NEW SILVER CHLORIDE CONTACT PRINTING PAPER

[Photo Engineer]

For those interested, Lupex, Azo, and Lodima are all virtually identical.

 

[miha]

So Lodima = Adox Lupex??

 

[pdeeh]

I think PE is saying that the papers are equivalents in type and performance and similar in formulation, rather than saying that Adox Lupex is a rebranded Lodima. Although of course the latter is a possibility I suppose

 

[Alan9940]

Not to throw water on all this great news, but does anyone know what "Gradation: Normal (3)" means? Is this equivalent to a grade 3 paper? And, why would I buy this available only in a single grade when I can get Lodima in grades 2, 3, and soon 4? Not trying to start arguments, so please be gentle.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The Lupex formula has been published. It could have been used for Lodima and this new paper. The Azo formula is not published, but I know enough of it to say that all 3 papers came from the same general source = chemistry. Silver Chloride, handled in a certain way gives a certain result. If you get that result, you are handling the Silver Chloride that way. These papers all show similar properties and thus they all share a very common parent. They don't need to be done in the same factory.

I have made this type of paper myself and it matches the Azo curve almost exactly. See attached.

This is Azo, my emulsion and my emulsion at a higher contrast. So, grades 2 and 3.

PE

 

[miha]

So PE you are talking about Agfa then.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Lupex was an Agfa trade name for many years, competing with Kodak Azo paper. This new paper is named Lupex and serves the same market. What I showed in my last post was a paper made using the Lupex and Azo formula information that I had simply to show that it could be done and to teach others. I have no idea of any relationship between this current Lupex and the original formula nor did I say anything about that.

PE

 

[MDR]

Will it be available with a matt surface or only in glossy. If the latter is the case I am a bit saddened but still wish you the best of luck and congrats but on the other hand if the former is the case I'd be a very happy customer.

 

[Black Dog]

I love matt surfaces for high key prints.

 

[Peter Schrager]

let it suffice that these were products that totally disappeared before Lodima came back around. if Adox is to keep it going for us that would be truly amazing! everyone is always with the moan and groan contingent. go make some pictures and try the new LUPEX. right away people want different surfaces etc. it seems so out of whack; be happy we have materials like this available. I print on several papers but the Lodima is just one tool in the box. no magic bullet here. do it right and it sings. this is truly a great day for analog photography! (now if kodak would just reduce the price on sheet film!!)
best to all of you!
peter

 

[pdeeh]

I can't afford any at the moment, but just to check shipping I added one of those 100 sheet 10x8 boxes to the Fotoimpex shopping cart and asked it to calculate carriage to the UK, which is €12 (+ VAT@19%) not €10.. It's still cheaper than Lodima of course

 

[AgX]

There is a major fault at the Fotoimpex shop.

When a product is put into the basket a message shows up, stating the net price and the info that the price already contains the VAT. Only at the checkout billing the price is correct again.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

When a product is put into the basket a message shows up, stating the net price and the info that the price already contains the VAT.

All prices are shown net and with tax because we never know who is looking at them: Consumers, professionals, swiss people, britisch people, americans, a dutch with a VAT number.....
So you can always see both and the explanation is marked with either one or two asterix´.

 

[AgX]

NO the price indication is wrong, as I stated above.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

NO the price indication is wrong, as I stated above

I need a more detailed explanation.

 

[AgX]

When a product is put into the basket a message shows up, stating the net price and the info that this price already contains the VAT. Only at the checkout billing the price is correct again.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

I cannot see this message and we run the shop like this since 10 years.

 

[AgX]

That is mysterious indeed.

Did you check it today? Maybe it is a timely software error.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Never mind- I found it. It happens only from the start page where the teasers are present. This shouldn´t be there at all. Must have happened when we had the desiger put the retina ready buttons into place

 

[AgX]

It happened when I klicked at "Photopapers" and chose products from that page that was shown then.

Anyway, good that you found it. It was irritating.

 

[MDR]

let it suffice that these were products that totally disappeared before Lodima came back around. if Adox is to keep it going for us that would be truly amazing! everyone is always with the moan and groan contingent. go make some pictures and try the new LUPEX. right away people want different surfaces etc. it seems so out of whack; be happy we have materials like this available. I print on several papers but the Lodima is just one tool in the box. no magic bullet here. do it right and it sings. this is truly a great day for analog photography! (now if kodak would just reduce the price on sheet film!!)
best to all of you!
peter

Peter I can get plenty of glossy papers the choice of matt paper is unfortunately much much smaller. Lodima is as far as I know only available in glossy making a matt version of the Lupex would have given the Lupex paper an advantage over the other product. Still I am happy that Adox (Mirko Foto Impex) was brave enough to bring this paper to the market and wish them loads of success. (which might lead to the introduction of a matt version)

 

[TheToadMen]

When a product is put into the basket a message shows up, stating the net price and the info that this price already contains the VAT. Only at the checkout billing the price is correct again.

I don't see this myself? When I select a product page I see both the "Netto" and "Bruto" price listed. In the shopping basket I see a total without tax and a total including tax?

 

[karl]

Thank you for introducing this product. I'll be sure to add some to my cart next time I order from fotoimpex.

 

[davedm]

Off Topic,

Hi Mirko,

IMO, The fotoimpex website needs a long overdue. There is no way to correctly estimate shipping spontaneously. For example, if I select Paypal as payment and shipment to India, I am always given a flat shipping of 31 Euros, the orders then have to be manually processed. This is a major hurdle when trying to optimize shipping weights. In my case (and I believe that this may be true for most customers outside of USA/Europe), I try to shop liquid chemistry which is low value high weight item and (adox) films which are high value low wight item. If online shipping weight is displayed and shipping slab are displayed too, one can optimize their shipping costs.

I believe you are probably getting you less customers in competition to maco for non adox products. Even previous version of maco's website was much ahead of fotoimpex website. Shipping slabs were clearly stated for entire world and shipping weight could be estimated before placing the order allowing one to maximize slab utilization. And now they have gone ahead and completely revamped the website as well as shipping charges to even more user friendly manner.

P.S. This is just a suggestion based on my experience in last 5 year in shopping at both sites. I am not ranting (may be a little). Anyway, your priorities might be different than maco's and you may want to grow more as manufacturer than re-seller. Although it might not hurt to update the website.

 

[Roger Cole]

Exactly - the reason Efke disappeared is at least partially because they were not making enough to be able to afford to repair their plant.

The whining is coming from those who don't seem to want to admit that photography (like all forms of art) is expensive in terms of materials & basing their pricing expectations on the anomalous 1990s is nonsensical.

I'd rather have the unique selection of products from Fotoimpex coated to the highest possible quality & made at the right scale for sustained production, even if it means paying a little more.

Finally, 10EUR shipping to the UK from Fotoimpex makes a 100 sheet box of Lupex considerably cheaper than Lodima & there are no import charges to be paid.

I fully agree.

I think there was a time for discount, decent but affordable products in photography, and that time was before digital when anyone who wanted to record images by exposure to light had to do it with film or paper or plates or whatever, and there was much interest among all groups in society. Those days are passed. Now no one NEEDS to shoot film - sorry but true - much less make darkroom prints. The people who do so do it because they enjoy it more than digital or because it suits their particular artistic expression or mode of working. I want the best materials I can get, not the cheapest.

Now that said I have said that New 55 is just too expensive for me, I have lots of Arista branded Foma film in my film fridge, and have said (and mean it) that when I shoot up my stock of 4x5 TMY-2 I will switch to HP5+ because of Kodak's sheet film pricing. But there is a vast gulf between $10 a shot and ultra discount film and one reason the New 55 is too much for me is that it's so much more than excellent conventional materials. The Foma in my fridge, well - it's fun to play around with, and it does have a different look. But when I shoot the sheet film I almost ALWAYS shoot a sheet or two of the Arista Foma in addition to, not instead of, a sheet or two or three of TMY-2 (to change to HP5+.) And while I shoot some Foma 120 in my medium format cameras I also have plenty of Tri-X and FP4+ and Pan F+ 120 in my fridge. So I am not so much shooting the rebranded Foma to save money as a way to actually spend more!

It can be taken too far, to where the extra cost is out of proportion to improved or different characteristics and not worth it - Kodak B&W sheet film is in this category for me though I know what different films TMY-2 and HP5+ are so I also understand why it isn't for many people. Given the amount of sheet film I shoot I could still afford to stay with TMY-2 if I really wanted to but it isn't worth the difference to me and for my photography. For people printing very large prints or exposing in lower light where the reciprocity failure traits of TMY are superior or probably for other reasons it may be.

If there were a paper that was just as good as the Ilford MG or Adox MCC and cost significantly less I might use it. But if there is I don't know about it. And if a paper just cost less but was not as good I wouldn't use it, except perhaps for contact sheets and I already use RC for those. MCC 110 is rather different from the Ilford papers but just as good and priced accordingly. We are lucky to have the selection of incredibly good materials we have today and, adjusted for inflation and compared to days gone by as well as compared to almost any other hobby with a technical bent, they are really pretty affordable.