Hand Made Azo? Is it possible?

roteague · Nov 29, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Matt, I am making hand coatings every night practically.

If it is possible to hand coat it, shouldn't it be possible to build a small machine to do the same?

How about something like an ink jet printer that delivers the emulsion to the paper instead of ink, they do prints fairly evenly. ----- Just thinking outside the box, you know -----

Daniel Lawton · Nov 29, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Got an update on EK from a friend over lunch today. There are quite a few research coating machines going out to pasture nowdays. Anyone want to buy one? Some nice ones already gone, but there are some really good 10" bargains out there at EK.

They are shutting down some mid scale emulsion labs as well. Anyone interested in some kettles and pumps?

Reasonable prices, you haul! Just scrape up about $50,000 or so. Maybe less depening on condition. To be honest though, I have seen none offered for sale. I think they are scrapping them.

And yes, Kodak makes mistakes, but they are trying to make a reasonable reduction in a market that is dying back much faster than anyone in the entire industry predicted. Remember, this same thing has hit Agfa and Ilford harder than EK, and Fuji is not having a smooth time either.

Some of the figures I have indicate that parts of conventional photography are dying at a rate 3x faster than any market forecast predicted.

PE

Heck $50,000 isn't so bad! There's got to be some wealthy Apuger here who could sacrifice a Beemer or Benz for the good of the analog community. We don't even need to relocate the equipment since I will so nobly volunteer to hang out in Brazil and coat some AZO.

markbb · Nov 29, 2005

Perhaps I'm being a bit dim here, but aren't Ilford coming onto APUG to garner people's views? Presumably they have access to a paper coating line, has anyone approached them to see if they would look into a Silver chloride paper?

Smith and Chamlee are supporting Azo & clearly there's a market for the stuff, why not an alternative source?

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 29, 2005

Smith and Chamlee have said that they've approached all the European and UK paper manufacturers for a replacement, and I'd assume that includes Ilford.

Jim Chinn · Nov 29, 2005

I have no doubt that MS has been working with some specific manufaturers to come up with a paper and may have a good candidate in a testing stage. The problem comes when the mfg says we need $100,000 minimum up front (or what ever the amount) before we turn on the machine or mix a batch of emulsion.

Now if that meant there were 1000 photographers needed to pony up $100 each, then I am willing to risk $100 or maybe even $200 depending on the final cost per sheet. But if you are talking a universe of maybe 100 users of AZO world wide that might be interested having to come up with a minimum of $1000, then at the current time I can't play.

I could be wrong of course, but with the current financial situation of all paper mfgs, I just cannot see one of them going out on a limb for that amount of money with no sure return. Maybe it will work out to a 50/50 proposal with half the run needing financing up front and half provided by the company. I do believe that if a suitable substitue for AZO is made, the market will grow over current AZO usage due to the ever growing interest in LF and contact printing.

David, in your post on making Baryta paper, it was mentioned how to get the proper surface it has to go through high pressure rollers. I understand how difficult this is when one is talking about making literally "miles" of paper. but if one is producing paper in lots of say 50 8x10 sheets one could build a roller machine with stainless steel rollers and hydraulic press that might be capable of producing pretty good results.

Alex and PE were discussing old versus new coating technologies. From my understanding, most of the technological advances have to do with increasing production, decreasing costs of production and improving consistency over literally millions of cubic feet of paper. I think one can go back to some very old tried and true technologies when shifting to working very small batches.

I guess it will really come down to cost per sheet. I think anyone who wants to continue to use an AZO like paper understands the cost will probably increase. How much of an increase will determine how many stick with a new AZO clone, how many want to experiment with boutique papers like PE is working with and how many say to hell with it and use other available papers or alternative methods.

Photo Engineer · Nov 29, 2005

roteague said:
If it is possible to hand coat it, shouldn't it be possible to build a small machine to do the same?

How about something like an ink jet printer that delivers the emulsion to the paper instead of ink, they do prints fairly evenly. ----- Just thinking outside the box, you know -----

Go take a look at Jim Browning's web site. He has an automated 'hand coater' and actually has one he wishes to sell. The price is quite reasonable.

It uses much the same method I do, but has a set of pumps to keep the blade reseroir filled and uses a motor to move the blade across the film.

He has made Matrix film that way and used the film to make Dye Transfer prints.

PE

df cardwell · Nov 29, 2005

Bear with me: I'm still having trouble with all the supernatural properties ascribed to specific photographic materials here, and if I offend it is not intentional. But there is a Golden Calf quality to this Analogue Photography Sub-Cult that is starting to creep me out.

Azo is not magic. It is lovely if loved properly, and used well. But if you make a negative to fit properly, you can get identical results printing on most anything else.

There are infinite ways to get to spectacular prints. That is one of the Primary and Absolute Realities of Photography.

But, if Technique is dependent upon One True Paper, it is Idolotry or Alchemy or Superstition or something like that. It is not the unique and precious material that makes a print good, it is the printer. And whether it be on Azo or Edward Weston's bathmat, if it's a good print, it's a good print, and that's the end of it.

If Azo is dead, it's over, move on. It should have happened 20 years ago.

If you can't make a good image unless it's on Azo, it's only because you haven't tried.

What happens to every photographer that has walked upon the earth is that at some point, the photographer buckles down and learns a disciplined technique and starts making good pictures. Every human instinct for survival kicks in, and the photographer sticks with what works. That's great.

But what is unhealthy, bad, and detrimental to us all is when success is credited to Azo, or Pyro, or Super XX or some exotic combination that is rare and unobtainable by mere mortals. The truth of it is, once we master one thing, we master all things. And by the time we have learned to make a great print with one combination of materials, we have learned HOW to make a great print with any other combination of materials. It's the Process, not the product, and the Photographer, not the promoter, that is responsible for a good picture.

Instead of spending time keeping Azo on life support, why not let it die gracefully and learn how to apply your considerable skills printing on another material ? Your skill and vision are the two most important things you have as photographers, and as photography changes from a consumer based, consumer dependent craft to a community based, knowledge based craft, your skill and vision become even more important: to you, and to the rest of us.

So, forget Azo. If you need to buy paper and can't make your own, look over what is likely to be available for a while and transfer your printmaking to that. Be bold and confident in your own abilities, and make some pictures !

I'm looking forward over the next year to coating my own paper, and in time, becoming - to whatever degree is possible - self reliant on the paper I need to make my own pictures. I understand I'll be limited by what can effciently be made in a craftsman's workshop, and I'm even looking forward to that. These can be exciting, and profitable days. But we have to make the most of the time we have, and not try to relive the past.

I would, however, be sorely tempted by a freezer full of Kodak Athena or Illustrator's Special.

Now, that was paper !

.

Photo Engineer · Nov 29, 2005

df, there is much truth in what you say.

OTOH, one must consider the 'art' in photography. We cannot duplicate some of the paints that the masters used many years ago, and are poorer for it. The same may be said of Azo. IDK. That is for others to judge.

PE

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 29, 2005

I agree that one shouldn't become too fixated on a particular product and should be able to make fine prints from whatever is available, but why be tied to any corporate manufacturing decisions? They used to manufacture platinum paper as well. If no one manufactures it, does that mean no one should coat their own platinum? The same could be said of carbon, dye transfer, and albumen as well.

seadrive · Nov 30, 2005

If the print itself, aside from the image, is considered an objet d'art, then the material of which the print is formed becomes very important.

However, if it is the image that is important, then the paper stock and the value of process is diminished.

I know it's sad, but frankly, I don't have any images that are good enough to worry too much about the paper on which I do or don't print them. That's due to my sorry lack of artistic vision, not because of my poor craftmanship.

Atget's images are wonderful because he was wonderful, and I really don't know or care what they were printed on.

If I ever reach the point where I'm producing 12 images a year that are worth printing, I'll start worrying about what to print them on.

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 30, 2005

I've seen Atget's images printed in albumen, gelatin silver, and Iris giclee, and if you had seen all three hanging together in the same show, you would be able to tell the difference, and you would care.

clay · Nov 30, 2005

Bingo!!! Bravo!! Well stated. You better stop making sense, or you'll get voted off the island.

df cardwell said:
Bear with me: I'm still having trouble with all the supernatural properties ascribed to specific photographic materials here, and if I offend it is not intentional. But there is a Golden Calf quality to this Analogue Photography Sub-Cult that is starting to creep me out.

Azo is not magic. It is lovely if loved properly, and used well. But if you make a negative to fit properly, you can get identical results printing on most anything else.

There are infinite ways to get to spectacular prints. That is one of the Primary and Absolute Realities of Photography.

But, if Technique is dependent upon One True Paper, it is Idolotry or Alchemy or Superstition or something like that. It is not the unique and precious material that makes a print good, it is the printer. And whether it be on Azo or Edward Weston's bathmat, if it's a good print, it's a good print, and that's the end of it.

If Azo is dead, it's over, move on. It should have happened 20 years ago.

If you can't make a good image unless it's on Azo, it's only because you haven't tried.

What happens to every photographer that has walked upon the earth is that at some point, the photographer buckles down and learns a disciplined technique and starts making good pictures. Every human instinct for survival kicks in, and the photographer sticks with what works. That's great.

But what is unhealthy, bad, and detrimental to us all is when success is credited to Azo, or Pyro, or Super XX or some exotic combination that is rare and unobtainable by mere mortals. The truth of it is, once we master one thing, we master all things. And by the time we have learned to make a great print with one combination of materials, we have learned HOW to make a great print with any other combination of materials. It's the Process, not the product, and the Photographer, not the promoter, that is responsible for a good picture.

Instead of spending time keeping Azo on life support, why not let it die gracefully and learn how to apply your considerable skills printing on another material ? Your skill and vision are the two most important things you have as photographers, and as photography changes from a consumer based, consumer dependent craft to a community based, knowledge based craft, your skill and vision become even more important: to you, and to the rest of us.

So, forget Azo. If you need to buy paper and can't make your own, look over what is likely to be available for a while and transfer your printmaking to that. Be bold and confident in your own abilities, and make some pictures !

I'm looking forward over the next year to coating my own paper, and in time, becoming - to whatever degree is possible - self reliant on the paper I need to make my own pictures. I understand I'll be limited by what can effciently be made in a craftsman's workshop, and I'm even looking forward to that. These can be exciting, and profitable days. But we have to make the most of the time we have, and not try to relive the past.

I would, however, be sorely tempted by a freezer full of Kodak Athena or Illustrator's Special.

Now, that was paper !

.

clay · Nov 30, 2005

David,

I think if you re-read his remark, he states that making your own paper is certainly a legitimate route to take. My view on this is to concentrate your effort on what you actually can achieve, and not waste a lot of time and effort trying to revive a cold corpse. Hand coating is one of those things that you can do. I would hazard a guess that getting a manufacturer to create a brand new black and white paper in today's business climate has a very low probability of success.

I agree with you that there are many ways to get a fine print. Your recent experience with albumen is a great example. I have seen albumen prints that I believe are far more beautiful than any Azo print I have ever seen or ever will see. But that is just my own view. I'm sure others will violently disagree.

I think another point you both make is that this can easily take on the air of a 'wearing your lucky underpants' dependency on a single factor in the process. If you have a good eye, and some visual discrimination ability, and some patience, you can probably make a good print on a bathmat.

All good things to think about.

David A. Goldfarb said:
I agree that one shouldn't become too fixated on a particular product and should be able to make fine prints from whatever is available, but why be tied to any corporate manufacturing decisions? They used to manufacture platinum paper as well. If no one manufactures it, does that mean no one should coat their own platinum? The same could be said of carbon, dye transfer, and albumen as well.

Donald Miller · Nov 30, 2005

I agree with David, Clay, and others on this. I think that Azo is a fine paper but it has become somewhat of a cult thing. I have used it and have a basis from which to state an opinion.

I have prints made on conventional papers that are, to me, better then any Azo print that I have seen or produced.

As Michael Smith stated recently, there are some fine enlarging papers out there.

Photo Engineer · Nov 30, 2005

I agree with all of the above.

I am just trying to give people another option; the ability to re-create conventional photographic materials should they become unavailable.

I am not trying to perpetuate a cult of Azo, but I don't wish to diminish its importance in any way to those who prize it either.

It just happens that an Azo work-alike is easy to make in the home darkroom. And, it vanihsed from the marketplace. I'm also working on a Kodabromide/Brovira type paper as well.

PE

Jim Chinn · Nov 30, 2005

Donald,

I know it is a little off subject but what are you using currently for your enlargements.

When I was at Lee's house in Ft. Worth he had a print of yours made in Big Bend national park. I don't remember now if that was a contact print or enlargement. I do remember it was quite beuatiful.

I agree that dependence on a single paper or film is not a good thing. But it is nice to have the availability of another option like PE is working on from a creativity aspect.

seadrive · Nov 30, 2005

David A. Goldfarb said:
I've seen Atget's images printed in albumen, gelatin silver, and Iris giclee, and if you had seen all three hanging together in the same show, you would be able to tell the difference, and you would care.

Yes, but if the image itself were of no importance, then what it's printed on would not matter. Weston's "peppers", printed on a paper bag, is worth more than anything I have, and the availabilility (or lack thereof) of Azo isn't going to change that.

Some images "work" better on a particular paper and/or in a particular process than in others, but if the image itself has no meaning, no emotional impact, then you can print it on platinum or gold, and it is still a hollow object.

I'm not saying that materials don't matter. If the only printing paper I could obtain from a commercial source were resin-coated, I'm not sure I would bother printing at all.

Here's to a bright future, with a great variety of available materials of high quality. Just make sure you have something worth printing at all, before you get all worked up over the possible loss of Azo, or any other material.

And that's all I have to say about that!

Donald Miller · Nov 30, 2005

Jim Chinn said:
Donald,

I know it is a little off subject but what are you using currently for your enlargements.

When I was at Lee's house in Ft. Worth he had a print of yours made in Big Bend national park. I don't remember now if that was a contact print or enlargement. I do remember it was quite beuatiful.

I agree that dependence on a single paper or film is not a good thing. But it is nice to have the availability of another option like PE is working on from a creativity aspect.

Jim,

I continue to use Oriental (both VC and graded) for my neutral toned prints and J & C Polywarmtone Classic for my warmtone images.

I look forward to trying Kentmere soon. I have heard some really good reports on that paper.

Thanks for your comments on my print. That was an enlargement and I feel that I have that image quite a bit further along then the one that you saw.

lee · Nov 30, 2005

Jim,

It is an enlargement from Canyon de Chelly NM

lee\c

df cardwell · Nov 30, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
.... snip ...

It just happens that an Azo work-alike is easy to make in the home darkroom. And, it vanished from the marketplace. I'm also working on a Kodabromide/Brovira type paper as well.

PE

An Azo - like paper that can be made in a low tech workshop would be great.

Can a warm-black ( Illustrator's Azo ) or brown-black ( Athena ) be done ?

Now you've got me thinking about handcoating from old receipes....
Dassonville ?

Having a supply of Ilford FB for normal work, and home-coated special paper would suit me down to the ground.

Aggie · Nov 30, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
I agree with all of the above.

I am just trying to give people another option; the ability to re-create conventional photographic materials should they become unavailable.

I am not trying to perpetuate a cult of Azo, but I don't wish to diminish its importance in any way to those who prize it either.

It just happens that an Azo work-alike is easy to make in the home darkroom. And, it vanihsed from the marketplace. I'm also working on a Kodabromide/Brovira type paper as well.

PE

I've been reading the papers all took a drastic turn for the worse once cadmium was eliminated from the formulas for emulsion. That said, the new formulas you are working on, can you also by your own choice add a bit of cadmium if you wanted? Cadmium is not the fearsome thing so many people make it out to be.

roteague · Nov 30, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Go take a look at Jim Browning's web site. He has an automated 'hand coater' and actually has one he wishes to sell. The price is quite reasonable.

Thanks PE. Azo is a beautiful product, but I'm only following this thread as an interested observer. It seems that most of the posts seem to say that Azo can only be created using the methods and materials that has always been used. My idea was only to encourage others to think outside the box -- perhaps an alternative will emerge.

mark · Nov 30, 2005

lee said:
Jim,

It is an enlargement from Canyon de Chelly NM

lee\c

Canyon de CHelly is in AZ.

magic823 · Nov 30, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Go take a look at Jim Browning's web site. He has an automated 'hand coater' and actually has one he wishes to sell. The price is quite reasonable.

PE

Where is Jim Browning's website?

lee · Nov 30, 2005

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee
Jim,

It is an enlargement from Canyon de Chelly NM

lee\c

Canyon de CHelly is in AZ.

Sorry, I was off a little bit. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

lee\c

Hand Made Azo? Is it possible?

roteague

Daniel Lawton

markbb

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Jim Chinn

Photo Engineer

df cardwell

Photo Engineer

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

seadrive

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

clay

clay

Donald Miller

Photo Engineer

Jim Chinn

seadrive

Donald Miller

lee

df cardwell

Aggie

roteague

mark

magic823

lee

Hand Made Azo? Is it possible?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency