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

[chrisf]

PE,

Thanks for the idea on costs associated with this paper.

As far as coating my own I stated in another thread I would be interested in buying the emulsion already made. As of this point I don't know much about the process of making up a batch of emulsion other than what I saw on you tube. How much of an investment in equipment would be required?

I saw Alex's review on the sample, but not in person.

I think in the new year I'm going to have to seriously consider going down this avenue since I'm down to my last few sheets of Azo.

chris

 

[Alex Hawley]

Amplifying a bit on my previous post; Pt/pl printers, and other alt process practitioners, have long used non-baryta papers. The self-made silver chloride emulsion opens this up to those of us who still prefer a silver gelatin emulsion. I recently started ULF with a 7x17 camera. The thoughts I'm having of contact printing the 7x17 on a silver chloride emulsion on non-baryta paper are getting me excited!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hey, Alex. Do you still have the Traveling Portfolio? It would be neat to see one of your handcoated silver-chloride prints in there.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Yes David, I have it. With the Holiday and all, I'm shooting for sending it along on Saturday. And as I said, there will be at least one print made on Ron's hand-coated paper.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Great!

 

[Photo Engineer]

If I made the emulsion for sale, it would be difficult to keep up, and I'm not in that sort of business. On a one off basis the cost is high, say $700 / batch, but on a bigger batch basis it would be closer to $100 /kg and this would make about 100 8x10 prints of grade 2.

It is complicated to get a good price on this due to the fact that I use 1 hour of hot water whether I make 100 g, 1 kg or 5 kg. The variable is silver nitrate, and there, if I buy 25g vs 1 kg, the price per gram drops. So, the more I make, the more I spend for supplies, but the lower the price to you. But, the more time I take doing only that one thing.

If I had an apprentice or assistant maybe things would be easier.

PE

 

[bdial]

If I had an apprentice or assistant maybe things would be easier

Makes me wish I lived closer to Rochester

 

[c6h6o3]

I thought Azo remained in production as long as it did maybe because it keeps so well. I can't imagine there are many contact printers around, or among that group a significant number use Azo, or among that group, many who use it in large quantities. It's sort of miraculous that it lasted as long as it did. I think Kodak should be credited for supporting a vanishing market. I personally wish Azo users would shift their support to another niche product that hangs by a thread, namely Centennial P.O.P. It's not Azo, but it shares some attributes, and has many charms all its own, and best of all, it's still in production. If you're a contact printer missing Azo, and don't want to coat your own papers for Platinum, or one of PE's emulsions, give P.O.P. a try. If you've never seen the work of D.R. Cowles, you might be surprised at the creative potential of this material.

I have to agree viz a vis the creative potential. POP's tonal scale can be just as expressive as Azo. If one is put off (as I am) by the red tone to Mr. Cowles' prints, take heart. I've seen many POPs with a beautiful neutral tone (slightly warm black with just a trace of gold and no red at all) when toned in platinum based toner. But it takes quite a bit of training and practice to produce.

 

[3Dfan]

As far as coating my own I stated in another thread I would be interested in buying the emulsion already made. As of this point I don't know much about the process of making up a batch of emulsion other than what I saw on you tube. How much of an investment in equipment would be required?

There is a company that sells silver chloride emulsion for contact printing. It was discussed in this thread - (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Photo Engineer]

The total investment would include the following:

1. Silver nitrate (25 grams)
2. Sodium Chloride and Sodium Bromide and Potassium Iodide (100 grams each)
3. Photo grade gelatin (1/2 KG)
4. Balance
5. Stirring hotplate
6. Glyoxal (100 ml) or Chrome Alum (10 grams)
7. Surfactant such as PhotoFlo
8. Erythrosine (5 grams)
9. Thymol (10 grams)
10. Ammonia (28%) (1 liter)
11. Sodium Thiosulfate pentahydrate

This would be enough to coat about 100 sheets of 8x10 based on silver. You would have leftovers of the other chemistry and could make another 200 or so sheets from the leftovers with more silver nitrate.

You will need a good thermometer, a brush, puddle pusher, coating blade or tray for coating the paper and some plates, film or paper to coat on. You will need a flat surface to lay the paper, film or plates on and a place to hang film and paper during drying.

The total investment would be under $1000. Many of you have this equipment and even some of the chemicals.

It takes about 1 hour to make an Azo type emulsion, about 2 hours to make a Kodabromide type emulsion and about 3 - 4 days to make the ISO 40 film emulsion.

You will need about 1 - 3 gallons of distilled water to assist in making, one of the gallons being refrigerated.

Optional equipment includes a coffee filter (gold metal mesh), a potato ricer, cheesecloth or old panty hose and PA (phthalated gelatin). A pH meter or pH paper is handy. If you go the PA gelatin route you will need 35% battery acid and sodium hydroxide, both diluted to about 4% - 5%.

Oh, you also need a formula. Several starting points have been published in the Emulsion Making and Coating Forum here on APUG.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

The total investment would include the following:
...
The total investment would be under $1000. Many of you have this equipment and even some of the chemicals. ...

Ron,

I do not think you meant to type $1000.

What did you mean?

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is a company that sells silver chloride emulsion for contact printing. It was discussed in this thread - (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The Lucenta gelatin contains the sodium chloride as stated on the web page, and to get the speed claimed there, from the formula described, he must be adding other chemicals to assist in ripening or sensitizing. In fact, this may be an old style active gelatin. Therefore this emulsion is not a true Azo type formula due to its speed, although I'm sure it works just fine.

I would avoid the powdered emulsion for one reason only. Kodak and other companies have always had difficulty getting good quality from dried emulsions. Too many problems. If it were possible to do well, then Liquid Light and other similar products would have been shipped dry rather than as a gel. As a gel, the formula has a limited lifetime but is going to be of higher quality, in my experience. If the bigger companies could do it, they would.

In general, drying an emulsion renders it more sensitive to abrasion and fog. That is another problem associated with this type of material.

However, anyone trying any of these products should report on them for us. I would love to be proven wrong and that someone has developed something new. This would be an important lesson for us all that there are things left to discover in emulsion making and that it can be done by anyone.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron,

I do not think you meant to type $1000.

What did you mean?

Steve

Steve;

That is due to the balance and stirring hotplate. They are the only expensive items on that list. Without that, it would be about $200.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

It must be the engineer in me. I would have separated the items buy recurring and non-recurring costs.

Steve

 

[waynecrider]

I am a long time user of POP, and I can tell you that it takes more than a cursory trial to reveal the full potential of this material. The reddish tone of POP is no more inevitable than the greenish tone of Azo developed in Dektol. POP is a wonderfully expressive material, with a rich palette of colors to be exploited. POP is a very long scale, self masking paper that is very responsive to toning, and anyone who learns to exploit these characteristics will be well rewarded. Surely, some printers will choose to coat their own papers with this or that sensitive material, but some number will always opt for a commercially made product, while they last.

Parts of your response remind me of Ziatype. For a POP process Zia has alot of potential from neutral thru colored tones and is also self masking.

 

[chrisf]

PE,

Thanks for the tally. I would plan a workshop with you too.

chris

 

[Photo Engineer]

At the present time, I do not plan one at the Formulary this year due to other commitments. I'll keep an update here for all interested parties.

PE

 

[cahayapemburu]

I've never tried Ziatype, but aren't all POP processes self-masking? I like the simplicity of a factory coated paper, but there may come a day when I'm forced to learn hand coating, and Ziatype might be a good place to start. I love the colors I get from POP with various toning techniques, like the ones Cowles uses, among others. It takes time to master, but that's the part I love.

 

[John Kasaian]

Whats with Kodak's announcment of 10 sheet B&W film packaging??

I know that color sheet film is in 10 sheet packs, but it is also very expensive (which is one reason I shoot B&W!)

Is Kodak trying to tell consumers something---like ""Our sheet film is going to be so expensive that we're only going to sell it in 'economical' ten sheet packages?"

Thats the message I'm getting.

Right now at Badger Graphic, Kodak 8x10 sheet film is on parity, sheet for sheet, with Ilford---actually Kodak is a dollar less per 50 sheets. Kodak is in 50 sheet boxes while Ilford would take 25 sheet boxes to amont to Kodak's 50. We're not talking a lot of money here, but this is the first time I can remember that Kodak film has been in the approximate ball park of it's major competitor.

 

[JLP]

John, That is the message i am getting from Ilford so why should it be any different from Kodak?
Don't start another one please.

jan

 

[Tim Boehm]

3DFAN wrote: There is a company that sells silver chloride emulsion for contact printing. It was discussed in this thread - (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I wrote to that guy, he's in Costa Rica. He said he won't ship it to the USA. I don't know why, mabe there's some governmental restrictions. I'd like to try it though.

 

[JLP]

[I wrote to that guy, he's in Costa Rica. He said he won't ship it to the USA. I don't know why, mabe there's some governmental restrictions. I'd like to try it though./QUOTE]

Throll. the marked is in the US primary and secondary in the EU. Not much sale outside that.


jan

 

[aldevo]

Sounds like there is only a minute to go in the fourth quarter of the championship game. I know that we all have a considerable passion for photography but try to put things into some perspective.

Kodak has spent $ in R&D to improve TMY in a market that was simply not supposed to be here if you listened to the naysayers several years ago. But here we are vibrant and optimistic about the future. I am not pleased with the loss of Kodak paper but sometimes you make a hard business decision for the sake of the remaining product line and the future. Get over it.

The Achilles Heel for photographers that do not want to do the digital capture dance is quality film. Kodak could have milked their existing film line for all it was worth and not spent a dime but they stepped up and did something to differentiate themselves from their competition and for that they should be applauded. We can always find a way to make prints.

Kodak has cut TMY in ULF sizes (and will do so again shortly) and has also listened to our request to keep the UV coating off of sheet film. Wow. Best Christmas present we could ask for. I contend that we have everything to be happy about and we have the ability to change things if we go about it intelligently. The packaging announcement was an effort to lower costs in targeting a more diverse customer group that cannot afford $160 for a box of 50 sheets. Kodak is responding to what customers have been asking for. Don't take it personally if you have a different opinion. It is just business.

Cheers!

Has Kodak even announced pricing for the 10 sheet packages yet?

I can't find any references to it on the web.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I could see the sense in 10-sheet boxes of 8x10" to get more of the educational market, but once someone has decided on a film and committed to the format, what a pain...

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Has Kodak even announced pricing for the 10 sheet packages yet?

I can't find any references to it on the web.

Yes, there was mention to it somewhere in the recent public announcement of the new TMY. I spoke to this in detail with Kodak management (Ie why we would desire a 20 or 25 sheet compromise) so until I see the formal product offered in 8x10 it is still a jump ball IMHO.

To hear some folks get all worked up on this subject is par for the course. Is not the objective the film? Kodak packaging is not that expensive because they buy in bulk. Give it some time and it will all work out.

Cheers!