Paper for Contact Printing...

[eshotwell]

Everything that I read says that Kodak Azo is the best choice for 8x10 contact prints, but now I find that it is not available anywhere. Are there other alternatives that you can recommend?

 

[c6h6o3]

Everything that I read says that Kodak Azo is the best choice for 8x10 contact prints, but now I find that it is not available anywhere. Are there other alternatives that you can recommend?

Try Kentmere Kentona from Freestyle.

 

[Monophoto]

You can contact print on any paper.

Azo is still available in limited quantities and sizes from Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. michaelandpaula@michaelandpaula.com They are also developing a new Azo substitute that is supposed to be available shortly.

 

[Amund]

JandC Nuance grade hard. Very good. And very similar to Azo G-3.
The Azo G-2 M&P possibly have left isn`t someting I want to use, as you have to alter negative development too much for my taste for that too-soft paper....

 

[c6h6o3]

They are also developing a new Azo substitute that is supposed to be available shortly.

You can't print on any paper that you can't buy. When Lodima Fine Art paper becomes available I'm sure it will a terrific product, but until then we all have to print on something else. Both JandC Nuance and Kentona can be purchased now.

I have printed a negative (not my own) on Kentona of which a fine print had been made on JandC Nuance and then compared them. The Kentona won hands down.

 

[Alex Hawley]

J&C Nuance or Kentmere Bromide. Hard to tell them apart from an Azo print.

 

[c6h6o3]

Hard to tell them apart from an Azo print.

Not for me.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Not for me.

You've got much better eyes than I do Jim.

 

[Scott Peters]

Jim, What was it that made the Kentona subjectively better for you? Curious. Thanks.

 

[photo8x10]

I'm waiting for new contact print paper from Michael and Paula, but I'm still print in AZO(I have a good quantity stored), but sometimes I've used Ilford Galerie, and some Bergger paper. Now I'm testing Kentemere(now I can find them in Italy) and Fomatone MG. All these paper developed in Amidol.

Best

Stefano Germi
Italy

 

[c6h6o3]

Jim, What was it that made the Kentona subjectively better for you? Curious. Thanks.

Enhanced local contrast in the midtones. Blacker blacks. One probably a result of the other. But the Kentona was dramatically better than the Nuance.

 

[nalle52]

I am using Bergger contact 2 paper for my 8x10, it feels good. I have been a Bergger fan for many years, this paper is not a Azo paper, but for me its great.

 

[colivet]

I have printed on Nuance. Good paper yes, but I couldn't make a satisfying print on it yet. I guess I am not much of a printer. Maybe that is one of the things I like about azo, the ease of printing.

 

[nalle52]

One thing I noticed with Bergger contact 2 is that it needs a rather agresive developer. I started with Ansco 130 1+1 no good, changed to Amaloco 3003
with a very good result. Reading the instuction from Bergger it says something about choise of developer, I dont remeber exatly what it says. Finding the right developer made it very easy to get fine prints.

 

[Ole]

Bergger Contact paper react svery well to changes in developer, so the "characteristics" of the paper are very flexible. In my case I get the best results with Ansco 130, but that could well say more about my negatives than about the paper or the developer.

 

[c6h6o3]

I am using Bergger contact 2 paper for my 8x10, it feels good. I have been a Bergger fan for many years, this paper is not a Azo paper, but for me its great.

I've always liked Bergger's enlarging paper very much, even for contact prints. Scott Davis tells me that they've changed it recently, however. They stopped selling it at my local camera store so I never got any more after I ran out. I'm going to switch to Kentona for enlargements.

 

[Donald Miller]

Enhanced local contrast in the midtones. Blacker blacks. One probably a result of the other. But the Kentona was dramatically better than the Nuance.

Jim, Your findings are really interesting. I have not used the Ketona so I have nothing to judge against. I will say that I am pleased with Nuance in Amidol. I find your claims of blacker blacks to be interesting since my tests of Nuance showed a dmax of 2.37 after toning in KSRT and that beats Azo by quite a bit. If you have a print that you would like to have tested for dmax, you can send it to me and I will read the reflection density of the print. Your print would be returned.

Message me if this is of interest to you. Objective testing is the real final determiner. Agreed?

 

[galyons]

Agreed, only if the images are always viewed by a densitometer and never by people! A densitometer is a tool, not an arbiter of perception. If one sees blacker blacks, one see's blacker blacks, regardless of the densitometry!

YMMV!
Cheers,
Geary

 

[colivet]

Agreed, only if the images are always viewed by a densitometer and never by people! A densitometer is a tool, not an arbiter of perception. If one sees blacker blacks, one see's blacker blacks, regardless of the densitometry!

YMMV!
Cheers,
Geary

I agree, seeing is the deal. Measuring is a confirmation.

 

[c6h6o3]

Objective testing is the real final determiner. Agreed?

No, but I'd be happy to send you a print. It'll take me a while. I don't have the time I'd like for photography since I started some course work relating to my job.

For me the final determiner is subjective evaluation of the print. If one paper displays glowing local contrast where another shows pure mud, my decision is made. I couldn't care less what the dmax is.

 

[sanking]

Agreed, only if the images are always viewed by a densitometer and never by people! A densitometer is a tool, not an arbiter of perception. If one sees blacker blacks, one see's blacker blacks, regardless of the densitometry!

YMMV!
Cheers,
Geary

What is the question? If the question is, which paper has the highest Dmax? then the densitometer answer the question. You measure and get the answer, no ifs, ands or buts.

If the question is which paper makes the best print, or which appears to have highest Dmax, that depends on the viewer and is highly subjective.

Sandy King

 

[Alex Hawley]

If the question is which paper makes the best print, or which appears to have highest Dmax, that depends on the viewer and is highly subjective.

Sandy King

Also depends on who did the printing.

 

[Donald Miller]

No, but I'd be happy to send you a print. It'll take me a while. I don't have the time I'd like for photography since I started some course work relating to my job.

For me the final determiner is subjective evaluation of the print. If one paper displays glowing local contrast where another shows pure mud, my decision is made. I couldn't care less what the dmax is.

The local contrast is the really important thing for me too. I do think that paper is only part of the reason for local contrast. The film plays a big part. The light source plays a big part. A condenser enlarger will show enhanced local contrast if all other things are equal. A point light source still more than a opal lamp condenser. A big part is the how well the camera negative matches the paper. That is where testing of materials can make a difference.

For instance I can shoot the same film and the use the same paper and arrive at totally different prints from the same combination of materials. I am sure that you have found this to be true for yourself.

Regarding dmax...I think it is part of the equation...certainly not the only one or even perhaps the most important one. For instance by itself, I found Kentmere VC to be acceptable paper...when I judged it in comparison to other prints and on the densitometer I found that it sucked big time.

 

[galyons]

What is the question? If the question is, which paper has the highest Dmax? then the densitometer answer the question. You measure and get the answer, no ifs, ands or buts.


If the question is which paper makes the best print, or which appears to have highest Dmax, that depends on the viewer and is highly subjective.


Sandy King

There was no question, simply a statement of perceived results between two papers by one printer. Then a response bringing densitrometry into a purely subjective scenario. Sorry, there are always if, ands or buts, we're talking analog here "not on or off" You measure and you get your answer. I measure I get my answer.


If the question is which paper makes the best print, or which appears to have highest Dmax, that depends on the viewer and is highly subjective.

Absolutely agree! Cheers, Geary

 

[Donald Miller]

galyons, Are you the guy that was not to be found when the Amildol purchase was to be consumated? The very same guy that would not answer pms or emails? Nice of you to show up now that all of the details have been handled.