Doom, Gloom and Reality

Mr Gainer, it might do well to do as I have suggested and compare the contrast grade 2 of one paper with contrast grade 2 of another paper, rather than all of the grades of one paper against themselves. I never said different grades matched.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The only thing in common is that they are both fruit.

This is a complete non-sequitur to my original post.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Mr Gainer, it might do well to do as I have suggested and compare the contrast grade 2 of one paper with contrast grade 2 of another paper, rather than all of the grades of one paper against themselves. I never said different grades matched.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The only thing in common is that they are both fruit.

This is a complete non-sequitur to my original post.

PE

Click to expand...

So is your current post. What exactly was the thesis of your original post?

Grade 2 AZO according to Kodak in 1982 is among the curves I copied. Grade 2 according to your source was previously posted. You and anyone else viewing this thread can see the differences. Look at the shape of the shoulder when you search for what AZO users find wonderful. At least that is my opinion. Contrast in the significant shadows is very important to most landscape photographs. Look at all the characteristic curves of papers from Kodak in that era and tell me that any one can take the place of any other with equal effect. If so, you don't know printing.

Did the world stop spinning when they stopped:

Illustrator's Azo?
Medalist?
Opal?
Defender?
Ansco?

Yes, didn't you notice?

gainer said:

Contrast in the significant shadows is very important to most landscape photographs. Look at all the characteristic curves of papers from Kodak in that era and tell me that any one can take the place of any other with equal effect. If so, you don't know printing.

Click to expand...

And that is an understatement. The difference in the shape of the curve in the toe and shoulder is critical for both developers and print processes, and exact replication is very rare.

Have a look at this article, "Curves for Azo" by N. Dhananjay, on the AZO forum for some understanding of the importance of the developer for refined print making.

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html

Sandy

I think the world market will decide who makes it and who does not in the traditional photo material business. Market has declined, no doubt about it. But it did not dissapear, and it probably will not for a long time. As long as there will be a demand for traditional film, paper and chemicals they will be produced by someone, somewhere. We may not like what that particular company will have to offer, but it's better than no film at all, isn't it? Perhaps it will cause us to be smarter with how we shoot - you never know. I learned to photograph almost 20 years ago in the (now former) Soviet Union. Your choices of film were two or three different speeds of Svema and a couple of speeds of Tasma. You had film developer and paper developer, and fixer - that's it for chemicals. Several grades of paper in two or three sizes and two finishes. And that's pretty much it. Ladies and gentlemen, WE'VE GOT IT MADE right now when it comes to choosing our films, paper and chemistry. I personally shoot on six or seven different films and I like all of them. I hope they never stop making Efke, but if they do I'll shoot something else. If Oriental stops making paper I'll print on something else. I think the important thing is not to let disturbances of world markets get into the art aspect of photography. And if I have to shoot Svema and Tasma again, I will. I remember producing some very decent images back then. And that's what's important to me.

I don't think there is any doubt that we who love film and prints processed in stinky chemicals amidst curses (or pious ejaculations as my father used to call them) will continue in whatever manner circumstances allow, even if it means reverting to ancient methods of making our own. For some purposes, we will learn new methods, as we have learned to use electronic means of communication like APUG. Nevertheless, we will keep our fond memories of days gone by and feel sad that they are gone.

gainer said:

I don't think there is any doubt that we who love film and prints processed in stinky chemicals amidst curses (or pious ejaculations as my father used to call them) will continue in whatever manner circumstances allow, even if it means reverting to ancient methods of making our own. For some purposes, we will learn new methods, as we have learned to use electronic means of communication like APUG. Nevertheless, we will keep our fond memories of days gone by and feel sad that they are gone.

Click to expand...

Of the dozens of different fiber based papers once made by Kodak (remember Ektalure, Kodabromide, Medalist, Portralure, Polycontrast) none remain but AZO, and the new Polymax VC paper.

Meanwhile, I have on hand several hundred sheets of 7X17 and 12X20 film, safely stored away in the freezer. I figure this is about a five year supply for, based on my recent negative making experience. When it is gone I expect to be paying a lot more for the ULF experience.

Sandy

Sandy.

What is the safest way to store in a freezer....a special wrap? particular temperature? Procedure for removing from freezer to use and do you re freeze?

Thanks

Dave in Vegas

Dave Wooten said:

Sandy.

What is the safest way to store in a freezer....a special wrap? particular temperature? Procedure for removing from freezer to use and do you re freeze?

Thanks

Dave in Vegas

Click to expand...

Best thing to do is leave the film in the sealed containers it comes in, if it comes in sealed containers, as most films do. After that you just remove it from the freezer and allow several hours for the box to come to room temperatue. And I do freeze it, as the temperature in my freezer is well below 32 degrees F.

If you want to store a box that has already been opened I would recommend placing it in some kind of sealable bag before putting it in the freezer.

However, freezing only partially slows down the development of fog, and the problem is worse with high speed films than slow and medium speed ones. A ten year old box of TRI-X film, even though stored in a freezer, will likely build up an extra log .10-20 units of fog over fresh film.

Sandy

I think it is important to note several things here about Azo paper and about the curves posted by Mr Gainer.

The curves are from 1982, and therefore unless compared directly to the current product may not represent the current curve shape of Azo paper. I don't believe that is the case, but it is best to make note of that.

Second, and most important is the fact that both the current Azo and the older curves show a decided rolloff in the upper shoulder and a dmax of about 2.0 or less. Other characteristic curves of papers posted on the EK web site show dmax values of greater than 2.0. This type of curve, at equivalent grade will give the printer considerably more latitude in the final print. I have already pointed this out but you either don't believe it or don't understand my point.

People keep commenting about how good Azo is, but all I am trying to explain is that some papers out there may be better, and probably are if you give them a try. I find that photographers don't like to change or experiment though. So, you may be overexposing and underdeveloping your Azo paper to get a grade 1.5 print that suits you from a grade 2.0 paper, and complaining that Azo will vanish soon, when you could change to another paper and use a different condition to achieve the same or better results.

After all, it was said above that developer is important. Well, I'm sure that there are combinations out there that will equal or beat Azo if you give them a chance. I'm sure that there is a paper out there that has the same overall tone and curve shape of Azo. It may be an enlarging paper. Only the printer can decide, but unless you try it, you will never know. I put up a curve that might be useful in my original post. It is up to you to try it and see how it looks.

I should also add that you may have been tailoring your negatives to suit your Azo paper. Well, if so, then you are working with less latitude in the negative than you could expect from some other papers. You might have to change your negative exposure as well. We have all adapted as the product mix has changed over the years. The world has not stopped turning and prints by good photographers will still sell.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I think it is important to note several things here about Azo paper and about the curves posted by Mr Gainer.

The curves are from 1982, and therefore unless compared directly to the current product may not represent the current curve shape of Azo paper. I don't believe that is the case, but it is best to make note of that.

Second, and most important is the fact that both the current Azo and the older curves show a decided rolloff in the upper shoulder and a dmax of about 2.0 or less. Other characteristic curves of papers posted on the EK web site show dmax values of greater than 2.0. This type of curve, at equivalent grade will give the printer considerably more latitude in the final print. I have already pointed this out but you either don't believe it or don't understand my point.

People keep commenting about how good Azo is, but all I am trying to explain is that some papers out there may be better, and probably are if you give them a try. I find that photographers don't like to change or experiment though. So, you may be overexposing and underdeveloping your Azo paper to get a grade 1.5 print that suits you from a grade 2.0 paper, and complaining that Azo will vanish soon, when you could change to another paper and use a different condition to achieve the same or better results.

After all, it was said above that developer is important. Well, I'm sure that there are combinations out there that will equal or beat Azo if you give them a chance. I'm sure that there is a paper out there that has the same overall tone and curve shape of Azo. It may be an enlarging paper. Only the printer can decide, but unless you try it, you will never know. I put up a curve that might be useful in my original post. It is up to you to try it and see how it looks.

I should also add that you may have been tailoring your negatives to suit your Azo paper. Well, if so, then you are working with less latitude in the negative than you could expect from some other papers. You might have to change your negative exposure as well. We have all adapted as the product mix has changed over the years. The world has not stopped turning and prints by good photographers will still sell.

PE

Click to expand...

I am certain that you feel strongly about your position, but I have to disagree with you on some points.

First, I am certainly in agreement that outstanding prints can be made with papers other than AZO, as they can be made with other processes as well, such as albumen, carbon, platinum and palladium, kallitype and so on. Great printers will make great prints, regardless of process.

However, AZO is a silver chloride paper that is quite different from silver bromide papers in many ways. And it is the only paper of its type still made. I actually see the results as another process when compared to silver bromide.

Regarding the curve, I am not saying categorically that it would not be possible to replicate an AZO curve with some other combination of developer/silver bromide paper. However, bear in mind that the standard for AZO is development in amidol so any comparison curves that you present should be based on the amidol standard. Now, I have looked at a lot of curves but I have never seen one for a silver bromide paper that is identical to an AZO curve developed in amidol. The AZO curve in amidol, and limiting ourselves to AZO 2 for this discussion, has a very gentle toe and shoulder that is very different from the toe and shoulder of all silver bromide papers that I have seen. In fact, the AZO 2/amidol curve has more similarities with a Pt./Pd. curve than with a typical silver bromide curve. This fact makes a big difference in the way important highlight and shadow detail is rendered on the print.

Therefore, while it may be possible to change to another film/developer combination and get *better* results by some definition of the concept I don't believe it is possible to get the *same* results, and the plain and simple fact of the matter is that there is an AZO look that many people appear to like, just as there is a Pt./Pd look.

About the curves from modern AZO compared to AZO from the 1980s, I have seen very little difference in my own testing. In fact, I recently did a test comparison of modern AZO #2 and #3 in Ansco 130 (which is also a great developer for AZO) with some well stored paper from 1946, and the curves were for all practical purposes identical, after subtracting the small additional B+F of the old paper.

The maximum reflective density of AZO does appear to be somewhat less than that of a paper such as Polymax fiber FD surface. However, a selenium toned AZO print is capable of Dmax reflective densities as high as log 2.10, and AZO 3 as high as 2.20. More importantly, however, an AZO print is able to use on the print a much higher percentage of total Dmax than papers with more abrupt curves. IDmax is normally figured at 90% of Dmax as the typical value for a silver bromide paper, but the IDmax of AZO, as it is for Pt./Pd. is much closer to 95% of Dmax. In other words, although the maximum reflective Dmax of Polymax, which may be as high as 2.3 or above, is higher than that of AZO 2, the abrupt curve makes it difficult to use all of this reflective density, assuming we still want full shadow detail on the other end of the curve.

Sandy King

Photo Engineer said:

After all, it was said above that developer is important. Well, I'm sure that there are combinations out there that will equal or beat Azo if you give them a chance. I'm sure that there is a paper out there that has the same overall tone and curve shape of Azo.
PE

Click to expand...

Why don't you enlighten us?

Recent developments in emulsion making have allowed the manufacture of high speed black and white papers using silver chloride emulsions similar to those used in Azo.

Silver chloride emulsions are not exclusive to Azo paper anymore. Perhaps you should try some Polycontrast IV or other modern paper in amidol.

As far as enlightenment, the fact that you can make superb prints on almost any paper only proves my position. It is the artist that determines the result given good techniques and good starting materials, and all reputable manufacturers supply good starting materials. Look how many people here use different films, papers and processes and turn out superb pictures. To say that you have to use Azo paper is incorrect. Azo is a good paper, but not the only one. There are surely other paper and developer combinations that can give the Azo look if that is what you want.

But, if you want the azo look exactly, perhaps Sandy King is right. Maybe there is no exact duplicate. On the other hand, maybe there is a substitute out there and for lack of trying you will miss out. I am trying to make you aware of the possibility.

PE

I usually put the burden of proof on dissenters. Run some tests and post them here.

I wish I could. I have at least 4 projects ahead of this one. One of them includes making the actual Azo type chloride emulsion. You see, I am trying to approach this problem directly. I am already making some contact prints that look fair, but as I said on the other thread, I need a good coating method and good baryta paper.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Recent developments in emulsion making have allowed the manufacture of high speed black and white papers using silver chloride emulsions similar to those used in Azo.

Silver chloride emulsions are not exclusive to Azo paper anymore. Perhaps you should try some Polycontrast IV or other modern paper in amidol.

PE

Click to expand...

I would be very interested in more information on the manufacture of modern high speed papers using silver chloride emulsions similar to those used in AZO. I assume this is a confirmation of the benefits of silver chloride emulsions as used in AZO?

BTW, is there a fiber based version of Kodak Polycontrast IV? If not, that paper would be off my list since I don't have any confidence at all in the archival qualities of RC papers.

And just for the record, though I appreciate the qualities of AZO, I am primarily interested in others forms of hand coated printing processes, such as carbon, kallitype and straight palladium. But I do understand curves, and for my money AZO curves have very distinctive characteristics when compared to other silver gelatin materials.

Sandy

Mr King, all I know is that recent work with chloride emulsions at Agfa, Fuji and Kodak have enabled them to make a new generation of papers with chloride emulsions. This was done by discovering how to stabilize them, adjust their curve shape, and sensitize them for higher speed. Among other things, doping or epitaxy can be used.

Another - off track item is that the RA family of color papers has allowed that particular advance in rapid development in color due to chloride or nearly pure chloride emulsions.

Chloride emulsions are characterized by showing an image with good contrast almost instantly when they contact the developer and then moving up in speed gradually with time. Other types of emulsion show a gradual increase in both speed and contrast.

I agree with the Azo image tone being exceptional, however the lack of latitude in the upper scale is what strikes me being a particular disadvantage. The lower scale is nothing special when compared to other curves. But you see that the appreciation of a photographic image is largely subjective and it appears that we could argue about it forever. Why argue. Lets just say that we respectfully differ but appreciate the viewpoints that each of us have.

I don't believe that PCIV is available as a FB paper sadly.

PE

While most seem to express gloom and doom, I think that in 5-10 years the film world will look different, but not be extinct. There aren't as many stables in most cities as there were 100 years ago, but horse related products and services are still available despite the automobile. While most of us don't take ships across the Atlantic due to the impact of the jet airplane, the cruise industry is doing quite well.
Therefore I think that many of the big players will be gone in a few years, but that they will be replaced by both specialty manufacturers in the western world and by low cost producers in the developing world. We may not be able to get the exact same products that we are accustomed to using, but equivalent products will probably be available by mail order and internet.
Will it be better then? Doubtfully. Will it be worse? Probably. Will it be different? Definitely!

Photo Engineer said:

I agree with the Azo image tone being exceptional, however the lack of latitude in the upper scale is what strikes me being a particular disadvantage. The lower scale is nothing special when compared to other curves. But you see that the appreciation of a photographic image is largely subjective and it appears that we could argue about it forever. Why argue. Lets just say that we respectfully differ but appreciate the viewpoints that each of us have.

PE

Click to expand...

PE,

\Actually I though we were already respecfully disagreeing, as opposed ot arguing. If we are in an argument I am at a serious disadvantage because frankly I don't understand your use of the word "latitide," as in "the lack of latitude in the upper scale is what strikes me being a particular disadvantage" in discussing the characteristics of a paper curve. My understanding of the use of this word is either 1) the *allowable *range *of exposures *for *a *given *photographic *emulsion that will still produce acceptable results, or 2) the allowable range of develoment time for a given emulsion. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

Sandy

Mr King, latitude can be expressed, as you say, by the allowable range of a photgraphic product. This can be considered either an image statement or a processing statement.

If you compare the curves in the Kodak URLs I referred to above, you will see that the dmax of Azo is about 1.8 and the Panalure paper I chose to compare it to has a dmax of about 2.2. In terms of imaging latitude (Log E), this is probably about 2 stops. This means that under ideal conditions the Panalure paper will give about 2 stops more effective latitude to an image printed on it than a comparable print on Azo. This translates into more detail in dark and shadowed areas and blacker blacks (or more dense blacks depending on tone).

Of course, this assumes that the latitude is in the negative in the first place. A negative on a film with short latitude itself will show no appreciable difference and may even look worse on the Panalure, since printing to the same highlights will give dark areas a muddy look on the Panalure.

I believe that in general, silver chloride emulsions display less variation as a function of development time in a given developer than a chlorobromide. This would mainly be in terms of contrast change vs time. Therefore, the Azo paper might be said to have a high development latitude (ie less change vs time) than a chlorobromide in a common developer. The chlorobromide would change speed and / or contrast as a function of time more readily than the chloride or the doped chloride.

I hope this helps.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Mr King, latitude can be expressed, as you say, by the allowable range of a photgraphic product. This can be considered either an image statement or a processing statement.

If you compare the curves in the Kodak URLs I referred to above, you will see that the dmax of Azo is about 1.8 and the Panalure paper I chose to compare it to has a dmax of about 2.2. In terms of imaging latitude (Log E), this is probably about 2 stops. This means that under ideal conditions the Panalure paper will give about 2 stops more effective latitude to an image printed on it than a comparable print on Azo. This translates into more detail in dark and shadowed areas and blacker blacks (or more dense blacks depending on tone).


PE

Click to expand...

OK, I now understand what you mean, but I think it might have been more accurate to simply refer to this as a difference of log density reflection readings between the two papers, with the specific developer mentioned.

But I want to again state that the gold standard for AZO is not development in Dektol but in amidol, and as I mentioned earlier, a Dmax reflection reading of 2.1 is quite feasible with AZO 2 in amidol, and 2.2 or above with AZO 3. You may think I am flogging a dead horse with the repetition but IMO your comparison of curves with AZO and Panalure in Dektol does not give an accurate indication of the true potential of AZO because it is widely known that amidol gives much superior results with this paper.

Whether the other papers you mention also do better in amidol I don't know. Perhaps someone else might comment on this.


Sandy