Contact printing Weston Style (aka w/ a lightbulb)

Cult or not, everyone's work speaks for itself - period.

I think also

Every process speaks for itself - period.


I have seen M&P's work and the prints were excellent. I saw them in a show at Elevator with work by Sandy King, Les Mclean, Tim Rudman, Bob Carnie and many other APUGers. The M&P prints were not the best of show, but that may have been due to content. There are horses for courses. When the desire is to simplify than it doesn't get any simpler than contact printing. When the goal is to produce the best print than the process takes a back seat to the frame content. With regard to the Elevator show all four individuals mentioned had better looking prints and Carnie's showed the most virtuosity and breadth. With regard to contact printing, I went to GEH with my wife on a research project where they showed us 150 year old Albumen prints that had spent very little time in the light and the quality of these prints exceeded, to my eye (I forgot to bring a densitometer), AZO prints or any printing process in detail and density of the blacks. Granted they would have cracked, yellowed and faded in 150 years if they had been displayed for any amount of time (in that time my prints will have disappeared).

I think it is important to keep the process as well as the measurable technical details in perspective. They are means, not an ends.

Michael and Paula should be applauded. For anyone putting in money, time and energy in bringing a high quality product, such as Lodima, to the market, gets my support.

In these times of seemingly relentless digital photography products, a darkroom paper such as Lodima is music to my eyes .

Shanesy's Corollary to Godwin's Law: "As any APUG silver chloride paper discussion grows longer, the probability of a post bashing Michael A. Smith or Paula Chamlee approaches 1."

OK - to get dad to be OK with all this, use the low toxicity route. No reason you can't work with materials that will easily pass muster.

Film Developers can be made verrry low impact. For instance, vitamin C happens to be a developing agent. Kodak Xtol is based upon Vit C.

I read somewhere the below:
A simple mix is PC-TEA or PC-Glycol...
75 ml of hot triethanolamine (for PC-TEA) or propylene glycol (for PC-Glycol)
10 g ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
0.2 g phenidone (Low toxicity)
Stir until completely dissolved, then top up to 100 ml with:
triethanolamine (for PC-TEA) or:
propylene glycol (for PC-Glycol)

Working solutions
PC-TEA: Dilute the stock solution 1+50 (20 ml per litre) before use. Developing times for 400-speed B&W films are around 9 min at 22C.
Processes at least 4 sheets per liter -0 usually used as one shot though.
PC-Glycol: Dilute the stock solution 1+50 (20 ml per litre) into water containing 5 g/L sodium carbonate before use. (You can also use sodium metaborate or borax, but you will need to adjust the quantities and your dev times will be longer.) Developing times for 400-speed B&W films are around 7 min at 21C.

Another even lower impact possibility is:
Caffenol C film developer
- - - - Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Household . . . . . . . . . . metric
- - - - Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 ml . . . 0 toxicity
- - - - Arm & Hammer Washing Soda. . . . . . . . 2.5 tsp (level) . . . . . . . 2 g . . . . . low low toxicity common household item
- - - - Ascorbic Acid or Erythorbic Acid (97%). . 1 g* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 g . . . . . 0 toxicity
- - - - Folger's Coffee Crystals. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 tsp (slightly rounded) . 8 tsp . . . .0 toxicity

Mix soda until completely dissolved and solution is clear.
Add coffee, mix until all grittiness is gone and solution is uniform, let stand 5-10 minutes until microbubbles clear.
Use within 30 minutes.
*1 g = approx. 1/4 tsp

Use undiluted
Starting point development time: 12 mins

Notes: Expect slight film speed increase (1/3 to 2/3 stop) and little or no stain. Reduce agitation to eliminate flow marks.

From: http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions and Times.html

Use diluted vinegar for stop bath or just water.

For fix use sodium thiosulfate from swimming pool place. They put it in the swimming pool.

Print developers: try Chris Patton's E72 formula:
E-72 Dektol substitute Chris Patton

water 125F 500 ml
phenidone 0.4 grams (or 3 g metol)
sodium sulfite 45 grams
vitamin C (powdered) 19 grams
sodium carbonate mono 90 grams
Potassium Bromide 1.9 grams
water to 1L

1 to 1 for high contrast
1 to 2 for less contrast
1 to 3 for normal contrast
1 to 4 for lower contrast

Use like Dektol

There is some affect of aging on this developer, it gets stronger over the period of a couple of weeks.
You can get the powdered Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) from health food stores.
[Do not use sodium ascorbate in place of ascorbic acid (Vit C)]

From: Darkroom Cookbook

Use sodium sulfite as washing aid. Sulfite is used in canning I believe. Again, low toxicity.

When using plain hypo, I think you will probably have to stay away from the Tmax type filma, since they demand very vigorous fixing and seem to need rapid fix - ammonium thoisulfate. Others might have more certainty on that than I.

Personally, I don't know if I'd characterise Folger's alleged coffee as "0 toxicity", but other than that...

It's also not clear to me how toxic ammonium thiosulfate really is as compared to plain hypo. I mean, you wouldn't want to drink either of them, but based on MSDSs neither seems to be very dangerous; the worst symptom I found listed was diarrhea. IMHO, worrying about fixer toxicity in normal darkroom use is misplaced, but that may or may not convince the querent's dad, I suppose.

Caffenol is about as nontoxic a brew as you could ask for, but it's a little bit flaky---some people have consistent good results with it, some seem never to get it working, and most of us seem to be in between. This might be because coffee isn't the most consistent of products, or because it's totally unbuffered and its activity is sensitive to small differences in the pH of the water used, or just the photo gods telling us to back off a little on the homebrew mad science.

PC-TEA is, IMHO, terrific---it's basically replaced HC-110 for me as a standard developer.

Thanks

-NT

c6h6o3 said:

Shanesy's Corollary to Godwin's Law: "As any APUG silver chloride paper discussion grows longer, the probability of a post bashing Michael A. Smith or Paula Chamlee approaches 1."

Click to expand...

Actually most of the bashing was imagined. I think a better law would be that any topic regarding AZO or a work alike will eventually attract zombies and include cool-aid drinking.

jd callow said:

Actually most of the bashing was imagined. I think a better law would be that any topic regarding AZO or a work alike will eventually attract zombies and include cool-aid drinking.

Click to expand...

The discussion ain't over yet.

c6h6o3 said:

Shanesy's Corollary to Godwin's Law: "As any APUG silver chloride paper discussion grows longer...

Click to expand...

This may be true, but it has been my perspective that the hostile behavior often seems to be predicated by some over the top and lengthy outburst from those perceiving themselves as being bashed. The other not so helpful corollary to the law should be the not so subtly implied air of superiority that often accompanies them. I can't think of any other process discussion here in APUG that brings out the ill feelings that these can. The the source, at least to me, is quite obvious. The thought that any process or method makes a person a better photographic "artist" than another is completely lodicrous. Make better pictures and the prints will sing no matter what they're printed on.

To the OP... have a blast!!! And while you're loving the big negatives and CP, don't forget there are a lot of other things to try... platinum, palladium, gum, Van Dykes...

jd callow said:

Actually most of the bashing was imagined. I think a better law would be that any topic regarding AZO or a work alike will eventually attract zombies and include cool-aid drinking.

Click to expand...

Oh...@%^&.....I just spit coffee all over the monitor!


still choking back the laughter!

billschwab said:

The thought that any process or method makes a person a better photographic "artist" than another is completely ludicrous.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point in your haste to pass judgement.

His objective is to produce the best final product possible and through years of experience be a master of all of the materials/process along the way. When he asked Weston's assistant what was missing in his prints the answer was silver chloride paper and the rest was history. After looking at many B&W prints over the years in galleries and museums without question the most marvelous and rich that take my breath away are those produced by a master printer on silver chloride printing papers. That is why over the years nearly every paper manufacturer produced a silver chloride paper. Put an original Weston print next to any size Adams print and stand back and look. Not even a close contest. If you are technically oriented the silver chloride paper curve is the reason for this visual event. it accepts a broader net density from the negative.

If you were a master visionary and printed less than optimally would that not detract from your message with the audience? Conversely a mediocre vision printed to perfection is similarly lacking. No, the materials cannot make you by themselves but when you "calibrate" objectively with the finest prints that have even been produced you learn from this experience to understand more about what is being said and get less emotional about reacting to these statements.

Cheers!

Michael Kadillak said:

...His objective is to produce the best final product possible and through years of experience be a master of all of the materials/process along the way

Click to expand...

Why do I get the feeling that you would have capitalized the "H" no matter where it was placed in the sentence!

Michael Kadillak said:

His objective is to produce the best final product possible

Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.... BLAH...

Get a grip, man. In your haste to defend and perpetuate the myth, you seem to have missed the fact I said nothing about the precious paper. What I have said before and I am not afraid to say again is that I have yet to see anything produced by the "Master" that would give them the right to treat ANYONE the way I've seen people I actually have some respect for treated here and else ware. Talk about "ignorant comments"! In my opinion the product suffers greatly in the hands of the messenger and that is a shame. As for the implication that a print cannot be a masterwork without benefit of the "best" paper? This is nothing more than a complete load of immature, snake oil salesman crap.

billschwab said:

In my opinion the product suffers greatly in the hands of the messenger and that is a shame.

Click to expand...

If you are interested in printing on a AgCl contact paper, don't let anyone's personality deter you from doing so. Lodima is a superb paper. In some ways I prefer it to Azo.

However, after watching Bob Carnie demonstrate his split grade printing technique on Iflord Multigrade IV paper using negatives developed in Pyrocat HD (semi-stand, similar to the method I use), I've made prints on the Multigrade which I'll put up against any of my AgCl prints. Perhaps the major benefit of my involvement with the New England Large Format Photography Collective is the constant exposure to new (to me, at any rate) and varied techniques by accomplished photographers and printers. We should always keep our minds open and receptive to new and different techniques, particularly from the younger generation of art school graduates.

Hell, I've seen prints by Paul Taylor on Ilford MG from wet plate collodion negatives which take my breath away. So, Bill is right. You can create a masterpiece with anything. Go out and do it.

If Weston's way is how you like to do it and the paper works for you, by all means use it. But to say that any one process, much less any one product, is essential for producing one's best work...well, what do you think?

billschwab said:

To the OP... have a blast!!! And while you're loving the big negatives and CP, don't forget there are a lot of other things to try... platinum, palladium, gum, Van Dykes...

Click to expand...

unfortunately, I can't afford to run any other alt. processes right now. my budget is REALLY thin

eventually though!

-Dan

thanks everyone for all the answers, I really appreciate the help!

well, I still haven't been able to get things under way, but I have been showing my parents this post, and thankfully, they're warming up to the idea of me using the bathroom after hours .

I'd love to try the Lodima paper from M&P, but I have one more question:

how to control contrast with Lodima? I have heard that some contact printers use a custom box that houses the lightbulb, but has a "filter drawer" underneath that lets the printer change contrast filters for dodging/burning, etc...

I try to get my negatives spot-on in development, but sometimes it needs a bit of a boost (I generally develop a little lower contrast that most would, I just like to be able to retain detail).

help would be appreciated, and if we could please get back on topic I understand how some get flustered over a certain process or photographer's method, but can we keep these things to ourselves?

thank you Michael(and Paula ) for producing and bringing to market this terrific product! I hope to be able to try this great paper one day sometime soon!

blessings,

Dan

DanielStone said:

I'd love to try the Lodima paper from M&P, but I have one more question:

how to control contrast with Lodima? I have heard that some contact printers use a custom box that houses the lightbulb, but has a "filter drawer" underneath that lets the printer change contrast filters for dodging/burning, etc...


blessings,

Dan

Click to expand...

Dan, Lodima is a fixed grade paper, grades 2 and 3 are now available. The contrast filters you refer to are for VC papers.

To reduce contrast with Lodima; it responds well to Amidol and water bath treatment. Place the paper in developer as per usual then part way through development, transfer to a water bath and leave without agitation for the remainder of the development time. The recommended dev time for Lodima is 1 minute. The less time in developer and more time in the water bath, the softer the effect. You will need to experiment so as not to get uneven print development.

I've not attempted to try and increase contrast so not sure how it reponds to increased developer concentration (something I used to do with fixed grade projection papers) and development times. Lodima does start to cool off in print colour for development times beyond 1 minute.

Dan,

The BEST place to ask any and all questions concerning Azo, Lodima or any of the now defunct silver chloride papers is the Azo forum. You can cut through all the personality BS and get straight answers to your questions. You will find MAS more than willing to share his knowledge and expertise with anyone who asks a question. All he asks is you read his articles and do a simple forum search so he doesn't waste his time re-answering questions he has already answered. Seems like a reasonable request to me. There is even a section of the Azo forum dedicated to Lodima. By the way, the Azo forum has quite a few folks who really know their stuff and freely share their knowledge.

I found having a well lit (ie Thomas Safe Light) darkroom helps considerably when using a water bath. You need to be able to see the shadows in order to know when to transfer the print from the developer to the water bath. You might want to consider placing a safelight close to and above the developer tray to monitor the shadows.

jgjbowen said:

I found having a well lit (ie Thomas Safe Light) darkroom helps considerably when using a water bath. You need to be able to see the shadows in order to know when to transfer the print from the developer to the water bath. You might want to consider placing a safelight close to and above the developer tray to monitor the shadows.

Click to expand...

I find it impossible to judge when to pull a print from the water bath by watching the shadows develop, no matter how bright the safelight. Once I settle on an overall development time (usually 1' 40'' for Canadian G2, 1' for anything else) I vary the proportion of water bath to total time to achieve optimal contrast. But I have to see the print with the lights on to make my determination. Different strokes for different folks.

To Daniel Stone: you should try to find someone in your area (I'm sure there are plenty) who prints on Azo to show you how to use a water bath. It's easy but you need to do it in a certain way. Maybe Michael Smith can point you to someone in Southern CA.

thanks c6,

I appreciate the candor on the subject.

Anyone in SoCal who would be willing to show me how to do water bath dev?

would the WB development technique work with traditional silver papers too? i.e. projection papers?

thanks

-Dan

DanielStone said:

would the WB development technique work with traditional silver papers too? i.e. projection papers?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Having someone experienced might help a bit, but water bath development isn't a big secret, and it's likely to vary a bit with your paper and developer choices. It's covered in AA's The Print, Tim Rudman's Master Printing Course, Les McLean's book, Horenstein's Beyond Basic Photography, and I know I've seen it described by David Vestal somewhere, but didn't see it at a quick run through his Art of B&W Enlarging. Their approaches are all basically the same.

It's basically:

developer until blacks start to show
1 minute water bath without agitation
back to developer to recharge
another minute water bath without agitation
don't lather
don't rinse
repeat until you like it.

Lee

With Amidol developer, you do not need to go back and forth from the water bath to the developer. With silver chloride paper, one minute total in solution is optimum.

With other developers, you do need to go back and forth. I have done it up to 11 minutes total, but not with silver chloride paper.

It would be decent of Bill Schwab to confront me directly with his statement of how I "have treated some folks." I find his innuendo offensive. When attacked, I respond. I have never instigated an attack.

Curiously, on the Azo Forum there has never been any attack on anyone by anyone. Never. The discussions are always just about the work, as they should be. And as they should be here as well. But some folks cannot seem to contain themselves.

Earlier in this thread, Cardwell's referring to everything surrounding silver chloride paper as a "cult" is an attack, a subtle attack to be sure, but an attack nonetheless, whether some of you see it that way or not.

Michael A. Smith

Michael A. Smith said:

It would be decent of Bill Schwab to confront me directly with his statement of how I "have treated some folks." I find his innuendo offensive. When attacked, I respond. I have never instigated an attack.


Michael A. Smith

Click to expand...

7/11/08

Michael A. Smith said:

....This fellow, Heath, whoever he is, (ah, I looked him up, he is a photographer, although I can understand by looking at his photographs why he is so negative and bitter), ...Michael A. Smith

Click to expand...

4/19/09

Michael A. Smith said:

From Andrew Moxom: "While I normally stay out of such things on a public forum, something does not smell right here. So all enlarging papers are now considered dinosaurs and of inferior quality. .......I would gladly try this paper, but is there really enough proof to say that it's superior to anything else out there, and why the hype?? I sense an attitude of if you don't contact print on this, you aren't a real photographer.... my .02"

Have you ever tried, Andrew, making contact prints on silver chloride paper? If you have not, then your comments are totally worthless.... Michael A. Smith

Click to expand...

df cardwell said:

Some may find the Michael&Paula thing a bit more of a cult than straightforward picture making.

Click to expand...

Michael A. Smith said:

Earlier in this thread, Cardwell's referring to everything surrounding silver chloride paper as a "cult" is an attack, ...

Click to expand...

I read the cardwell quote as being somewhat more specific than MAS implies.

Lee

Hm... had to do a quick check of the banner. For a second there I thought I was on the LF boards. :munch:

Yeah this is getting petty. Normally a Thread like this would have either been locked or tossed to the soap box.