Lodima Fine Art Paper--Official reports and Member Responses

Yesterday I finally tried Lodima Paper, and today I've just finished another print section, so I could write down some impression of it.
I'm very impressed about the quality of the paper, the weight for me is not double but single a half,I think is a perfect tickness, easy to manage in all case.
It seems similar to Azo but slightly faster, more and less 30-50%, the tone is neutral,or slightly warm but not so much, with very deep black, clean white and a very good mid-tone,with a good micro-contrast, the scale is very long.
Paper takes very well water bath, and in selenium works well, no big changement of colour(I use a diluition 1:64).
I like very much the one minute on the developer(Amidol), remind me an old box of Azo paper, that used only one minute...
I think when the final production will run, to re-print some pictures.
The only problem I had, are the same that I read on the forum, a little problem on the black border emulsion coming off in the egde, and in some sheet of paper a black speck, but easily removed by a gentle use of cotton bud..
and the curl of the paper, although, I didn't have problem in the baths but more to put the paper in contact with negative, but it was notice and I read that in the final run won't appear this problem.
Summarize I think this paper is the perfect evolution of Azo, for me it's better, and I would like to send to Michael and Paula, my gratitude for their effort to put on the market a so beautiful silver-chloride paper.
I should be able to put on the gallery tomorrow some prints, I hope with a comparison between azo/lodima
Stefano

c6h6o3 said:

Since Azo is no longer available and since I know how to print on the remaining sheets of it that I have, I couldn't care less how Lodima compares. I only care about how it prints.

BTW, I use a dilution of 1:64 for selenium toner. Comes out nice and warm.

I took a print that I made on it down to Scott Davis today and he will scan it for me. I'll post it here. He'll be careful to try and preserve the color.

Click to expand...

This is my first serious attempt at a good print with Lodima. Scott included color information in the .jpeg, but this is still much colder than the print. The best approximation to the color I'm getting is the banner at the top of M&P's website.

This print was made from a 400TMax negative (old) developed in Pyrocat HD. I think it really shows off the incredible scale of this paper. I put the darkest shadows (the middle of the right door) on Zone IV and the brightest areas (the panel above the doors and the sunlit stone on the left) fell on Zone IX-1/2. I gave it N-1 development. I had to use a water bath to get the highlights right.

The negative is incredibly sharp. You can see the piano wire mesh that the Cathedral has placed over Ex Nihilo to keep the pigeons off of it with the naked eye on the negative. The paper is not quite as sharp, as you need a loupe to see the wire, but it's still amazing. One of the guards asked me if the camera lens would resolve the wires. You can't see them from the camera position. I told him I didn't know. Now I know.

Thanks to Scott Davis (The Flyingcamera) for scanning this for me.

I did some comparative curves between Lodima #2 and Canadian Azo #2 - both developed in Amidol for 1 minute.

You are looking at a grade 2 vs a grade 3 paper just eyeballing the curves. Maybe the difference is even greater. I would have to compare thise with my standards here for better analysis.

I've posted curves and speed comparisons here with my Azo type emulsion.

Thanks.

PE

I finally printed on Lodima FA test paper. Circumstances of life here severely limit my time available for photography or darkroom work. Therefore, although I have lots of Amidol on hand from Greg Davis’ group purchase, the convenience of Neutol WA (1:7) and TF4 (1:3) liquid concentrates wins out. I used that combination on the Lodima with a one minute developing time.

My negatives are not developed with a staining developer. I expose Canadian grade 2 Azo using a 38W bulb in a 10-inch Smith Victor reflector with clip-on diffuser. At the same 15-inch illuminant distance, Lodima FA required that I use a 60W bulb to stay in the same 17 – 20 second exposure range. Emergence time was 5 seconds, compared to 18 seconds for Canadian grade 2 Azo (the Azo gets 3 minutes in Neutol WA). I agree with Michael Smith's assessment that the contrast is grade 2-1/3.

In Neutol WA, this paper is warm! Canadian grade 2 Azo is a cold neutral in the same developer; I tone it for 3 minutes in Ilford HARMAN selenium toner 1:10 to solidify blacks and achieve the slightest hint of warmth. By contrast, Lodima FA has the same patent leather blacks and is almost brown right out of the developer. No need to tone Lodima.

Curl. Yeah, it sure does curl. In fact, while Lodima prints I made from 5x7 negatives were sharp, those from 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 negatives on 8x10 paper had areas of unsharpness. I attribute this to the weak springs on my larger printing frame being unable to hold the sandwich flat against the curl. I suspect a vacuum frame would overcome that problem but hope the manufacturer’s assurances to Michael and Paula that production runs won’t curl are lived up to.

I experienced almost none of the edge lifting reported by others when printing 5x7 and a little when using full 8x10 sheets. I suspect the problem was made worse by additional handling necessitated by curl with the larger paper.

Sal Santamaura said:

Curl. Yeah, it sure does curl. In fact, while Lodima prints I made from 5x7 negatives were sharp, those from 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 negatives on 8x10 paper had areas of unsharpness.

Click to expand...

Let's hope they fix that as they say they will. The curl is so bad with my box that when I immerse an 8x10 sheet in an 8x10 tray with 1 liter of amidol in it, the corners curl up out of solution, making it nearly impossible to get even development in 1 minute. I'm not saying that it's a deal killer for me (yet), but it's certainly close. I can't imagine, however, that Michael and Paula won't take it very seriously and fix it.

c6h6o3 said:

Let's hope they fix that as they say they will. The curl is so bad with my box that when I immerse an 8x10 sheet in an 8x10 tray with 1 liter of amidol in it, the corners curl up out of solution, making it nearly impossible to get even development in 1 minute. I'm not saying that it's a deal killer for me (yet), but it's certainly close. I can't imagine, however, that Michael and Paula won't take it very seriously and fix it.

Click to expand...

Jim,

I have no reason to believe the curl won't be fixed, but even if it weren't fixed it isn't the end of the world. I always start development by placing the paper in the developer emulsion down and flipping the paper over within 3-5 seconds. A glove on the other hand, and you can hold the edges under the developer. Extra H2O in the water bath tray solves the issue there, and by the time it gets to the fix tray, the curl is pretty much gone.

I have to believe folks (like you and me) who appreciate what a silver chloride paper has to offer, will step up and support Lodima. The curl, I can deal with. I just hope the final Grade 2 is closer to the old Rochester Grade 2 Azo in terms of contrast.

I'd rather have curly Lodima then no Lodima at all....

Copied from Azo forum.
Finally got a chance to try this stuff out. I mixed up 3l of MAS amidol for an 11x14 tray. I recommend that much, curl will be no problem. I started off with a calibrated step wedge. I have to recalibrate my densitometer then I can provide some numbers. I went through about 25 sheets, more than I would like to have but I think it was worth it. I had an exposure 6 seconds 100 watt bulb 38 inches distance, to get to minimum black with a .12 FB/F. Full development at one minute nothin' at all gained from 2 and three minute times other than paper brightness going away. At three minutes I could see what must be that illusive pink stain I hear people talk about. I would agree that a grade two even would be just right. I would rather have the current grade as my compliment to G2. G3 doesn't excite me. If I expose the paper to get Dmax thru FB/F and this paper only needs 6 seconds with a 100w bulb. Why are so many having such long times? I pulled out some negs that were in the also ran pile for whatever reasons. I tried some negs that would be considered condenser CI. Gave it the 6 to get black and the top fell in beautiful. The thinner neg developed for the full minute with no need at all for a snatch session. This has me taking a new look at the whole " get a bunch in the neg" attitude. I can see that I have been pounding on my negs WAY more than I need to for this paper. Since most of my negs keyed to carbon and new Azo 2, I was not suprised to see that most of my negs were to high in density range. I would say you could get a good print in a neg that was developed for scanning as per Sandy Kings article. That is why MAS says print everything. Bottom line, I would walk past ANY box of Azo and pick up this paper. If Azo hadn't went away we wouldn't have a better alternative. Thanks Michael.
PS:I forgot to say there was NO DIFFERENCE in step wedges developed at 68.6 and 57 degrees.

I ran some step wedges on this paper the other day. I read them with my densitometre and it indicated that the paper is a soft grade 2. I then counted the steps on the paper and I get about grade 2.5 . So, one has to decide which reading is more relevant, the densitometre reading or a visual check of counting the steps. Me thinks a visual check is more important as we look at prints with our eyes.
I printed a "normal" negative in Amidol and it printed beautifully. I tried the water bath on a contrasty negative and I found that 10 seconds in developer and remaining time in water (1 minute total between developer and water) worked very well.
A really nice paper with deep blacks and clean whites.
The curl was very annoying for my very simple contact printing setup. I understand that this will be corrected for future runs of this paper.
I never used Azo, so I have nothing to compare it with...but who cares? Nice paper that I can see using in the future.

This paper is a real pleasure to work with. Did some more printing yesterday. Using 25 watt bug lights in darkroom which makes determining of snatch point for water bath a breeze. Exposing with 75 watt R20 bulb, with times between 7.5 secs & 20 secs depending on neg. Developing in rather old PF130 for about 30-45 seconds (when blacks look good); then into a deep tray of water for another 2 mins. Examine print to see if any areas need further dev. If so, paint with developer on local area for another couple of mins. Prints have a nice touch of warmth. Looking forward to having paper in ULF sizes.

I have two 300R R40, 300 Watt lights I special ordered, it's what Michael recommended a couple of years ago to me. They were $25.70 each but should last a long time. I have the paper, it arrived just a day before Christmas eve so I will be giving it a go soon. From what others say they are using for light I may have to use my high ceiling.

Curt,

I'm using the same bulb. Don't worry about a high ceiling. Just use a dimmer switch.

I'm using the same bulb. Don't worry about a high ceiling. Just use a dimmer switch.

Click to expand...

That sounds good, I'll do just that. Thanks

curt,
I'm using a 100 watt bulb

I am glad I have a vacuum frame, I think the curl could be a problem with plate glass alone. Look forward to 20 x 24 and G3 especially in the larger size. BTW I use 45 watt reflector for most of my printing. I also have 300 watt for overdeveloped negs. You would be surprised the change in watts changes output very little. The 300 watt reflectors are expensive. I'll use the 45 watt up to about 60 seconds. I like the longer times for dodge and burn.

I guess it's time to share my experience- this stuff is GREAT! I found mixing the amidol no problem (even fun- chemistry class all over again!), but the filtering was tedious (I have the Chinese stuff). Worth it though! Once I got going with the printing (which ended up being a 10 hour session), I felt quite liberated from the confines of my regular printing workflow of careful temperature control of developer (never deviating from 68F), split contrast printing, f/stop timers, etc etc. I don't know how, but I got lucky with how I set everything up. I put a 300 watt bulb in, about 3 feet or so from the printing frame and was getting nice long, workable exposures to allow dodging (about 60-70 sec). The developer was used at room temp (about 65F) and never checked again all day.

I did 3 negatives- I used the metronome and outflanking techniques and I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised with how successful I was. 3 negs to my level of "fine art" competance in 1 day with a completely new system, developer and paper is pretty impressive. I must say though, I could have done 5 negs I'm sure, if it wasn't for that damnable curl to the paper...... It made centering the 5x7 neg on the full paper quite difficult. I eventually got a system were I averaged 8-10 minutes a print, but without perfect centering- close enough for matting though. I just used 2 hands in the developer, so the curl was not an issue there. The black floaties were there in the fix and wash, but were no problem to remove. As I was printing 5x7 negs on the 8x10 paper, the edge damage doesn't bother me, but I don't think I'd appreciate it if I had 8x10 negs. It took *a lot* of washing, fixing, and more washing to get all of the amidol yellow out of the paper though.

I definitely agree that this is a grade 3 paper. I started the session with my standard /reference "N" neg that prints nicely on grade 2 Ilford MGIV and with Ziatype. It ended up needing 10sec amidol and 50sec water bath. That was a bit of guess-work, having never done a water bath before! Having the developer a little cooler probably helped too. I definitely cannot see *anything* going on in that dark cherry developer to know when to pull it for the water bath! I just tried 30sec/30sec then 15/45 and decided 10/50 would probably be the best I'd get and went for it. Still lost some shadow detail in areas that went straight to black, but generally, I like the outcome- it compares very closely to my best version of this neg when printed to a higher contrast (grade 3) to add some punch on MGIV. The only thing I wasn't fond of was that it took on a bit of a greenish cast, even compared to the 30/30 print. This seemed to straighten out somewhat after Selenium toning and drying. A grade 2 or even 2 1/2 would probably have look better though. The next 2 negs seem to print nicest on grade 3 MGIV with the aid of some dodging. They turned out bang- on. I have yet to try some negs that print straight at grade 3- I have some nice ones that will be a good final test of this paper's "true grade" in my hands.

If this is an equivalent to AZO (which I've never used), I can't for the life of me understand why there are so many recommendations to developer AZO negs to a higher contrast- if anything I needed an "N-1" neg for this paper, making this "N" neg appropriate for a Grade 2 Lodima. An "N+1" neg would not print on this current stuff at all well.... Maybe I'm missing something- much more experienced people than I are saying "higher contrast negs are the way to go for AZO". I'm glad this is not the case for me with Lodima- once the true grade 2 comes out, I will be able to use the same neg for MGIV, Ziatype and Lodima- very convenient and less $.

Overall, I definitley give this paper 2 thumbs up, and hope to see a grade 2 introduced as well (but not lose this grade 3, as I do often print at grade 3). I'm not sure if it outperforms MGIV FB in all instances, but I find it's warmer color to be pleasing and it seems to give me better mid-tone seperation and detail, more glowing highlights, and maybe even more apparent sharpness. The loss of shadow detail is probably do to its higher grade, and I imagine the true grade 2 would solve this for me. When that happens, I'll be hard- pressed to think of a reason to contact print on MGIV, unless it's a negative that really needs split- filter printing and can't be salvaged in water bath.

Interesting note (I think so, anyway): the last 2 negs I worked with that print at grade 3 haven't been touched for over a year, and when I compared the prints side by side, I printed them to the identical exposure and contrast- I came to the exact same printing decisions and results with a completely new system after having not printed the originals for many months. I wonder what that means..... Either I've looked at the prints alot over the last year, I have a very certain vision in my mind for these 2 negs, or I may actually finally know what I'm doing ( a little bit ;-P)!

Tim

timbo10ca said:

If this is an equivalent to AZO

Click to expand...

It is in no way equivalent to any Azo paper. Unless the production run is radically different I will have to adjust my printing process somewhat.

Since I have some Azo left, it makes a difference to me. But for anyone who cannot obtain any Azo, why in the world would you care how Lodima compares?

BTW, 10 secs in amidol and 50 sec water bath has always produced horrendous mottling in the midtones for me. You might want to back off on the exposure if your shadows are developing out that dense.

c6h6o3 said:

It is in no way equivalent to any Azo paper. Unless the production run is radically different I will have to adjust my printing process somewhat.

Since I have some Azo left, it makes a difference to me. But for anyone who cannot obtain any Azo, why in the world would you care how Lodima compares?

BTW, 10 secs in amidol and 50 sec water bath has always produced horrendous mottling in the midtones for me. You might want to back off on the exposure if your shadows are developing out that dense.

Click to expand...

The only reason I cared is because I thought it was a "replacement" that required similarly developed negatives to AZO, allowing AZO users to use their old negatives with ease. Now I don't have to worry about the waste of shooting multiple negatives of a scene (that may be rapidly changing) for the 3 different printing mediums I use.

I will experiment as you suggest with exposure, but my understanding is that if there isn't enough exposure to get the highlight detail on the paper, no amount of development will bring them out. As it is, the highs and mids look right on. I did a test strip based on the highlights, the opposite as what I'd do for exposing the negative- should I be doing a test strip for the shadows and hope the highlights come in? I've never used graded paper and used split contrast printing to get my highs and lows correct in the past. The lack of mottling may be due to the scene itself, or pure luck on my part. The regions of midtone may be too small in area to show obvious mottling- I'll take a closer look.

Thanks,
Tim

They're trying to make it a replacement for Azo. Only time will tell how well they've succeeded. I find it to be at least 3 stops faster than Azo and very difficult to control with many of my negatives because of the < 5 beat exposures (and I use a cadence of 100 beats / minute). Negatives that print on Azo Grade 3 @ 20 to 30 seconds exposure are overexposed at 5 seconds with Lodima. The denser ones that I print on Azo grade 2 (Canadian) do better. If you're not getting mottling with such a small developer/water bath ratio, I'm amazed. What's your secret?

c6h6o3 said:

They're trying to make it a replacement for Azo. Only time will tell how well they've succeeded. I find it to be at least 3 stops faster than Azo and very difficult to control with many of my negatives because of the < 5 beat exposures (and I use a cadence of 100 beats / minute). Negatives that print on Azo Grade 3 @ 20 to 30 seconds exposure are overexposed at 5 seconds with Lodima. The denser ones that I print on Azo grade 2 (Canadian) do better. If you're not getting mottling with such a small developer/water bath ratio, I'm amazed. What's your secret?

Click to expand...

Probably beginner's luck and pure ignorance

I'm a bit confused at what you're finding. I would think that if Lodima is faster, that would indicate you'd want a more dense negative than that used for AZO. You've shown this to be true when you print the denser negs. This would imply the opposite of what I'm concluding- if I had any more dense negs, my exposure times would be far too long. I have no AZO experience to correlate my Lodima findings to, which is unfortunate but we seem to be coming to exact opposite conclusions (if my way of thinking is correct). I have a hard time believing there's something wrong with my negative exposure and development system because it has proven itself accurate to me, most especially with this test neg I've used.

What developer are you using? My "N" test neg was developed in Pyrocat HD, as was one of my negs that prints nicely at grade 3 on MGIV- apparently they take much longer exposure times due to the stain. The other neg that prints at grade 3 was one of the very 1st negs I ever made, developed with Ilfosol S. My light meter was way out of calibration and the neg ended up being bulletproof, which is probably why it is taking the same exposure time as my Pyrocat developed neg.

Like I said, I can't explain my apparent success, but I may find that as I shoot and print more negatives, things may start to fall apart for me. It will be a while before I can confidently say that my system is sound because I had many problems for the first couple years with film testing because I was unknowingly working with that damned light meter that was totally out of whack. It has been reliable for me over the past year though..... The positive thing I got out of this paper and developer was that it was no more difficult to use than the MGIV if the neg was appropriate for the grade. In such cases, it gave a more pleasing print to my eye. I think in the future I will likely have to test print a neg on MGIV to see how it behaves, then move it to the Lodima.

Tim

timbo10ca said:

What developer are you using? My "N" test neg was developed in Pyrocat HD, as was one of my negs that prints nicely at grade 3 on MGIV- apparently they take much longer exposure times due to the stain.

Click to expand...

The developer makes all the difference. My best Azo prints are printed from negatives developed in Harvey's and they're unprintable on Lodima. Pyrocat negatives need much longer exposure times, which leads me to conclude that Azo and Lodima have very different spectral sensitivities. However, I've never been able to get quite the glow I like with Pyrocat. I've always reserved its use for semi-stand negatives, which I don't do very often.

timbo10ca said:

I have a hard time believing there's something wrong with my negative exposure and development system because it has proven itself accurate to me, most especially with this test neg I've used.

Click to expand...

There's never anything wrong with exposure or development that gets you the prints you want.

Michael announced the Large Lodima Order. Details are on the Azo forum.

I will be making announcement about taking orders for Lodima Fine Art paper as soon as we work a few bugs out on the announcement page and on the shopping cart. If you all could wait a couple o days before discussing this, I would sure appreciate it.

I will start a new thread for the announcement.

We are also about to become sponsors here on APUG. We have been wanting to do that for a long time, and to offer special things to APUG members, but we just have to work out the bugs first and those things take us way too long, since we are not savvy about HTML and how web sites are constructed.

Many thanks for your consideration.

Michael A. Smith

Michael, Did order #192 fail? it did appear to go through since i got the confirming email.
Thanks.