Negatives for silver chloride / Adox Lupex / AZO / Lodima - which AI has it right

koraks said:

I don't know what the fuss is about with Lupex. When I make a decent print on it, it looks pretty much the same as what I'd make on a regular silver gel paper. It has good dmax, this has to be said, but it's not like it's miles apart from normal papers or anything.

Click to expand...

50+ years ago, Azo (and equivalents like Lupex) generally had a more favourable curve shape and MTF character than many common papers on the market at the time (e.g. Kodabromide) that were being iterated through revisions to remove some environmentally problematic components that inherently aren't required in a chloride paper - technology caught up with it (and essentially made variants on the idea not just enlarging speed, but the basis of modern colour papers), but not with those who made a living out of selling doctrine in weekend workshops.

I have a box of Lupex (and coincidentally some late Lodima) I've been meaning to try out (I never used Azo) but haven't had the time. It's an idle curiosity for me, admittedly mostly in the context of print developer variation. I think it's just steeped in a specific tradition - MAS and adherents were/are hard core trying to do things the way EW did, that sort of thing. As far as I remember MAS would only use Super-XX, D-1/ABC, Amidol with water bath etc. so you know where he was coming from.

I'm hoping I can do something useful with the paper.

Lachlan Young said:

50+ years ago, Azo (and equivalents like Lupex) generally had a more favourable curve shape and MTF character than many common papers on the market at the time (e.g. Kodabromide) that were being iterated through revisions to remove some environmentally problematic components that inherently aren't required in a chloride paper - technology caught up with it (and essentially made variants on the idea not just enlarging speed, but the basis of modern colour papers), but not with those who made a living out of selling doctrine in weekend workshops.

Click to expand...

retina_restoration said:

John,
I produce negs for both regular silver gelatin printing and for alt processes like Kallitype and Salt. If I know that I want to print both ways, I expose two negatives appropriately and develop for each process. I don't see that as being a big deal.

Click to expand...

You're right and it's not a big deal at all and I could do just that. Except for one thing and that's a hard hit to the pocket book shooting 8X10 film. I do have a bit of expired Tri-x, Tmax 400 and 100, which might be just the ticket. The 8X10 camera, lenses and tripod are ready and waiting I just have to kick myself in the rear and get going. One nice thing about Adox Lupex paper is that for a specialty paper it's not priced out of this world like some one-of-a-kind things are. I hope Adox doesn't read what I just wrote.

John Wiegerink said:

You're right and it's not a big deal at all and I could do just that. Except for one thing and that's a hard hit to the pocket book shooting 8X10 film. I do have a bit of expired Tri-x, Tmax 400 and 100, which might be just the ticket. The 8X10 camera, lenses and tripod are ready and waiting I just have to kick myself in the rear and get going. One nice thing about Adox Lupex paper is that for a specialty paper it's not priced out of this world like some one-of-a-kind things are. I hope Adox doesn't read what I just wrote.

Click to expand...

Since FP4+ is now over the $10-per-8x10*, I'm not going to be buying it as much anymore, so I have added Fomapan 100 and 400 to my cache, and for many use cases it's just fine. In fact, I have made some of my favorite images of the past 2 years on Fomapan.

*$10 per sheet was my limit — I've been saying this for a few years now. I remember it wasn't that long ago that a box of 8x10 FP4+ was still close to $100.00. I just looked up my purchases from B&H and in March of 2017, I bought a box of FP4+ 8x10 for $109.90! Now its $257.00!!!

retina_restoration said:

*$10 per sheet was my limit — I've been saying this for a few years now. I remember it wasn't that long ago that a box of 8x10 FP4+ was still close to $100.00. I just looked up my purchases from B&H and in March of 2017, I bought a box of FP4+ 8x10 for $109.90! Now its $257.00!!!

Click to expand...

Looking back in the way-way-waaaay back machine (mid 80's), I paid $50 for 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 Tri-X! I, too, shoot 8x10 Foma nowadays because it's the only film I can afford in this size, and I actually like the tonality of Foma 100.

retina_restoration said:

Since FP4+ is now over the $10-per-8x10*, I'm not going to be buying it as much anymore, so I have added Fomapan 100 and 400 to my cache, and for many use cases it's just fine. In fact, I have made some of my favorite images of the past 2 years on Fomapan.

*$10 per sheet was my limit — I've been saying this for a few years now. I remember it wasn't that long ago that a box of 8x10 FP4+ was still close to $100.00. I just looked up my purchases from B&H and in March of 2017, I bought a box of FP4+ 8x10 for $109.90! Now its $257.00!!!

Click to expand...

Paul,
Yes, I have no problems with Foma 100 sheet film, but I have only used it in 9X12cm size. For 4X5 it's been mainly HP5+ and Delta 100 with a small box of Shanghai thrown in. For 8X10 I will use my outdated, but almost no base fog, Tmax 100 and 400. I have one unopened box of old Super XX in 8X10, but have no idea if it will be useable. The Tri-X 8X10 has some overall base fog, but I've printed through it with no real problem. I won't have to buy any Foma 100 8X10 for a while, but maybe I should buy some right now just hedging on a price increase by the time I do need some. Seems the price of everything is going up! Hmm, if I remember right we were promised the price of everything would be going down here in the U.S..

retina_restoration said:

It used to, yes. But no longer. Isn't Lupex the only one left? It's a very hard grade 3.

Click to expand...

That may well be. My point is that silver chloride papers were not any different from silver bromide papers as far as contrast was concerned. There was a range.

John Wiegerink said:

Seems the price of everything is going up! Hmm, if I remember right we were promised the price of everything would be going down here in the U.S..

Click to expand...

You missed an important component of that statement — I believe we were promised that prices would be going down the drain!

The late Godfather of Azo and Lodima, Michael Smith, standardized on Gr 2, and taught others the same. His preferred film was Super-XX, and he tended to develop it "thick" for higher negative contrast.

I found his Gr 2 opinion insufficient in contrast for my own negatives, which are mainly intended for enlargement rather than contact. Later I discovered that when I do contact print, I prefer regular MGWT rather than a specialty paper.

retina_restoration said:

You missed an important component of that statement — I believe we were promised that prices would be going down the drain!

Click to expand...

Okay, now I understand! Down the drain is pretty much it. But, we're going to make billions of dollars! I'm still trying to figure out who the "we're" are. I haven't made a thing and seem to be in the negative category dollars wise. If you want to see high prices just go to eBay and look for AZO paper. OMG!

Milpool said:

hard core trying to do things the way EW did, that sort of thing

Click to expand...

Given that a lot of Weston's negs apparently needed something like Ilfobrom grade 0 (exposure scale 1.6) to be printable in later editions (not wildly surprising, I don't think EW ever really modified how he made negs when he moved from platinum to silver), the whole thing sometimes has the essence of a tribute band singing a song that they have learnt phonetically, laden with perplexing mondegreens.

The big thing about the chloride papers was that they did the ES 1.7-0.5 range nearly a century before Ilford etc cracked how to get a VC paper to do it, and at a time when enlarging speed papers ran out of steam before what we'd call grade 3. I have used Fomalux as well (I think it was the G3 Lodima) and it was pretty good - though the thing I found more interesting was toning it, and seeing if it would lith (it will, if you have enough light to hit it with). Unlike more modern papers, most of the chloride papers do seem to react somewhat more in line with at least some of the ancient claims about restrainers and colour etc - and are within the reach of home manufacture if desired.