras, as an example. Who would've thunk that there'd be a growing demand for new and used rangefinders? And an entire mini-industry has cropped up for people wanting theirs CLA'd and recovered in new (or custom) leather, etc. Why have rangefinders developed such a buzz? It's that intangible life-style thing that has connected with a potential customer base.

Darkroom printing is a passing art, whether it's using silver chloride or iodide/bromide papers. And it's interesting to observe the graying of the LF population, too. We need to engage the younger generations in this art, for it to have a chance at surviving at all.

~Joe

PS: Dead Link Removed an interesting niche market. Seems like you can still purchase Japanese Soroban (bead-frame abacus); they're still being made.

A year or two ago I met someone who lived in China and who had learned to use an abacus. Much to my surprise, she could calculate on it faster than one can punch in the numbers on a calculator and certainly faster than one can do calculations with paper and pencil. It was astonishing.

When I first wrote about Azo in 1996, almost no one in the fine-art world used the paper. Then it developed quite a following. I plan to write about it again, but not until the new silver chloride paper exists.

And yes, the LF community is graying. That will be a long-term problem for everything related to LF.

Michael

Michael A. Smith said:

And yes, the LF community is graying. That will be a long-term problem for everything related to LF.

Click to expand...

It seems intuitively correct and I'm sure you're in a good position to see a lot of photographers and get a feel for the spread. On the other hand I'm only 33 and I know a number of other LF users here in Sydney who are under 40 so let's hope there's a minor revival soon.

If you're right Michael I will be able to buy all the LF and ULF cameras, holders and lenses I want in 10 or 20 years from deceased estates, only to find I can't buy film to put in them.

On the other hand has LF photography always been a bit of a grey pursuit, retirees and so on making up the largest number of participants? Perhaps as my generation get older (and wealthier?) we will replace those who fall.

You're dead right PE, but it makes it hard to keep investing in Kodak when they keep discontinuing things. For instance I won't invest time and energy into learning Kodak films because I have no confidence that in two years time, possibly part way through a project, they won't pull a film I've become fond of. It's a vicious catch 22 that Kodak must be aware of and it is made worse each time there's a rumour of discontinuance or a rep. denies a discontinuance and we find out a year later it was true and there's limited remaining stock (HIE case in point). I can't afford to max-out a credit card to be sure of supply.

It's even worse over here in Australia; I've had a large distributor of B+W paper tell me a product that I love is discontinued when I know it's not. They just can't be bothered ordering it for me and would rather spread damaging lies about the product they supposedly represent so they can concentrate on selling DSLRs.

I still use Kodak chemicals (Xtol and Dektol) because I love the consistency and quality I get from them. I'm also quite confident that they will continue to be supplied for some time yet. If I could be sure of the consistency of supply of Kodak films into the future there are two or three that I'd like to experiment with.

Mattg said:

It makes it hard to keep investing in Kodak when they keep discontinuing things. For instance I won't invest time and energy into learning Kodak films because I have no confidence that in two years time, possibly part way through a project, they won't pull a film I've become fond of. It's a vicious catch 22 that Kodak must be aware of and it is made worse each time there's a rumour of discontinuance or a rep. denies a discontinuance and we find out a year later it was true and there's limited remaining stock (HIE case in point). I can't afford to max-out a credit card to be sure of supply.

I still use Kodak chemicals (Xtol and Dektol) because I love the consistency and quality I get from them. I'm also quite confident that they will continue to be supplied for some time yet. If I could be sure of the consistency of supply of Kodak films into the future there are two or three that I'd like to experiment with.

Click to expand...

When you own Kodak stock you are an investor and do so to (hopefully) gain a return on your investment as a function of time . When you purchase Kodak film or chemicals you are one of millions of individual customers that are acquiring a disposable product for personal use. The two positions are diametrically miles apart.

If you cannot afford to purchase enought of one type of film to cover two years worth of consumption let's be honest, it really does not matter.

From the beginning of the film business there has been (and will probably continue to be) a continuous transition of products coming and going because the business is dynamic. Weston lamented the loss of his favorite sheet film as well and did just fine with a substitute as has many other prominent photographers.

Vent if you want but at the end of the day it is quite a simple proposition for every photographer.

To use anything less than the highest quality film irrespective of who makes it is simply foolish.

Get over it and get on with things!

Cheers

Thanks for explaining the word "invest" for me Michael K, now I know what you think it means...

If you carefully re-read what I wrote you'll see it wasn't a "vent" at all, just an observation that Kodak does find itself in a difficult position because it has recently discontinued products at quite a rate. As PE points out this is partly because it has continued to make available products that no one else has.

If I believed that Kodak made films that were head and shoulders above the Ilford films that I use, then I would use the Kodak products. As it is I think it's more important to know the film you use, how to expose and develop it to exploit its full potential and to stick with what you know so that you can make adjustments that produce predictable results. That's an INVESTMENT in money but more importantly time. I won't make that INVESTMENT with Kodak films because of the impression that Kodak gives by discontinuing their entire line of B+W papers. That's not bashing Kodak, that's a fact. Others seem able to turn a profit from B+W papers.

I also wanted to make the point that rumour and innuendo, as well deliberate misinformation from distributors, is even more damaging than the actual discontinuance of product.

Yes all sorts of products have been discontinued over the lifetime of photography, that's why I take them time to make choices about which products are likely to remain in production before I INVEST time in learning how to use them.

I am over it, and happliy going about using the Kodak products I think will be around for a while.

Matt;

Kodak publishes a printed catalog and there is one on-line on their web site. If you take the published catalog numbers to your dealer and ask for it, there is little he can say about it being cancelled. Then you can point out to him that what he said is not true. This will do nothing but annoy him and give you a tiny glow of satisfaction, but you still will have no product. As you say, he wants to sell the digital equipment he has in the store.

And this little tongue in cheek comment brings up a major problem that Kodak has WW. Many dealers just refuse to buy analog things. I went in to get some Ilford developer and my dealer said that they had to buy a full case of it for about $90. "Would I take the case?" they asked. Of course not. Each bottle made gallons of developer. The point being that all companies have sales policies and stores have inventory movement problems. The whole supply and demand chain for analog products is packing up and the longer that line, the worse the problem.

Ilford products are easier to get in England and Europe, while Kodak products are easier to get in the US. It probably gets worse with distance.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

And this little tongue in cheek comment brings up a major problem that Kodak has WW. Many dealers just refuse to buy analog things.

Click to expand...

This statement rings so true. I recently went to Downtown Camera in Toronto, Canada and asked to look at the Nikon F6. The sales guy says that Nikon doesn't make film cameras any more. I told him he was wrong and exchanged a few more words. At which point he begins to 'scold' me on why would I spend $2000 on a camera that was * get ready for his words * useless. Needless to say I won't even by my next digital camera from that place.

The many of us left shooting film are facing a wall of deliberate "filmocide" from the very suppliers that may have kept Kodak numbers up a bit - not a lot, I'm not that naive, but you know what I mean.

Regards, Art.

There is an exaggerated decline in the popularity of analog photo products because of the attitude of most camera retailers. Mis-information, misguidance and lies. Their profits are higher with digital. And..most of the clerks are young enough to not know any better.

Mattg said:

Thanks for explaining the word "invest" for me Michael K, now I know what you think it means...

If you carefully re-read what I wrote you'll see it wasn't a "vent" at all, just an observation that Kodak does find itself in a difficult position because it has recently discontinued products at quite a rate. As PE points out this is partly because it has continued to make available products that no one else has.

If I believed that Kodak made films that were head and shoulders above the Ilford films that I use, then I would use the Kodak products. As it is I think it's more important to know the film you use, how to expose and develop it to exploit its full potential and to stick with what you know so that you can make adjustments that produce predictable results. That's an INVESTMENT in money but more importantly time. I won't make that INVESTMENT with Kodak films because of the impression that Kodak gives by discontinuing their entire line of B+W papers. That's not bashing Kodak, that's a fact. Others seem able to turn a profit from B+W papers.

I also wanted to make the point that rumour and innuendo, as well deliberate misinformation from distributors, is even more damaging than the actual discontinuance of product.

Yes all sorts of products have been discontinued over the lifetime of photography, that's why I take them time to make choices about which products are likely to remain in production before I INVEST time in learning how to use them.

I am over it, and happliy going about using the Kodak products I think will be around for a while.

Click to expand...

My point is that the entire product line from ALL analog manufacturers worldwide is constantly under optimization scrutiny and subject to the same financial scrutiny of being phased out and could be without any advance notification to anyone. Does this make the company bad? Hell no. Many take this as a personal insult because they look at this emotionally. "But I LOVED this product and now I can't get it any longer". "All of that time and investment down the drain'.

It is business and corporations make business decisions every day about the future as they see it. The only way to protect this investment as you say is to hedge forward your consumption. Absent that capability it is my opinion that in monitoring this and many other forums that most that convince themselves that they are one unit at a time consumers do in fact vent when a product gets phased out.

But lets face reality. The Achilles hell in this consumption model is not chemicals or paper as you can mix your own Xtol and Dektol (intensely close to it) or many other perfectly viable alternatives and you can coat paper. It is FILM. That is why I keep my two huge freezers constantly loaded to the brim with sheet film. You want to solve the problem that you are complaining could happen to you with the loss of time and investment in a particular sheet film? Step up to the plate and buy a case. If just a fraction of the individuals that constantly look at the glass half empty would just get off their ass and proactively purchase more than a unit of film at a time it would make an enormously positive impact on the future of this industry for everyone.

We are concurrently the solution and problem in this business model and a positive attitude that looks pragmatically at where we are RIGHT NOW instead of whining about the past is absolutely critical. I am not picking specifically at you Matt. You seem like a passionate photographer and your heart is in the right place, but I want to ask you and many others that might be in your same emotional position to take the high road and be thankful at where we are. Do what you can to make it better for all of us. After all. many of these naysayers were predicting that film would have been laid to rest by now and we are trucking down the highway at breakneck speed. To contemplate that Kodak would be spending R&D money in this market to improve T Max 400 is remarkable and it tells me that this film will be around for a long time so that they can capture their investment. Try it and you will not be disappointed.

I can tell you this. When you have some film from any manufacturer tucked away you feel a whole lot better about the situation.

Cheers!

Michael;

Your comment: "All of that time and investment down the drain", can be echoed by Kodak and other manufacturers when they are forced to cancel a product line.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Right now, Fuji makes an Azo type paper but does not sell it in the US AFAIK.

Click to expand...

Apologies if the answer is somewhere in this meandering thread, but what is the Fuji azo paper called?