Lodima Fine Art Paper ready to take orders

[Kirk Keyes]

Make sure it is analytical grade sodium chloride! Any iodized salt will retard development!

PE

Hey, I was just about to type that!!

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I just don't get it. Someone is going out on a limb to produce a NEW silver product. Why in the hell are people who don't use it and don't plan to use it crapping all over this thread?

What if someone else were to resurrect POP? Would that be an offense to people using enlarging paper, too?

How about platinum, that's not enlarging paper. No one seems to be bitching about people printing in that medium. This is just incredible to me.... Yeah, yeah, I know... public forum... I can be as obnoxious as I want to be, right?

 

[doughowk]

I just don't get it. Someone is going out on a limb to produce a NEW silver product. Why in the hell are people who don't use it and don't plan to use it crapping all over this thread?

What if someone else were to resurrect POP? Would that be an offense to people using enlarging paper, too?

How about platinum, that's not enlarging paper. No one seems to be bitching about people printing in that medium. This is just incredible to me.... Yeah, yeah, I know... public forum... I can be as obnoxious as I want to be, right?

Totally agree. If the thread title had been "lodima vs all other papers/methods", I could understand some of the comments. But the mere announcing of the availability of a paper seems to have attracted all who want to rain (or piss) on our parade. Its been quite a spectacle.

 

[skillian]

I never mentioned anything about special developers or the use of densitometers. I simply asked if it was preferable to develop films a bit longer than normal to produce a slightly higher contrast negative. What`s wrong with asking that?

Keith, I wasn't singling you or anyone else out, I was just observing (with tongue in cheek), that photographers are notoriously consumed with the facts and figures of print making rather than the gift of seeing. This board is a great help to many people who are trying to learn processes - myself included, I just think too much energy is spent on the technical aspects of aesthetics rather than the myriad of other things that make for good work.

Speaking of good work, I went to Akron last weekend and saw the Weston & Friedlander shows. As always, loved the Weston prints, but I was blown away by Friendlander's eye. His prints were nothing special from a technical standpoint, but it didn't matter to me because he has such a wonderful way of seeing. I see a lot of beautifully crafted, but generally boring prints. No matter how fine the tones are, a boring photograph is still boring to me. I walked out of that show pumped up to make some new work, not because of tones or sharpness or any of those things, but because of Friedlander's incredible seeing. Of course, when the two come together, it's a wonderful thing (which is why I still lug around an 8x10). But if I had to choose, I'd pick the seeing every time.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

I'll try my 2nd 'meaningless' post even though I've tried very hard to stay out of this thread as I am usually neutral in such instances. Context cannot be seen behind many of the postings that degenerate into the slanging matches I have seen on some forums. APUG is not like those that I have seen, and I do not believe this thread is unreasonable. People have questions regarding the claims that the Lodima product appears to have, and the claims of superiority to anything else out there. I don't think anyone here is knocking the very commendable people bringing back a very useable Silver Chloride paper. I think most of the outpouring of comments is based upon the underlying sense that if you don't contact print on Lodima, or AZO after using LF, ULF for you will not get good results over using regular enlargement paper or technology. It's a purely subjective thing and that's what I find distasteful is the implication that many respected and established photographers who do not produce contact printed work are thereby making inferior images on enlargement paper. Let alone those of you who use collodion!! I mean can azo resolve down to the molecular level?? Then there's platinum. The levity aspect here is clearly what is needed. No one medium is better than the other. Physics may place Azo/Lodima results to be more technically capable, but in the end they are processes and materials that allow us to express ourselves just like any other. As John Voss elegantly said "So that we See" That to me is the key piece here. VISION. Without it, most images will be inferior regardless of the materials and technique used to create it. Each to their own and peace out. I will certainly order some of this paper though just out of curiousity and contact print some 4x5 negs.

 

[John W]

Back to the original topic... Will any of the Lodima production run be available after the pre-order round? I'd love to take some Lodima out for a spin, but probably won't be in a position to buy any until around end of this year.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

To respond to Tom Bertilsson: I would like to make clear a few things. It seems that some have a very distorted view of who I am as a photographer.

I am as interested in other aspects of photography as I am in LF or ULF. There is nowhere that I have written about not having a deep respect and admiration for all kinds of photographs, made in all kinds of ways. I have knocked lousy platinum prints, but that is because most of them are not very good, but that has nothing to do with camera size or subject. It has to do with quality. I do care about quality.

One of my own strongest influences as a photographer is Cartier-Bresson. His "Introduction to the Decisive Moment" should be required reading for all photographers.

The Vision and Technique workshops that Paula and I teach, although we demonstrate with an 8x10 camera, are not format specific. We have had 35mm photographs take the workshop and have even had photographers who use only digital cameras take the workshop. And they have told us how valuable it was to them.

Many years ago, I was a juror of an one of those kinds of exhibition where folks submit work for an exhibition and for monetary prizes. The other juror was Judith Golden (who, if you do not know her work, is in color and is often highly manipulated). Contrary to what most folks expected, I selected very few of the large-format black and white prints that were submitted. Judith selected most of them, and I selected most of the color work and alternative process work.

And many more years ago than that, in the 1970s, I saw at a workshop where I was an instructor at the Friends of Photography, photographs by a young lady who showed me, with apologies (apologies that were unnecessary as it turned out), prints that had only about two or three zones of contrast in them. They were beautiful. She then showed me the same photographs, printed with a longer scale, as she tried to make "proper " pritns. They were terrible, and I told her so. The "flat" prints were the perfect prints for what she was photographing.

So, there are no rules. I understand that very well, thank you.

However, if one is attempting to make "traditional" black and white contact prints in the tradition of Weston, Adams, or Evans, and if one is concerned with making beautiful objects, then, to me (and to many, many others as well, though clearly not to all), prints on silver chloride paper have more glow and more presence to them. And they are not only different than the same photographs printed on enlarging paper, they are more beautiful. If they are printed correctly.

Now, you did not get more beautiful results on Azo when you tried it. Perhaps you did not know how to print on it. I know it took me several years to figure out how to print on Azo. One thing you wrote that you did was use Weston's Amidol formula. I'm not sure why, since it is absolutely not the right formula for any Azo made since the 1960s. It will not give you the quality that Azo is capable of. I believe the major reason that it took me so long to get it right was that I, too, was using Weston's Amidol formula. It took me a long time to figure out the correct formula. And I must add that I have seen many, many lousy prints on Azo. But it is not the paper's fault.

And ULF? WHo said ULF was necessary? I never did. In fact, I discourage people from using ULF cameras. 8x10 is generally good enough. Just recently, a friend sold an 11 x 14 in large part because of my recommendation.

Concerning "grab shots." One can do that with an 8x10, or even a larger camera, as I and Nick Nixon have amply demonstrated. (I think there are some of mine on our web site under "see images" from my book "A Visual Journey.") If one feels limited to static subjects because of the format, that is their choice. The format is not dictating it. And seeing with a LF or ULF camera is equally spontaneous as using a 35mm. It just depends on how you see with it--which is what the essence of the workshops Paula and I teach is about.

You wrote at the end: "If you show me your prints I will look at the content, expression, emotion, composition, gesture, and frame. You will have to remind me to look at the tonal values."
Actually, they all go together, as they do in any work of art in any medium. One looks at a work of art as a totality, and that includes the tonal qualities. In fact, in black and white photographs all you have are tones. That's it. The surface of any black and white photograph is ultimately nothing but a bunch of tones. So you don't have to be reminded to look at the tonal values. You are looking at them by default. If they don't register with you . . . well . . . I don't know what to say. How the tones are arranged, and printed, and what they express, ah, that's where the art comes in.

Don't neglect the "what they express." It is the "what they express" that makes for great, or good, or fair, or poor, art--as long as the first parts--how the tones are arranged and printed are done as fine as possible. Silver chloride paper is only about "how the tones are printed."

Michael A. Smith

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Andrew:

Send me your address via email (today) as I leave on a trip soon, and I will send you a few sheets of Lodima paper so you can see for yourself.

As I wrote immediately above, the seeing is the ultimate thing. (There I used the term "what the tones express.") The workshops that Paula and I teach: some attend because they "want to learn to print on Azo." As we make very clear at the start of the workshops, that is the least important part of our workshops, at least it is to us. The "seeing" we teach is what is important. And I might add, that from what we have seen from those who have taken our Vision and Technique workshop who have previously taken workshops with other photographers, is that in the other workshops, sure, they learn something and do get energized, but afterwards they do not necessarily make better seen (in their own terms, "better seen") photographs. After our workshops, in every instance where we have spoken with the participants, they always feel their photographs are now "better seen" (in their own terms, not ours). And we agree when we see their photographs.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Keith, I wasn't singling you or anyone else out, I was just observing (with tongue in cheek), that photographers are notoriously consumed with the facts and figures of print making rather than the gift of seeing. This board is a great help to many people who are trying to learn processes - myself included, I just think too much energy is spent on the technical aspects of aesthetics rather than the myriad of other things that make for good work.

Speaking of good work, I went to Akron last weekend and saw the Weston & Friedlander shows. As always, loved the Weston prints, but I was blown away by Friendlander's eye. His prints were nothing special from a technical standpoint, but it didn't matter to me because he has such a wonderful way of seeing. I see a lot of beautifully crafted, but generally boring prints. No matter how fine the tones are, a boring photograph is still boring to me. I walked out of that show pumped up to make some new work, not because of tones or sharpness or any of those things, but because of Friedlander's incredible seeing. Of course, when the two come together, it's a wonderful thing (which is why I still lug around an 8x10). But if I had to choose, I'd pick the seeing every time.

That`s OK Skillian. Lee Friedlander does have a good eye for making interesting photos and no umbrage taken.
Back on topic, I have never used Azo or any similar type of papers, but I have read something about them on this forum. I might try the Lodima paper one day, probably grade 2, just out of curiosity. It seems from Michael`s reply, that any normally exposed and processed films are fine for contacting on Lodima. For the modern films and developers part of my question, he suggested T-Max 400 and what ever film developer that is regularly used.

 

[deisenlord]

I have knocked lousy platinum prints, but that is because most of them are not very good....

Good grief, now "most" platinum prints are lousy along with silver enlargements.

I'm pretty much speechless.

 

[Trevor Crone]

SNIP; Speaking of good work, I went to Akron last weekend and saw the Weston & Friedlander shows. As always, loved the Weston prints, but I was blown away by Friendlander's eye.

One of my favourite photographs is a shot of Akron taken by Friedlander

 

[c6h6o3]

Ansel said that there is nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy subject.

I think what he said was "There's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept." He was wrong, though. A fuzzy picture of a fuzzy concept is far worse.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Speechless though you may be, too many platinum prints do not have rich tones. And people defend the weak prints by saying, "that is the platinum look." Back in the 1960s, I think it was, Laura Gilpin complained bitterly that people are now making platinum prints and they are weak. "Not like we used to make them." (That is a paraphrase, I do not have the exact quote at hand.) Some platinum prints are excellent. Paula and I are having some made for ourselves. But way too many are weak, weak, weak. I have seen Azo prints that are weak, weak, weak, too, but not as great a percentage as one finds among platinum printers. Nothing against the platinum process, just against many of the prints I have seen.

Michael A. Smith

 

[jovo]

Some platinum prints are excellent. Paula and I are having some made for ourselves. But way too many are weak, weak, weak....

Well, I'm glad you've said this, Michael. I often feel as though I'm risking the wrath of the naked emperor when I've thought to say so too, but have chosen to keep quiet. My favorite platinum prints were those of Koichiro Kurita that I saw some years ago at John Stevenson Gallery; they were rich and expressive.

 

[Dinesh]

My apologies for this next post as it really has nothing to do with the initial topic.

First, let me say that it is very commendable that at this point in time in "tradional photography", that Chamlee/Smith have put their money where their mouths are in order to produce a product that they believe in.
Full disclosure: I have not used Azo nor do I contact print, to be honest, I am a hack of a photographer and printer.

Having said that, I have seen contact prints on Azo before and for what it's worth, they didn't even come close to the quality of some of the traditional and alternative prints that I have seen in the past. Contact prints may be what you enjoy producing and viewing, however, it is presumptuous of you to assume that any opinions contrary to yours are invalid.

 

[bill schwab]

Some platinum prints are excellent. Paula and I are having some made for ourselves. But way too many are weak, weak, weak.

Yes, of course, you and Paula are superior in every way. Why would anyone question that?

Frankly Mr. Chamlee, while you talk a good game and your displays of condecension, arrogance and derision towards others are unmatched, I just don't get it. I have yet to see a photograph created by you that matches the hype. Something that would really make me stand up and have respect for someone that feels they can treat others in the way I have seen you treat people here.

To everyone else, I appologize for this uncharacteristic outburst. There comes a point where a person can accept no more of this self-aggrandizing ballyhoo without the evidence to back it up.

Most Sincerely,

William G. Schwab

 

[Zebra]

In the words of the great sage Terrell Owens;

I love me some me

 

[scootermm]

Some platinum prints are excellent. Paula and I are having some made for ourselves.

Michael ... Outside of Salto, who makes these excellent Platinum Prints?
Just out of curiosity.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Mr. Schwab,

Who is Mr. Chamlee?

Have you seen my photographs? Have you seen our platinum prints? If not, then what is the basis for your comments? And since our platinum prints have only been exhibited at Photo LA in 2008, at the 291 Gallery San Francisco late last year, at AIPAD in 2008, and at the James A. Michener Art Museum in Doylestown, Pennsylvania (Paula's prints only), I do not know how or when you saw them unless you met us personally, which you have not done.

I'll relate this story. I am sure it will seem arrogant to you, but it is a true story. At Photo LA, where we had a Lodima Press booth in 2008, in the morning before the exhibition opens to the public, curators and collectors take groups of people, who have signed up and paid money, on a tour of the exhibition, supposedly giving them insights as to what is hanging on the 60 or more galleries' walls. Unbeknownst to us, someone we knew (but did not know very well) was in a group that a collector was taking around. Later that day, this fellow stopped by our booth and told us that when the collector brought the group to our booth he pointed at one of Paula's platinum prints (24 x 30" on hand made Japanese paper) and said, " If I were going to buy just one print at Photo LA this year, that is the one I would buy."

I have mentioned before that our platinum prints are printed from five separations in Belgium by Salto. So, are our platinum prints any good, maybe even superior to most others? Maybe they just might be. but not because I made them. I couldn't begin to make a good platinum print myself.

I have seen a few photographs of yours, Mr. Schwab, on the Internet, and I don't care for them, but I would not presume to comment on their quality without seeing the real thing.

I did once, only once, comment on the quality of someone's photographs after going to his web site. As I recall I said something like: "that after seeing his pictures I could understand why he was so bitter." This fellow was so over-the-top antagonistic to me that I just could not help myself. Other than that, I refrain from commenting on anyone's photographs. I write generally about prints. I never mention specific photographers.

So it would appear, to me anyhow, that your comment about my photographs, which you have not even seen, is nothing but a scurrilous derisive attack.

Michael A. Smith

 

[jovo]

:munch:

 

[Michael A. Smith]

To my knowledge, no one but Salto does, or can do, what they do. They do not use digital negatives. They use film, real film. Our negatives are scanned, then enlarged digitally, but then five separations are printed on an image setter on real film in 600-line screen. These five separations are then exposed in register onto the paper. I was told that the DMax reaches 2.10. I have been told that is high.

A printer in the USA once told me that "no image setter can set 600-line screen." But he was obviously wrong. The folks at Salto really are amazing. What the owner says is that he is always trying to expand the boundaries of physics. Right now, among other things he is doing, he, along with mathematicians, engineers, and physicists, is working on a new way to reproduce color, one that will always reproduce it as it is. He believes this will make CMYK and RGB obsolete. The folks at Salto are way over the top. Makes me with our silver chloride paper appear to be a total non-achiever.

Michael A. Smith

 

[bill schwab]

Yes, Mr. Smith (sorry about the name mix-up.) I have seen your work. Photo LA and AIPAD, where my work was also being represented. Believe me when I say that in my opinion the internet suits your prints fine. Again in my opinion, even the best paper in the world isn't going to make them any better.

As for not caring for my work, I feel much the way you might about my feelings on yours. I'm not sure I've been paid a bigger compliment.

William G. Schwab

 

[Kerik]

So Salto needs five negatives to make a decent platinum print from your images? Hmmm... I don't think Laura Gilpen did. Or Frederick Evans. Or William Willis. Or Coburn. Or Dick Arentz. Or Sal Lopes, Stan Klimek, Clay Harmon, myself and many other talented folks who use pt/pd as their medium of choice. And I've held original prints from each of these photographers in my hands (except for Sal). I've seen the Salto prints in person (not the Smith/Chamlees) and they are OK for what they are. They don't have the same quiet, gentle qualities of the prints of the others I mentioned. They are different - I'm not saying good or bad, just different. And I've got no problem with that. To each his or her own. I will admit I've seen plenty of pt/pd prints that are not up to par. But I've seen far more bad silver prints simply because there are so many more of them out there. Using a given medium does not grant one the skill to use it well.

While I now devote my work to platinum/gum and wet plate collodion, I've made many hundreds of (real) Azo prints in the past. In fact, I still have a few boxes of 14x17 grade 2 left, in case the mood strikes me again. It is a beautiful medium, and although I've not seen Lodima in person, I will take the word of the people here that use it that it, too is a very nice paper to print on. So was Centennial POP and I still lament its passing. Kudos to Lodima for keeping a fine medium available for those who choose to use it.

BTW, I did have the opportunity to look through a large number of Mr Smith's Azo prints at Photo San Francisco several years ago. I'll just say it didn't take very long.

Salesmanship aside, there is no holy grail in photography or art and I give thanks for that. Anyone who proclaims a holy grail exists is just another butt-naked emporer. Usually in their own mind.

 

[Kerik]

They do not use digital negatives. They use film, real film. Our negatives are scanned, then enlarged digitally, but then five separations are printed on an image setter on real film in 600-line screen.

Apparently you don't even understand the term digital negative.

 

[L Gebhardt]

To my knowledge, no one but Salto does, or can do, what they do. They do not use digital negatives. They use film, real film. Our negatives are scanned, then enlarged digitally, but then five separations are printed on an image setter on real film in 600-line screen. These five separations are then exposed in register onto the paper. I was told that the DMax reaches 2.10. I have been told that is high.

Since we are already way off topic, why not go farther off. Can you briefly explain why 5 separations are needed? I am not understanding this process. Is each one is for a separate color (which I doubt for platinum)? Or maybe it's to hide dots from the image setter? It sounds intriguing and I would love to see the results.