Lodima Fine Art Paper ready to take orders

jgjbowen said:

You have to search for this on the Azo forum, but if you place an order for $5,000 of Lodima, you can pick out one of Paula's prints from the Azo portfolio. Should you order $10,000 you can pick one of Paula's prints AND one of Michael's Azo portfolio prints. I placed a large order yesterday and hope more will follow suit. Let's make this happen!

Click to expand...

I am sending Michael a fairly large check tomorrow. I am having a fabulous time with Lodima and hope and pray that others will step up to the plate and make their order. I am making my sizable order in spite of the fact that I have a considerable stockpile of old Azo paper to work through. My point is that an opportunity to support such a unique product in a diminishing marketplace only comes along once in a very long time. Need I remind everyone that Centennial Printing Out Paper recently went into the gone forever category like so many other conventional papers and films. We cannot let this happen with Lodima.

Please do what you can. The paper is absolutely but you already know that...

Cheers!

I'm like you Michael. I have a very large stockile of Azo, but it is mostly the Canadian Grade 2 Azo in 8x10. I have a couple boxes of the Old Rochester Grade 2 (god, I hope the grade 2 Lodima is close to this paper) and a couple boxes of Grade 3 Canadian Azo. My problem is that since 2005, I have added 7x17 to my formats. While I have been able to acquire a few boxes of 20x24 grade 3 and two boxes of the old Rochester grade 2 in 20x24, I am far short of a lifetime supply of paper large enough to print 7x17 negatives. If we as a community don't support this effort then we have no one to blame but ourselves. So I took an inventory of what I had on hand and placed an order for what I believe will be more than a lifetime supply of Lodima in 8x20 and a couple boxes in 8x10. There are many factors that could make this a once in a lifetime opportunity and since Lodima is expected to keep for many, many years (as opposed to the much shorter shelf life of most other papers) I decided that I should take advantage of this offer while it lasted.

Many thanks to all who support this effort.

I have two box of Azo in 8x10 grade 2 and 3 Canadian, and as jgjbowen I added a 8x20 camera, so the problem with me is to take pictures and don't print my 8x20,because I didn't find box of 20x24 Azo paper. Now I'm very happy to Lodima, and I've just put my order in 8x10 and 8x20 big enough,even if I'm seriously thinking to increase my order.

Stefano

photo8x10 said:

I have two box of Azo in 8x10 grade 2 and 3 Canadian, and as jgjbowen I added a 8x20 camera, so the problem with me is to take pictures and don't print my 8x20,because I didn't find box of 20x24 Azo paper. Now I'm very happy to Lodima, and I've just put my order in 8x10 and 8x20 big enough,even if I'm seriously thinking to increase my order.

Stefano

Click to expand...

Bravo Stefano!

I am also a fellow 8x20 shooter. In addition to making your purchase we also need to encourage our fellow LF shooters see the possibilities with Lodima. Spending even a few minutes with a fellow photographer can have a very positive effect if they pass it along. The continuation of Lodima is not a given unless M&P get sufficient interest in the form of orders.

Hi Michael,
I've just done a good campain of encouragement on LF shooters in Italy, and I convinced some to put their order, I hope to give more the first of May when I'm going to have a little workshop(after lots of year I come back to teach) about contact print on silver-chloride paper, using Azo and Lodima, luckely I have a box of the run test, I hope that this little thing help to improve the knwolegde of this paper, especially here in Italy where this kind of paper is not well know.

Stefano

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. While I applaud people for resurrecting emulsions that have gone away, the elitism I see in this thread is just pure unfounded snobbery. I'll stick with my enlarging papers for now until those who can buy 3k or 5k worth of the new paper to beta test lodima so the manufacturers can iron out the wrinkles. I'll continue to make inferior prints on mature and proven emulsions in the meantime. Each to their own I guess.

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

Andrew;

I think that if one does a careful analysis, one will find two benefits from Azo paper types.

1. Contact printing from LF negs is ever so much better than enlarging anything.
2. Azo type contact papers have a very soft toe and soft shoulder that enhances the shadow and highlight detail. Of course, not all varieties of contact papers, developers and etc... reveal or contain these latter characteristics. This is why we must rely on expert judgment.

PE

The way I've described it is--it's not so much that the paper is more beautiful than enlarging papers, but an Azo type paper or the new Lodima paper, which I've tested, makes it possible to use a longer scale neg (about one zone more contrast) with more detail, and to render that detail easily on the print. I have negs that print well on enlarging papers and make similar prints on Azo, but I have negs targeted to Azo that make excellent prints on Azo that couldn't be made easily on enlarging papers.

Andrew Moxom said:

......... I'll stick with my enlarging papers for now until those who can buy 3k or 5k worth of the new paper to beta test lodima so the manufacturers can iron out the wrinkles. I'll continue to make inferior prints on mature and proven emulsions in the meantime. Each to their own I guess.

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

Click to expand...

Well said Andrew, and I do understand your point. Everyone has something to sell, and the hype is just part of the sales pitch. It is so easy to be swept up in the moment and the threat of if you don't buy, you will forever be full of regret. Ever heard the line from a salesman that goes something like, "you can not afford not to take advantage of this, and now!"

All fine and good, but I have an even greater concern about Lodima paper. I posted my questions in a similar discussion over on the LF Site. Below is my first post there.

B. Dalton

>>>>>>
Not to throw cold water on a hot iron, but has anyone addressed the issue as to the warranty this new paper may carry? I would certainly be interested in trying any new paper, but I would never venture more than one box to begin with. Buying $5-10K worth of an unproven paper is way beyond a risk that I would undertake without some guarantee, in writing, as to the long-term storage of such a product.

Does anyone know the keeping properties of Lodima? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that Kodak Azo was one, if not the only, silver chloride paper that had good keeping properties. It is well proven that Azo keeps very well for over forty years, but what guarantee as to keeping properties do you get with Lodima? I have not seen any guarantee?

This is a completely new product, with untested and unproven keeping properties. What happens if my $10K stock of Lodima should go bad after a few years in storage? Do I get a refund? Do I get replacement paper? Or, am I just out of luck? There are far too many unanswered questions to risk a large sum of money without some sort of understand as to who stands behind the product and what the terms are in case something goes wrong. Just something to consider. I would certainly be interested in purchasing one box of 8x10 to test. I will not be sending $10k!
>>>>>>

Symmar man, Do you think Ilford will refund your money if your paper stock goes bad after 5 or 10 years after purchase?
If you don't want to comit to the Lodima paper fine but then you probably wouldn't know the difference either.

I would certainly be interested in purchasing one box of 8x10 to test. I will not be sending $10k!

Click to expand...

So why did you not buy a box when it was available for testing? It is of course easier to throw your sour grapes now that you can't get a box.

Just placed my order for 5 boxes of 100. As far as I could see you can order as little as one box of a 100 sheets. You certainly don't have to spend 5k or 10k to try Lodima.
Roger

JLP said:

Symmar man, Do you think Ilford will refund your money if your paper stock goes bad after 5 or 10 years after purchase?
If you don't want to comit to the Lodima paper fine but then you probably wouldn't know the difference either.


So why did you not buy a box when it was available for testing? It is of course easier to throw your sour grapes now that you can't get a box.

Click to expand...

Well said Jan.

I had a chance to speak to the manufacturer when the paper was being developed and their advance age testing showed that the paper was good for at least 10 years but those that would not step up to the plate for trying this paper are already convinced that they are not interested. I have printed on 30 year old silver chloride paper and it is as good as the day it was produced. I had some conventional enlarging paper that was shot a year after I bought it. Go figure.

I remember reading a long time ago in the Adams photo series that Contact printing always had a natural leg up on projection printing visually and employing the laws of physics. Once I opened up my eyes to contact printing I could not make another enlargement and that was over five years ago.

If you don't want to make an order don't. What we don't need is negativity in this post and we sure as hell are not going to waste our time with you on this subject. I sent my check for several thousand dollars for this paper and an happy as hell that I have the opportunity to do so. At the end of the day I hope that the large order goes through because I will in a select group of people that have the opportunity to enjoy it. It is a truly a marvelous product and will only get better.

Fortunately I learned a long time ago that nothing in life of any real value is ever attained by thinking small.

Cheers!

Seeing is believing. Some time ago gave away a box of Canadian AZO because not impressed. Briefly working with Lodima paper has changed my focus. It may not be a magic bullet for all negs, but it sure comes close. Paula Chamlee said its easy as a printer to get bright whites and deep blacks, but what is difficult is the tones in between. This paper makes that goal more achievable. Placed a modest order yesterday, and looking forward to printing my ULF negatives with Lodima.

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. While I applaud people for resurrecting emulsions that have gone away, the elitism I see in this thread is just pure unfounded snobbery. I'll stick with my enlarging papers for now until those who can buy 3k or 5k worth of the new paper to beta test lodima so the manufacturers can iron out the wrinkles. I'll continue to make inferior prints on mature and proven emulsions in the meantime. Each to their own I guess."

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. If you have, and have not achieved superior results, then perhaps you did not know how to print on this paper. While printing is printing and most things are basically the same, printing on silver chloride paper differs in that 1) conventional print developers (Dektol and others) do not give pleasing tones, and 2) developing times are significantly shorter than with enlarging papers (except for the "Canadian" Grade 2 Azo, which doesn't count here).

In my first article about silver chloride papers, published in View Camera in 1996, i mentioned that from time to time over a number of years, I had tried printing on silver chloride paper, but could never make a good print from it. I knew my prints on enlarging paper, which were good prints to most eyes (they were collected in many museums and by many collectors), were lacking something--but I did not know what they were lacking. In 1975, when I met Dody Thompson, Edward Weston's last assistant and she looked at my photographs, she said that while my prints were indeed fine prints, something was missing. She then proceeded to get out and show me about 100 of Edward Weston's prints. Putting them side by side with my prints, it was obvious that something was missing in my prints, and I knew that the only thing it could be was silver chloride paper, of which then, there were only two still being manufactured: Azo and Velox. I tried them both again (I had tried them previously from time to time, but could not get a good print from them, not knowing I needed shorter developing times), did not like the blue color of Velox and decided to print on Azo. Eventually, some years later, I reprinted all of my negatives that had been printed on enlarging paper onto Azo. The difference was astonishing. Not only was were the Azo prints more beautiful--longer scale, deeper blacks, but because of the long scale of the Azo paper only about 20% of the dodging and burning was necessary. The prints were better, and easier to print. I did not, and still do not, see anything wrong with that. One comment I received a long time ago was from someone who said that printing on Azo made him feel guilty, because it was so easy.

In my experience (I grant you, maybe it is not wide enough), in every case where I have seen a print from the same negative made on enlarging paper and on silver chloride paper, the silver chloride paper is more beautiful. It is richer tones, deeper blacks, and more subtle grays (more separation ion the mid grays). And those whose prints they are agree with this assessment.

This is no "Beta Test." I have been testing new silver chloride emulsions for well over five years. The "pre-production" run we had last year could be considered the Beta Test. Everyone who ordered the paper received no more than one box. But this large run is not a Beta Test,

Now, we are ready to make the largelrun of paper. (I will first be testing a proper grade 2 first. The pre-production run was a grade 3, although it was billed as a grade 2. We will have a proper grade 2.) We need lots of order of the paper to us is high in any case as the manufacturer needs to recover their R&D costs). If I had the money I would put the entire sum up myself, but I do not. So we need lots of orders.

In closing, if you make contact prints and want to keep printing on enlarging paper, just do so, but please, if you do not know what you are talking about, keep your absurd accusations of "unfounded snobbery" to yourself.

Michael A. Smith

To quote B. Dalton:
"Not to throw cold water on a hot iron, but has anyone addressed the issue as to the warranty this new paper may carry? I would certainly be interested in trying any new paper, but I would never venture more than one box to begin with. Buying $5-10K worth of an unproven paper is way beyond a risk that I would undertake without some guarantee, in writing, as to the long-term storage of such a product.

"Does anyone know the keeping properties of Lodima? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that Kodak Azo was one, if not the only, silver chloride paper that had good keeping properties. It is well proven that Azo keeps very well for over forty years, but what guarantee as to keeping properties do you get with Lodima? I have not seen any guarantee?

"This is a completely new product, with untested and unproven keeping properties. What happens if my $10K stock of Lodima should go bad after a few years in storage? Do I get a refund? Do I get replacement paper? Or, am I just out of luck? There are far too many unanswered questions to risk a large sum of money without some sort of understand as to who stands behind the product and what the terms are in case something goes wrong. Just something to consider. I would certainly be interested in purchasing one box of 8x10 to test. I will not be sending $10k!"

I am puzzled why some people post this kind of stuff without first asking me, the distributor for the manufacturer, the questions he raises.

The manufacturer has tested the paper for keeping properties and has told me that it should keep for 10 years at a minimum. He said it should keep longer, but would not guarantee that. Now what does that guarantee mean? Will I get money back if the paper goes bad in five years or in nine years? No. Some things you have to take on trust.

The paper is a silver chloride paper. All silver chloride papers, because they are slow papers compared to enlarging papers, last a long time. We have printed on silver chloride paper that is now 90 years old. There is some slight fog, but the prints are beautiful. Papers from 70 years ago (a number of brands--not just Azo) also show slight fog, but also gives beautiful prints. Paper from 40 years ago is perfect with no fog, but does have a slight lessening of contrast. Slight.

The Lodima paper: Will it last a long time? Probably it will, as it is a silver chloride paper. The paper is warranted against defects the same as Kodak warranted their paper. The last batches of Azo had an expiration date on it of a year after manufacture. That meant nothing except, I imagine, that Kodak would guarantee the paper for that amount of time. That paper is now three to five years out of date. The paper is still perfect.

If you get one box of paper and you like it, what will that tell you about its long-tern keeping properties? Nothing. Unless you don't use the paper for over ten years. You can wait ten years to see how the paper ages before purchasing any more, and I hope in ten years we will still be able to have it made, but can we absolutely count on that? I would sooner count on the paper lasting over ten years.

Michael A. Smith

Michael A. Smith said:

While printing is printing and most things are basically the same, printing on silver chloride paper differs in that 1) conventional print developers (Dektol and others) do not give pleasing tones, and 2) developing times are significantly shorter than with enlarging papers (except for the "Canadian" Grade 2 Azo, which doesn't count here).

Click to expand...

Point 1 is false as what developer and paper gives "pleasing tones" is a rather subjective thing. What pleases you, or me, may not please everyone.

Point 2 - so what difference does that make?

Michael A. Smith said:

Putting them side by side with my prints, it was obvious that something was missing in my prints, and I knew that the only thing it could be was silver chloride paper, of which then, there were only two still being manufactured: Azo and Velox.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was the difference in the negs?

Michael A. Smith said:

Not only was were the Azo prints more beautiful--longer scale, deeper blacks, but because of the long scale of the Azo paper only about 20% of the dodging and burning was necessary.

Click to expand...

Many current enlarging papers have a greater Dmax than Azo does. I understand that Lodima has a greater Dmax than Azo did as well. Congratulations on that.

And "longer scale" - can you explain what you mean here? Do you mean low contrast, as in ISO contrast grade?

Anyway, please feel free to discount my comments as I've never printed on Azo. I find enlargments suit my preferences much more than contact prints. As David Vestal says in the current issue of Photo Techniques, "It is possible to make good large prints of photos that can stand it. Some even gain by it. See the work of Ansel Adams for many good examples."

Maybe I'm being naive, but I honestly do not understand why some people are adding their comments on this thread. If you've never printed on AZO or Lodima, and have no intention to do so, how are your comments adding to the discourse? If there is a thread on, let's say, whats the best paper for Platinum printing; and I added comments like never printed platinum & never will because I prefer enlarging paper - I might be considered, at best, rude & unhelpful. Sorry for the rant.

Negatives for Azo

David A. Goldfarb said:

The way I've described it is--it's not so much that the paper is more beautiful than enlarging papers, but an Azo type paper or the new Lodima paper, which I've tested, makes it possible to use a longer scale neg (about one zone more contrast) with more detail, and to render that detail easily on the print. I have negs that print well on enlarging papers and make similar prints on Azo, but I have negs targeted to Azo that make excellent prints on Azo that couldn't be made easily on enlarging papers.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the interesting information about printing on Azo David. For those of us who lack the experience and expertise of many experienced analog photographers here, I wonder if you might be just a bit more specific about those negatives that you find will yield better results on Azo paper. Thus, when you say more contrast in a given negative prints better on Azo paper, can I take such to mean that the negative is more "dense" than negatives that you might use for more conventional enlarging? What does one see in a negative that has "more contrast" vs. what one might see in a negative that is correctly exposed and correctly developed for conventional silver enlarging? Will you develop your negatives meant for Azo printing for a longer time in order to increase the density? Does more contrast usually "translate" into longer development for a given exposure, or does one also "overexpose" ( vs. exposure for "routine" silver enlarging and contact printing ) in order to get more details in both the shadows and the highlights realizing that such details in the shadows AND the highlights will print on Azo?

Sorry to ask a rather rudimentary question, but the question of what constitutes "more contrast" in a negative, and how to "get" such, has always been just a bit confusing to me.

Ed

Kirk Keyes said:

Point 1 is false as what developer and paper gives "pleasing tones" is a rather subjective thing. What pleases you, or me, may not please everyone.

Point 2 - so what difference does that make?



Maybe it was the difference in the negs?




Many current enlarging papers have a greater Dmax than Azo does. I understand that Lodima has a greater Dmax than Azo did as well. Congratulations on that.

And "longer scale" - can you explain what you mean here? Do you mean low contrast, as in ISO contrast grade?

Anyway, please feel free to discount my comments as I've never printed on Azo. I find enlargments suit my preferences much more than contact prints. As David Vestal says in the current issue of Photo Techniques, "It is possible to make good large prints of photos that can stand it. Some even gain by it. See the work of Ansel Adams for many good examples."

Click to expand...

I have seen numerous Ansel Adams prints at the museum here in Denver at several elaborate showings and at the Sante Fe gallery and at other places around the country have had the time to get up close and personal with them. Similarly over the last several years I have seen many prints by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee and I will tell you straight up that M&P's prints are richer more expressive when it comes to sharpness and tonality (leaving the esthetics out of this discussion) than the Adams prints. This is not an adverse condition for the AA prints because they are really excellent but there is a significant visual difference that is qualifiable with little effort. They are simply marvelous with a capital M. If you have not seen these prints in person you really have no reference point to draw upon and therefore this discussion becomes emotional and you are confronted by this discussion. Attempting to qualify this differential with technical information or numbers are meaningless because the argument will continue to be disputed over obscure details when at the end of the day all you have to do is to look at them with an open mind. The difference will astound you. Just ask anyone that has taken their seminar.

Cheers!

Michael Kadillak said:

I have seen numerous Ansel Adams prints... and I will tell you straight up that M&P's prints are richer more expressive when it comes to sharpness and tonality (leaving the esthetics out of this discussion) than the Adams prints. ....

Cheers!

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Michael Kadillak. I first saw M&P's prints in Denver a year or so ago, at the Camera Obscura Gallery. The print quality is simply stunning; I'm talking about PRINT quality. (The photographic quality is also excellent IMHO.)

Shortly thereafter I made my first AZO "fine art" print. It just blew me away; I haven't made an enlargment since. So, if anyone wants to buy a Bessler 810VXL enlarger and pick it up in Colorado Springs, let me know.....

I've never met M&P but have corresponded with them, and they've always been friendly; not snobs.

EASmithV said:

What happens to Lodima if I dev in Dektol?

Click to expand...

hi just to answer your questions since they got kind of lost in the mix
lodima and azo are contact printing papers .
they are usually used by putting a negative in contact with the paper, no enlargement. you can use a flood light to expose the paper, like a 300watt bulb. these papers are very slow, maybe 10x slower than normal enlarging papers.

you can process the prints in dektol if you want, i have, and ansco 130 or a handful of other developers. amidol is what people suggest because they get
better control and tonality of the print-tone ( and black fingernails ).

it is nice to hear that lodima is getting off the ground, this is good news.

i hope it is around when i run out of what i am using, i can't afford to buy more paper these days.
i am looking forward to it though, i loved making photograms with azo and i am sure lodima will
make nice photograms as well.

Tim Boehm said:

I have to agree with Michael Kadillak. I first saw M&P's prints in Denver a year or so ago, at the Camera Obscura Gallery. The print quality is simply stunning; I'm talking about PRINT quality. (The photographic quality is also excellent IMHO.)

Shortly thereafter I made my first AZO "fine art" print. It just blew me away; I haven't made an enlargment since. So, if anyone wants to buy a Bessler 810VXL enlarger and pick it up in Colorado Springs, let me know.....

I've never met M&P but have corresponded with them, and they've always been friendly; not snobs.

Click to expand...

I hear what are saying Tim. I have a really marvelous like new Durst 10x10 184 and a Durst 138 5x7 enlarger in my basement that have been collecting dust in my basement for five years now here in Aurora Colorado (outside of Denver) with 10 enlarging lenses after my first experience viewing Michael and Paula's prints. Nothing has had more of a profound affect on how I view photography since that momentous occasion. If anyone wants a smoking deal on some enlargers let me know. Make you a hell of a deal on one or both. All it takes is one viewing and you will be hooked as well.

Cheers!

Well Kirk, since you have never printed on silver chloride paper your comments really are meaningless. However, I have a difficult time, as you may have noticed, letting slights and ridiculous comments pass without comment.

"Pleasing tone." Sure it is subjective. But when 99% of respondents find one thing more pleasing than another, it probably is. All art is subjective, but over time there is a consensus about what is great and deep and lasting and what isn't. Not everyone will agree with the consensus, but that does not give the minority opinion, which is generally uninformed, any validity (except, of course, to the person who has that minority opinion). If you have printed on silver chloride paper, and developed prints of the same negative on Amidol and in Dektol and compared the prints and honestly thought the tones in the Dektol print were more pleasing to you, then your comment about pleasing tones would have some validity. But as it is, your comment is less than meaningless.

"What difference does it make," regarding shorter developing times. I was trying, unsuccessfully it appears, to explain why someone using silver chloride paper for the first time might not get great results. It could come from not understanding that the developing time for silver chloride paper is different than the developing time for enlarging paper.

"Maybe it was the difference in the negatives." No, when later I printed the same negatives on Azo, hundreds of them, that had been printed on enlarging paper, and showed them to Dody and we once again compared the print quality to Edward Weston's prints, they more or less matched, as opposed to the first time, when my prints were clearly inferior.

"What do you mean by longer scale? What I mean is that there is more separation in the mid-tones. Just more steps. With enlarging papers, the mid-tones seem to compress. I am commenting from what I see when I look at prints, not from what I measure as I do not own a densitometer (and never have). When the same negative is printed on enlarging paper and on silver chloride paper and the prints are placed side by side, in almost every case, the print on silver chloride paper has more "glow" and "presence" to it. Why? It appears that the mid-tones just separate more and sing instead of speak. I am not talking about brighter whites or blacker blacks. It is in the mid tones.

Kodak got behind Azo when they sent me some Polymax Fine Art and I made a print on it where the Zone 5 tones matched the zone 5 tones on an Azo print. Those at Kodak were blown away, and rescinded their discontinuation of Azo.

Big Ansel Adams prints: I do not trust, Kirk, your ability to judge print quality. Many years ago, back around 1970, there was a major Adams retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Most of the prints were large ones. I was shocked at how terrible the tones were. Yes, that had very deep blacks, but the large prints just had no life to them. Then I noticed a hallway in a balcony where there was a row of his contact prints. I was blown away. I do not believe I have ever seen any prints more beautiful than those contact prints.

Adams himself wrote in his book "Examples" when discussing the photograph, Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain, "Many years ago I made a print of this negative on a contact paper that, when fully toned in selenium, had a marvelous color. It is one of the most satisfactory prints I have ever made, and I have not been able to duplicate it with contemporary enlarging papers. The paper I used might have been Agfa Convira or Kodak Azo. Both were coated with silver-chloride emulsions . . ."

Michael A. Smith

Mahler_one said:

Thanks for the interesting information about printing on Azo David. For those of us who lack the experience and expertise of many experienced analog photographers here, I wonder if you might be just a bit more specific about those negatives that you find will yield better results on Azo paper. Thus, when you say more contrast in a given negative prints better on Azo paper, can I take such to mean that the negative is more "dense" than negatives that you might use for more conventional enlarging? What does one see in a negative that has "more contrast" vs. what one might see in a negative that is correctly exposed and correctly developed for conventional silver enlarging? Will you develop your negatives meant for Azo printing for a longer time in order to increase the density? Does more contrast usually "translate" into longer development for a given exposure, or does one also "overexpose" ( vs. exposure for "routine" silver enlarging and contact printing ) in order to get more details in both the shadows and the highlights realizing that such details in the shadows AND the highlights will print on Azo?

Sorry to ask a rather rudimentary question, but the question of what constitutes "more contrast" in a negative, and how to "get" such, has always been just a bit confusing to me.

Ed

Click to expand...

I think you've got it. When I'm making a negative for Azo, I develop for a longer time than I would develop for a typical grade 2 enlarging paper. In zone system terms, my "N" development time for negs targeted for Azo is usually about my "+1" time for negs targeted for enlarging papers, so the highlights on the neg will have more density, and there will be better separation in the midtones and highlights on the neg, and that separation will register clearly on the print.