Photovison Magazine Wants You! Free Issue!

[Steve Anchell]

Where to begin? Where to begin?

There are several posts I would like to reply to. I'll start with Aggie.

Aggie, unlike your instructor at the AA workshop, I did know Ansel. I used to stop by and visit whenever I was in Carmel teaching a workshop. I'd show him my latest work and ask how I could improve. He'd say, keep working. We’d repeat this every time I stopped by.

I for one could not say definitively if he "would love digital." But knowing what I do, I feel his attitude would have been similar to mine: Digital is a young art form that should be recognized, but it's not what I do. This was his attitude towards color, in general (he did work with color for a while, but he never embraced it as part of his work).

Second, although I laud Michael Smith's attempt to keep AZO alive, despite Eastman's indifference, this is the problem I'm speaking of: Photographers giving money to Eastman. (Michael and Paula are among the best photographers and instructors in the U.S. today, so this is not meant as a critique of them, personally.)

Bergger Fine Art Papers was importing Bergger double weight Contact Supreme paper into this country and nobody would buy it. They preferred to use single weight AZO. Photographers continued to use AZO, and Bergger, to my knowledge, no longer tries to sell Contact Supreme in the U.S.

The following is an excerpt from an unpublished article comparing Bergger Contact 2 (Supreme) with AZO. It was written by Burkhardt Kiegland, an ULF practitioner from Austria. It was never published as Kodak announced the discontinuance of AZO and Michael had not yet intervened. This is unedited, so the grammar might be bad.

“Two years ago I received the first test package of a new contact paper made by this French company and the results did look promising to my eyes. Fine tuning the emulsion, getting the optimum fiber base and more testing, however, took a lot more time, but finally the paper is on the market- in sizes 8x10" up to 20x24".

Similar to Kodak’s AZO the emulsion of Bergger Contact 2 is a silver chloride emulsion but includes some more components. Besides the silver chloride. a certain amount of silver bromides cares for some more speed and silver iodide adds to the special characteristic of the tones. The fiber base is premium weight and I recognize the beautiful bright white base which shows, when air dried, that very delicate, smooth and lively surface we know from the other Bergger Prestige premium papers.”

(Note: Burkhardt and John Horowy, the U.S. importer of Bergger, don’t like each other. So much so that John requested to see the article before publication as he was convinced Burkhardt intended to diss his product. Anyone thinking Burkhardt was in the pocket of Bergger is mistaken.)

The point I wish to make is this: When Kodak does drop AZO, when Ilford stops making film, our recourse for paper and film will be the small manufacturers: Bergger, Forte, FOMA, Efke, Cachet. If we don’t start supporting them now, they won’t be there. They’ll be out of business and Eastman will be laughing all the way to the bank, if they care enough to laugh (actually, I don’t think they have a sense of humor, anyway).

I suggest that LF photographers STOP using T-max, Tri-X, and AZO and start using Bergger BPF film. Request John Horowy to start importing Contact Supreme again. Use FOMA large format films, Cachet papers (which I think are excellent), Forte (which Bruce Barnbaum thinks is excellent), and so on.

What? Fomapan is not as good as Tri-X? Oh, heck. After 33 years, three books on darkroom technique, and 24 years of teaching b/w photography, my experience says it’s the photographer not the material. If you can make a good image on Tri-X, do a little testing and your images will be every bit as good on Bergger BPF or Fomapan 200.

Start supporting the little guy now, not later. It will be too late.

My next point has to do with something posted by Jim68134. He mentions the sales of LF on E-bay and elsewhere. Interest in LF is up, in fact, I think it is the only growing area in photography. Nobody knows for certain why, though I’ve heard several explanations. My own guess is that after sitting in front of a computer screen all day, the visual artist drawn to photography, feels comfortable looking at the LF “screen.” At the same time, it gets them away from the loathsome eye-killing, butt spreading computer and into the fresh air. I may be off base on this one, but it sounds reasonable to me!

Jorge, the price for PV in Brazil is $49.95 per year, which includes postage. Or have it sent to a friend in the U.S., who can forward it to you once every two months (after they read it, of course). What are friends for anyway?

Oh, and, Aggie, the patent for HC-110 is in The Film Developing Cookbook, but I don’t think you want to try and make it from scratch.

Anyway, Ansel used HC-110 for about 3 years, and gave it high marks. He was in the payroll of Kodak at the time, kind of a beta tester. He confided to me, years later, that he stopped using it because it wasn’t as good as he initially thought. Buy Paterson developers, they’re among the best off-the-shelf, or use Wimberly’s WD2D available from the Photographers’ Formulary.

Good god, is this guy long winded! That’s because I think about these issues all the time, but APUG is the only place I can write about them. I couldn’t publish any of this in PV and keep my job.

 

[Robert]

My next point has to do with something posted by Jim68134. He mentions the sales of LF on E-bay and elsewhere. Interest in LF is up, in fact, I think it is the only growing area in photography. Nobody knows for certain why, though I’ve heard several explanations. My own guess is that after sitting in front of a computer screen all day, the visual artist drawn to photography, feels comfortable looking at the LF “screen.”

I think that's half right. I think I've suggested this before but I'll do it again. People should look up neanderthal woodworking. While some of the people are older folks many are fairly computer literate. Not the sort that would be considered luddites. Yet they would rather work with a seventy year old hand tool then the latest power tool. Why? Partly because it's about the trip not the end. Most of us have more then enough labour saving gadgets. We instead want to get our hands dirty. We want to see the shavings or we want to smell the stop bath. Small companies have sprung up to make tools that the big boys haven't made since before the Korean war. It's one thing if you're a production setup producing a hundred items a week but this place the discussion isn't about mass production. It's about how many keepers a year.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I agree Robert. There is a rediscovery of old methods, tools and techniques in a variety of areas. I think it has to do with making a final piece that has a little bit of soul to it. I will probably be criticized by those who use computers, power tools etc, but I believe that to more one is literally in touch with the work in progress, the more of themself that is revealed in the final piece, the more of that soul is embodied.

That is the magic of photography. What the eye sees, and the mind interprets, can only reach fruition through hands on tools and methods of processing and printing. It didn't matter if it was a dagureretype (sp?) gum, platinum contact or enlarged on silver gelatin, there has always been a connection between the brain and the hands in all aspects of all processes. The computer severs that connection. The computer to me is a souless tool. Excellent in many ways for many applications (now for ex.) but lacking in soul.

What is next? A computer program that will run mechanical blasters and chisels and hammers to produce 21st century Davids and Venus de Milos?

Just bury me when I'm gone with my Japanese saws, old metal lathe and used LF cameras.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Steve, thanks for your kind comments about our work.

But despite what you say, the Bergger Contact Supreme paper is not a true contact printing paper; it is not a silver chloride paper. It does not have the same long scale that silver chloride papers have. Many papers have silver chloride in them. They are called "chloro-bromide" papers. They are not, as the Bergger paper is not, a silver chloride contact printing paper.

So what is the big deal about "silver chloride contact printing paper." Simply this: it has a longer scale and more separation in the mid-tones. And fine prints on it have more sense of dimensionality than do other silver prints.

When the Bergger paper first came to this country--no, even before it came to this country--I was given some to test. (Both John Horowy and Burkhardt Kiegeland are friends.) It did not begin to compare to Azo. Which is why we did not switch to it. And this was before we were selling Azo. I would have switched in a heartbeat if it was better than Azo.

If Burkhardt's article, was, as you say, written before Paula and I stepped in to save Azo, it was written when he was still Berggers representative, both in Europe and in the US. So there is a little bit of conflict of interest there. (I was writing about Azo years before we started selling it and when a dealership was first offered to us by Kodak we turned it down and found a camera store [Freestyle] that would stock it. So conflict of interest cannot be pinned on Paula and me. It was only when Freestyle called us and told us they were getting out of selling Azo, that we took it over. If we did not, it would have been gone a few years ago. (The reason Freestyle got rid of Azo was that the ownership changed and they wanted to follow the 80/20 rule: 80% of sales come from 20% of the products. They dumped 80%, or close to it, of their products. I have been told they have since seen the error of their ways and now stock lots of products, but they are too late for Azo.)

Now, I have seen fine prints on this Bergger paper. It is a fine paper, but it is not Azo.

Why you would recommend that people stop buying and using the only contact printing paper in the world (and I have hundreds of unsolicited testimonials from people who say this is the finest silver paper they have ever used), is a mystery to me. All of this stuff should be driven, I would think, by what gives the best results, not by a political or ideological agenda. I have always been a "lone wolf"--no institutional affiliations. And I am always on the side of those who are independent. I do not and will not, however, compromise quality for the sake of championing an idea that I "should" support something when it is inferior.

And, although they have usually not been so in the past, in this instance anyhow, Kodak has been extremely responsive. Grade 3 Azo was discontinued. Finished. And since that was the case Grade 2 could not be far behind. But I talked to them and convinced them to reverse their decision, even though they will not be making a profit from it. I'm just one person--not an institution. If people were serious about saving Tri-X they would work at it and do it, or at least give it their best shot. I had to work at saving Azo. It was not a matter of a couple of phone calls.

Bottom line: Since you champion a traditional wet darkroom way of working over digital, I cannot understand your advocating not buying a great paper--in my opinion the best silver paper on the market. And even if my opinion is not correct, it is still an excellent product, no doubt about that.

I thought this was about championing a traditional way of working in photography rather than a digital way. I did not think it was a vendetta against a particular company, even if, generally speaking, that company leaves a lot to be desired.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Now, although we do not know each other well, Steve Anchell and I have met and we are friendly and I like the guy and encourage people to subscribe to his magazine. (I like most all independent effort.)

But it just hit me. Kodak doesn't advertise in Photo Vision. Steve, not liking a company's business practices cannot be a reason to knock a superior product. Kodak will not put the small, newer, companies out of business no matter how many people buy Azo (or Tri-X or T-Max or whatever they have.)

So relax about Kodak. Instead, put your efforts into getting more subscribers. If I can help you do that, let me know.

Michael A. Smith

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like the smaller companies, but I use what works for me. That's Tri-X and Azo and Kodachrome, but it's also Cachet Expo and Oriental Seagull and TF-4, PMK, ABC from PhotoFormulary, and Ilford MGIV FB and RC, and Agfa Neutol WA and Sistan, and Provia and Astia, and once in a while Fomapan T200.

I'd seriously consider giving up Tri-X more or less, if Delta 400 Pro came in sheet sizes. I've asked Ilford, and the answer is that the old Delta 400 didn't sell well in 4x5", but the new Delta 400 is much better than the old.

 

[Ole]

I'm happy to say I've always supported the "little guys"...

EFKE and MACO films (when I'm not using Ilford FP4+ or HP5+ - never liked the Deltas).
Kentmere, Bergger, Oriental papers except for "proofs" on Ilford.
Home-made developers (I'm a "little guy", too!).

No, I haven't tried AZO yet. I've got a pack of Bergger Contact to finish fist

 

[glewis]

>I'm happy to say I've always supported the "little guys"...

Well I supporthose!}:^)>

Let's face it. Digital is the "hot puppy of the future". As more and more resources are put into its development and marketing, the less and less will our choices become. There is merit in both Steve and Michaels positions. We must fight for the things we like and support those that support analog materials. But, we must also keep an eye out for alternatives ,when the day
of the "bottom line", forces us to "switch rather than fight a loosing cause".
Personnally, I'll always be analog. "Rather the sweat on my brow, than the mouse callous on my index finger!"

 

[Steve Anchell]

Michael,

I am in accord with you on all of your points, including our mutual respect.

My point has to do with the writing on the wall, which I see. That is, Ilford, Kodak, and Agfa, will someday, perhaps not even in our life time, drop silver-based products. In the meantime, the smaller companies, including Bergger, Cachet, Foma, etc. are struggling to maintain any kind of foothold in this country (I have no idea what the markets are like in Europe). So, we buy Tri-X because we like it better than Fomapan. Okay. Fomapan stops importing, Kodak discontinues Tri-X, then we can coat our own film.

Alternatively, we can start learning to work with Fomapan, let Kodak do what Kodak does, and twenty years from now future generations of photographers will have materials to work with, thanks to our foresight.

One of these two is my vision of the future.

As far as AZO, I have not used AZO since 1977, when I was working almost exclusively with 8x10" film and ABC pyro. I have not tried Bergger Contact Supreme, which is why I quoted Burkhardt, not my own experience. If, as you say, Contact Supreme can't do what AZO does, and the only way to create the fine images you and Paula are well known for, is to convince Eastman to make it, then I would not, for one moment, suggest you do otherwise.

My point was: if there is an alternative, use it or lose it.

Finally, your assumption that I have a vendetta against Kodak because they don't advertise in PV needs to be reassessed. Neither Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Bergger, Foma, Efke, Paterson, Oriental, Nikon, Canon, Wisner, Canham, Sprint, or Delta 1 advertise in PV.

My "vendetta" against Kodak has to do with over a decade of personal observation of the companies practices. As a result of my work, I have many friends inside Kodak, and many friends from the old R&D labs no longer with Kodak, who have kept me informed of internal developments and policies over the years.

Kodak, and Kodak alone, scares me when it comes to the future of our craft.

 

[Jorge]

Well Michael lets not make this an azo issue. We all know the Bergger paper is not a contact paper equal to azo, you have said it many times. The issue is the support that should be given to Kodak in view of the support they give to people commited to film and paper.You are the best example of Kodak's nasty practices. Every few months you are held hostage by Kodak and forced to buy more inventory so they dont remove azo. It is the same in every line, they change and remove things from inventory without a second thought to the users. Frankly, given how badly managed the company is I am susprised it is still around. Film users made it great, and digital is buring it. But they dont care, and dont care about us who have used their products for decades. All they care is to sell the new digital toy to the next generation, BTW a toy which in most cases is better made by a smaller better run company. How come Epson has been eating their lunch on printers? and yet they insist on removing analog materials in favor of a division which has yet to give them profit. I say, I am with Steve, let Kodak go under and start using other people.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Thanks for clarifying, Steve.

Kodak, as I said, leaves a lot to be desired. but, as it happens, they make the only contact printing paper, so we use them. The minimums were horrendous this last time, and they will be getting much worse, but the product is there.

I agree, Jorge, this should not be an Azo issue. But I didn't bring it up and had to clarify Burkhardt's comment as quoted by Steve.

I'm all for supporting smaller businesses as long as the products are as good. If not, I have no alternative but to go to the big companies.

Michael A. Smith

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Was the fine-art sector ever important to Kodak? Some well meaning people at Kodak have done good things for artists, like finding a way to make a batch of desensitizer for Yousef Karsh when it had been discontinued and saving Azo thanks to Michael and Paula's efforts, and they've used artists to test their products when it was a matter of mutual interest, but the basic business model and the bulk of the revenue stream was always "you push the button, we do the rest."

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

P.S.: Can I just say what an incredible thing it is that we can all have a civilized discussion where strong and interesting views on a difficult issue are expressed by such eminent folks as Steve Anchell and Michael Smith in an environment of reason and mutual respect? You'd almost think this wasn't the internet. Three cheers for APUG!

 

[Jim Chinn]

Except for the unique relationship between Michael/Paula and Kodak, I can't think of any other real cooperation with B&W users except with John Sexton among others who did a lot of field testing for TMAX films in the early 80s.

That is the way most major corporations are today. you have the designers and engineers on one side and the bean counters on the other and neither is interested about input from the end user because what they really need or want does not fit the preconcieved ideas and budgets of the company beauracracy.

 

[Tom Duffy]

The horns of the dilema are these:

1. should I continue to buy certain Kodak products which I consider superior to the competition, specifically in my case Tri-x professional sheet and roll, thereby increasing the chances that everyone's out of the sheet film business in 5 years?

2. should I support the little guy and ensure Kodak's exit from the market and increase the chances that the little guys will still be around when I need them?

this is not a generic question, if we were talking about camera stores, my answer would absolutely be #2 (substitued B&H for Kodak). But in this case, the little guys seem to be hanging in by charging a premium price. (I'm thinking here of Bergger's excellent printing papers). I've seen nothing to indicate that Bergger is about to go under.

I side with Michael on this one, I want to keep kodak in the game for their tri-x professional, 5x7 color film, and 400 speed color neg film in sheet film sizes. Nothing indicates that the sky is falling, yet. If kodak makes the best of breed, in certain product lines, I'll continue to use it.

 

[Les McLean]

Except for the unique relationship between Michael/Paula and Kodak, I can't think of any other real cooperation with B&W users except with John Sexton among others who did a lot of field testing for TMAX films in the early 80s.

That is the way most major corporations are today. you have the designers and engineers on one side and the bean counters on the other and neither is interested about input from the end user because what they really need or want does not fit the preconcieved ideas and budgets of the company beauracracy.

For the past eight years I have worked closely with Ilford field testing their new black and white products and have seen them slide to near bankruptcy. The situation was partly due to the actions of Kodak who very nearly aquired Ilford but pulled out at the last minute and were subsequently guilty of some very unethical actions. Thankfully, Ilford have recovered on the back of huge sales of a cheap digital paper that is selling in supermarkets and multi national computer stores. This has enabled them to continue producing black and white analogue products but clearly the lions share of the research budget is now spent on new digital products, so we do have to thank digtal for saving Ilford.

I last worked with Ilford a couple of months ago, on a digital presentation, when I asked about the plans for film and paper to be told that there was no intention of reducing the range but equally, there is little chance of new development although they will continue to modify the existing analogue products where necessary. At present their core business is still black and white film and paper but digital is catching up. IMO Ilford have a great loyalty to the photographers who have used their products over the years and will not abandon them.

Jim's comments about bean counters is just about on the mark, and I speak as a former bean counter who worked for nearly 20 years with international companies. When they decide that the return on a product is too low they will chop it, I'm afraid that it is a fact of business life. Nothing that outside forces say or do will reverse the decision. Whilst I agree with many of the comments on both sides of the very interesting debate my own view is that I will use the products that are available and that I like until they are withdrawn and then find an alternative. Tri X is my favourite film and when it goes it will not take too long to test film that is available.

 

[Sean]

One huge problem I find in large corporations (and the bain of my work life
existence) is 'upper management'. I manage corporate email systems and know the systems fairly well. My managers know the name of the software application and that is about it, their managers do not know anything about the application or understand our requests for new hardware or human resources, etc. The end result is people making decisions based on the bottom line. I think big corporations could do better than this and it's sad to witness. So, I'll probably start dealing more with the small fishes and less with the suits.

 

[Eric Rose]

Just remember, it's the "suits" that sign the checks.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Add to this the fact that marketing and production decisions in recent years seem to be driven more by the desire to increase the stock price than the drive for profits, and it all becomes more bewildering.

 

[SteveGangi]

It isn't bewildering at all. A suit gets golden handshakes/parachutes and stock options and gigantic bonuses for doing nothing. He got his job because of family and country club contacts or kissing the right buttocks - rather than any skills or knowledge. So with the golden parachute and stock options he piles up, it is in his best personal interest to drive stock prices up at any cost, cash in and jump ship. It pays a lot better than any normal retirement plan, and he doesn't have to hang around and live with the consequences. Even if the company is driven into the ground he doesn't care, because he already got his and screw everyone else. If you steal a little you're a thief and you go to jail. If you steal a lot you are a "captain of industry" and a "pillar of the community".

 

[Aggie]

Steve sure you don't live in the bay area of California? Sounds like the company the hubby type works for. The chairman of the board wanted a new 50 mil jet to go along with his two year old one, just in a different interior design. To make sure the stock stays high, they have cut out bonuses, and stock options and all raises. cut the matching retirment amount in half, and raised the amount you pay for the company self insurance plan by almost triple while making us pay more out of pocket at the second step when we go to the DR. We are all wondering what the man will want next year, a new country club to go with his golf company he bought a few years back? Then why doesn't the rank and file employee complain about irregularities to the ftc? Becasue the retirement fund id all tied to company stock, and if it was leaked what is happening and where the books are cooked, everyone with a retirement amount, will lose it all. Catch 22

 

[SteveGangi]

Nope, never even been to the bay area, but all companies are the same. Since I work for the government instead of private sector, I am sort of protected from this sort of thing but I'm not blind. I'm a bit of a mercenary in that I give employers the same loyalty they give me... they will toss you out if it saves a few pennies, and work you to death meanwhile. Loyalty begets loyalty and the reverse is also true. At Rocktdyne (now part of Boeing) they had a thing called "green time" in addition to the usual corporate nonsense. They compelled people to "donate" free time to the company under the threat that failure to "donate" would be reflected in appraisals. The reason was the usual... short schedule and no money. That same year, a shitload of people were laid off just before Christmas while the suits gave themselves huge bonusas with the money they didn't have. Needless to say, I reported this to the government auditors, and yes it was illegal.

 

[dr bob]

I just sent the following email to Photovision:

"I tried to subscribe via email but was rejected because I would not supply my phone No.

I will not give out my phone number to commercial firms unless I am guaranteed that it will not be used for purposes other than contact between the magazine personnel and me. I am _very_ sorry for this as I would really liked to have subscribed. Is this information required in a written request as well?

Truly, dr bob
R. Eugene Smith
Annapolis"

For some reason I really have a problem with tele-marketing and it seems that every time we give out a phone nomber, even to legitimate businesses, we are bombarded with tele-marketers for about a month or two.

I expect a reply fron Photovision, but also expect a rather "company business" standing operating proceedure. What is the impression of other APUG members? Should I continue efforts or will this cause heartburn?

 

[Jorge]

I just sent the following email to Photovision:

"I tried to subscribe via email but was rejected because I would not supply my phone No.

I will not give out my phone number to commercial firms unless I am guaranteed that it will not be used for purposes other than contact between the magazine personnel and me. I am _very_ sorry for this as I would really liked to have subscribed. Is this information required in a written request as well?

Truly, dr bob
R. Eugene Smith
Annapolis"

For some reason I really have a problem with tele-marketing and it seems that every time we give out a phone nomber, even to legitimate businesses, we are bombarded with tele-marketers for about a month or two.

I expect a reply fron Photovision, but also expect a rather "company business" standing operating proceedure. What is the impression of other APUG members? Should I continue efforts or will this cause heartburn?

As I see it, the important thing is support to the magazine, so they dont have to know you are an APUG member.Rip one of those little cards from the magazine and send it in with a check, that way you dont have to give out your phone number. Or, if you want to deal with a person, e mail their subscription department or phone them and tell them you absolutely do not want to give out your ph#. If you wish to pay with a CC then I think this is a requirement, since the CC demands this as part of the info. I dont know their phone number, or e mail address, but is easy enough to get at their web site.

 

[Aggie]

actually the phone number is not required for the cc companies either. Just the mailing and billing address must correspond. If in doubt, just put in a fake telephone number. We have two main lines into this house. One has no phone hooked to it. I often just put that phone number down. It's real, but no one ever answers the line.