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

Photo Engineer · Nov 24, 2007

They used to make all of their own packaging at a large box factory in the plant. They used to store the collapsed boxes in B9 which they just demolished. It was later used to store color paper. In any event, IDK if they still make it, but the reason was that many packing materials fogged film over a period of time. They used materials that films were immune to. This includes inks, sizing agents and etc. for paper and cardboard.

PE

John Kasaian · Nov 25, 2007

I wonder if Kodak is gong to offer 5 and 7 exposure rolls of 135mm B&W instead of 24 and 36 exposure rolls?? The notion that 10 sheet boxes would attract students is rubbish. The syllabus for an intro to LF course I've been trying to perfect has each student shooting the better part of a 25 sheet box over a two day clinic---nowhere near what a "real" high school or college course would burn. I even considered the notion of using a continuous tone ortho (Orwo 25 IIRC) so students could load holders and tray develop by inspection under a red light, but it only comes in 10 sheet boxes so from my point of view simply isn't worth it to students to ante up three for boxes of film.

For my own use, 25 and 50 sheet boxes rule, with the exception of really really expensive stuff ( and that, friends, is what is causing my anxiety!)

It is a great idea for a promotion though---try a new emulsion without having to commit to a 25 or 50 sheet box. But as a practical matter it stinks.

Photo Engineer · Nov 25, 2007

In Japan and SEA, many companies sell 35 mm color film in 12 exposure casettes. Again, it is due to the expense of the film and processing.

PE

Neanderman · Nov 25, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
That is due to the balance and stirring hotplate.

A talented individual could fabricate a stirring mechanism similar to that pictured in Jim Brownings publication as well, possibly at some savings.

Neanderman · Nov 25, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
2. Sodium Chloride and Sodium Bromide and Potassium Iodide (100 grams each)

A pH meter or pH paper is handy.

A lot of the published formulas I've seen (in Baker and in patents) use the ammonium form of the salts. Is there an argument as to which form is best?

Also, how accurate would the pH meter need to be? Would one of the compact meters that reads in 0.1 increments be sufficient?

Ed

Photo Engineer · Nov 25, 2007

Ed;

You still have to pay for parts for the stirrer and hot plate. It still (IMHO) remains the most expensive or time consuming part of the project either way you go about it.

I use a small pocket meter or pH paper. That is accurate enough for this.

Ammonium salts can be used if you wish. They are most often used, when the emulsion is kept acidic, to tone the final silver image. For example, warm tone formulas often use ammonium salts and copper salts to achieve a warmish silver image. Other formulas substitute lead for copper.

PE

multiplexposurman · Nov 25, 2007

But there is an Azo replacement...

I have only skimmed this thread, but it seems that no one has mentioned the Azo replacement product made in the USA. Here is the link:
http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/newpaper.html
Cheers,
Dalton

Photo Engineer · Nov 25, 2007

Dalton;

It has been mentioned here, there and everywhere and is about 2 years old. Thanks but as a subject, per se, it is old. Nonetheless, we have all continued to wish them the best of luck in their endeavor.

BTW, it is not available yet, nor is it being made in the US AFAIK.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Nov 25, 2007

I don't think ANY black and white photo paper is coated in the United States anymore. The "Lodima" paper would have to be custom coated by one of the European manufacturers such as Efke, or Foma.

Michael A. Smith · Nov 25, 2007

A good friend alerted me to this thread and I have just read it all the way through. There are a number of misconceptions out there. No time to correct them all.

There is plenty of financial support for an Azo replacement paper. We have many pre-orders. No checks were cashed and no credit cards were charged. All expenses have been out of our own not very deep pockets. In addition to the pre-orders, there are many who contact us who want to buy the new paper. The demand is there.

A silver chloride emulsion is the easiest of all to make. But, as PE said, there can be complications. As someone so graciously pointed out, it took Greg Davis a long time just to get Amidol. Getting an emulsion made, however simple it might be, is a more complex matter altogether.

Paula and I continue to work on getting a paper made. We do not expect to make any money on it. If we can get paper for ourselves and also for anyone else who wants to use it, we will be satisfied. Don't get me wrong, we would like to make money from this, we just don't expect to do so. It is costing us a lot of time--but the main thing is to get the paper, not to make money.

We continue to test various papers. So far, nothing has been good enough. We will not bring a substandard paper to the market, nor will we bring a paper to the market that does not have good keeping properties. Some of the pre-orders are for significant quantities, and it would not be ethical to sell a huge quantity of paper to someone who had it go bad on them in a relatively short amount of time.

Everyone's support, emotional support, is greatly appreciated.

Michael A. Smith

Photo Engineer · Nov 26, 2007

Michael;

As always, I wish you the best in your efforts. I would like to point out some things that may have been missed here.... Some checks are not honored by banks after a certain amount of time elapses, and credit cards expire, so I hope you have factored these changes into your financial backing positon. Of course, that is none of our business, but I merely point it out as a friendly reminder.

In addition, you had promised an update in September on the continued keeping of the last test run, and if things went well, you planned a big run in December. Can you report anything more on this?

Now, regarding this thread, it was not intended to target you or your efforts, but rather to probe the actual market in Kodachrome and Azo and find out why the big companies say there is no market when you and others report that there is for these two products. Your efforts nor comments need not be even mentioned in this context, but now that they are, they are a very welcome addition. So, anything you would care to add would be most welcome.

PE

John Kasaian · Nov 26, 2007

John Kasaian said:
I wonder if Kodak is gong to offer 5 and 7 exposure rolls of 135mm B&W instead of 24 and 36 exposure rolls?? The notion that 10 sheet boxes would attract students is rubbish. The syllabus for an intro to LF course I've been trying to perfect has each student shooting the better part of a 25 sheet box over a two day clinic---nowhere near what a "real" high school or college course would burn. I even considered the notion of using a continuous tone ortho (Orwo 25 IIRC) so students could load holders and tray develop by inspection under a red light, but it only comes in 10 sheet boxes so from my point of view simply isn't worth it to students to ante up three for boxes of film.

For my own use, 25 and 50 sheet boxes rule, with the exception of really really expensive stuff ( and that, friends, is what is causing my anxiety!)

It is a great idea for a promotion though---try a new emulsion without having to commit to a 25 or 50 sheet box. But as a practical matter it stinks.

I must apologise to David for the crack about the notion of 10 sheet boxes as an attraction for students being rubbish. Ater regaining my composure I realize that that was totally uncalled for and my own error.
Sorry 'bout that David!
If you're ever in Fresno, I owe you dinner

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 26, 2007

No problem, John. I was on a little league team when I was growing up in Cleveland called "Fresno." No idea why we were called Fresno, but I think we finished in last place.

In any case schools are a big part of the B&W photography market. When I was speaking to a rep from Freestyle's wholesale division last year at PMA, he said they were opening more accounts at university bookstores than at photo dealers in the past year. If someone's taking a course in LF photography, 10 sheets won't be enough, but I was thinking that if someone is taking a general photography course and there's an 8x10" camera that can be checked out, two pizzas worth of film is a smaller barrier than ten pizzas.

Tim Boehm · Nov 26, 2007

Michael,

Your willingness to take on an Azo replacement paper is admirable and would provide a welcomed service to us. I’m sure you would have enough support. Being familiar with your beautiful work, and Paula’s, and having had a few email discussions with you, I know you would not abandon your high quality standards to sell a mediocre product. If you get Lodima to market, I for one hope you get rich even though that is not your goal. Personally, if I was attempting to have that paper made, I’d expect to make a generous profit selling it. Eastman knew that, and his financial success enabled Kodak to make all of their great products for so long. I suspect that in more recent years Kodak used profits from non-Azo products to subsidize Azo. We see what has happened to Azo and Kodak’s other products now that their big, evil profits are diminished.

JBrunner · Nov 26, 2007

I don't think it is a matter of big bad Kodak killing products for no reason. I think it is a matter of Kodak being unable, and/or uninterested in smaller scale production. It's not that a specific product is unprofitable in all situations, but rather that Kodak either can't, or won't scale product production to meet smaller demand. Smaller, more nimble companies that can produce on a smaller scale have an opportunity here, if they can deliver something at least approaching decent quality. The resurrected and profitable Ilford is the best example. How much do you think Ilford's paper sales have increased since the 900lb gorilla got out of the game? How much more SPX will go out the door because of the demise of HIE? Kodak simply isn't interested, or is unable to internally justify servicing what it views as niche markets, and so when the demand for a particular product falls below a certain threshold, they bail, while a smaller company might be happy with a few million in sales left lying by the curb. Kodak will concentrate on what is still working, like Portra. It's very cold, and very corporate, and that's what Kodak is, a giant corporation, answering to it's board and shareholders. There are plenty of people at Kodak who love film, and I think if they could change things they would, but from a business standpoint it may be impractical, and I also don't think the management can justify small scale production of niche products to board members and shareholders, who are looking for profits and dividends, not film and paper.
It's not some evil conspiracy.

Tim Boehm · Nov 27, 2007

It’s always “about the money” for big corporations. Kodak’s directors have fiduciary responsibilities to keep their company solvent.

http://www.efmoody.com/arbitration/fiduciary.html

http://www.institutionalshareowner.com/pdf/New-directions.pdf

If their profits went from $20B to $1B they probably went into survival mode and for whatever reason they thought it was prudent to discontinue Azo. I guess the only thing I can fault them for is not selling the Azo name, process and related equipment, if in fact they didn’t offer to sell it.

I was being sarcastic when I used the “evil” word.

Kirk Keyes · Nov 27, 2007

Alex Hawley said:
To reiterate, Ron's silver chloride emulsion works and works very well. I've decided to include one of the prints I have made on it in the traveling portfolio so that it will be seen first-hand by several knowledgeable people.

Alex - you should include your Azo comparison print as well as Ron's paper print in the travelling portfolio so people have something to directly compare it with. I saw the prints you sent to Ron and I prefered the print on Ron's paper to the Azo.

Kirk Keyes · Nov 27, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
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.

I just bought a couple "gem" scales off eBay - probably more likely "drug" scales. One does 100g at 0.01g resolution and the other that does 1000g at 0.1g resolution. Both seem quite servicable and should be good options for the home lab. THey are small, and they will not handle much abuse, but they should work. With shipping they both cost about $20 each.

Good stirring hotplates can be had used for $100 to $200. A stirrer only, well under $100 which could be used with water baths to achieve the heating needed for some of the formulas.

I hope these ideas help with the cost aspects of doing this.

Photo Engineer · Nov 27, 2007

Tim Boehm said:
Its always about the money for big corporations. Kodaks directors have fiduciary responsibilities to keep their company solvent.

If their profits went from $20B to $1B they probably went into survival mode and for whatever reason they thought it was prudent to discontinue Azo. I guess the only thing I can fault them for is not selling the Azo name, process and related equipment, if in fact they didnt offer to sell it.

I was being sarcastic when I used the evil word.

Tim;

It went from $20B to $2B with $1B from analog. But they are in survival mode mainly due to the huge physical plant which is costing taxes and utilities but is otherwise dormant. That is why the buildings are coming down.

PE

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 27, 2007

Kirk Keyes said:
I just bought a couple "gem" scales off eBay - probably more likely "drug" scales. One does 100g at 0.01g resolution and the other that does 1000g at 0.1g resolution. Both seem quite servicable and should be good options for the home lab. THey are small, and they will not handle much abuse, but they should work. With shipping they both cost about $20 each.

The cheapest "gem" scales aren't always linear, so check them with standard weights, if you can, in different parts of their range. I once got into an awkward situation where I split an order of gold chloride or maybe it was silver nitrate with someone, and I used an modest but calibrated pocket scale, and the other party used a really cheap scale from a head shop and got a different weight. It worked out okay, and he trusted my scale in the end, but it felt like a close call. You would think drug dealers would want very accurate scales, since the consequences of an error could be serious!

Photo Engineer · Nov 27, 2007

David A. Goldfarb said:
You would think drug dealers would want very accurate scales, since the consequences of an error could be serious!

Yes David, like a bad case of death.

PE

Kirk Keyes · Nov 27, 2007

David - I'll certainly check the scales for linearity. Thanks for your non-balancing scale story!

Michael A. Smith · Nov 27, 2007

Lodima Fine Art (Azo replacement) update:

Paula and I are making good progress. Still more testing to be done, however. Because of our travel schedule, we may not be able to do the next round of testing until late January.

Michael A. Smith

Kirk Keyes · Nov 28, 2007

Michael - could you give some detail as to what progress as been made? Has a new test batch been made, or further aging of the last run?

Michael A. Smith · Nov 28, 2007

Regarding the aging of the run that I had mentioned in the past: As Ron Mowrey had predicted, it aged to way too flat.

We have been told the problem has been fixed and we are awaiting the next paper, due here, more or less soon.

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

Photo Engineer

John Kasaian

Photo Engineer

Neanderman

Neanderman

Photo Engineer

multiplexposurman

Photo Engineer

PHOTOTONE

Michael A. Smith

Photo Engineer

John Kasaian

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Tim Boehm

JBrunner

Moderator

Tim Boehm

Kirk Keyes

Kirk Keyes

Photo Engineer

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

Kirk Keyes

Michael A. Smith

Kirk Keyes

Michael A. Smith

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

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency