Photo Engineer said:
JandC, I've been able to duplicate this in my home darkroom.
The proof comes when you test all 3 grades for reciprocity, latent image keeping and raw stock keeping for starters. You might also include the image scale and tone in that and a few others such as product uniformity and batch to batch variations. And how about defects across a 20x24 sheet for one? Or dust specks, gel slugs and 'pepper' which is common in AgCl emulsions.
How about the spectral sensitivity?
A deviation in any of these will make it non-Azo like to some user out there. This is important if the product is to survive the marketplace.
I can't live up to those other tests yet, and I doubt if the manufacturer of the material you tested can either with such a short interval from conception to sample.
Some of the details on making Azo are published if you know where to look. Apparently, the guys that did the work for M&P knew. I assure you that they don't know everything!
PE
Nobody said it was AZO. It's a similar replacement for a product that has been discontinued. The first samples of this paper were created almost two years ago. Nobody just whipped it up in a matter of days or weeks. What you are not taking into consideration is that other film factories in the world produced silver chloride papers years ago. Kodak was just the last to discontinue it. Kodak's technology is not needed to produce this paper.
I would contend that if the product looks good and performs well than it will survive in the market place even if it is not 100% a copy of Azo. Perhaps people will have to slightly modify their technique or chemistry to optimize for the new paper. Perhaps the final product will be so close that people will use it just like AZO. Either way it doesn't matter as long as it gives the final result.
After all you are the one telling everyone to coat their own with all the variables that entails. Surely you cannot be saying that a photo factory that has been coating papers for decades and used to produce a silver chloride paper in the past is less capable of producing a good product than someone at home.
Batch to batch variations, that reminds me of the last few runs of AZO!
Defects across a 20x24 sheet, Try and perfect that one at home.
Spectral sensitivity, within reasonable bounds it doesn't really matter, You adapt to the characteristics of the paper.
Would it be best if Kodak had kept producing AZO on their state of the art machinery using all of their technical resources. Sure it would but that's not the reality of it. So the options are nothing, make your own or use a replacement paper from a different manufacturer.
It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks about the viability of producing this paper or it's market potential. If enough people put up the cash to make it happen the market will provide the answer. It seems to me that people here should be hoping it happens even if they don't use AZO. A win here in creating a replacement product could be what's needed to convince investors in the future to back other analog ventures.