You should ask Michael this question, not me. He is fully aware of my work and has seen my results.
Quite some time ago, at the time we met with Ron Mowrey, and we had a very good meeting (for which we paid him at a fairly high rate, considering our means, though maybe not by some consulting standards), he said that his formula was not adequate to make a big production run. I do not know if the formula in this thread is the same one that he was working with when we met him. But, bless him, he did tell us where we might find a formula for a whole run of paper. And find it we did.
We are pleased that he is now willing to generously share his formula with others--for free!
We have seen results on paper coated with Ron's formula. We saw one beautiful print. Truly beautiful. Exquisite. So his formula definitely works. But when we were told by the person who made the print that he had to coat about 10 sheets of paper to get a perfect coating--and there was no guarantee that on that piece of paper the exposure and amount of dodging and burning would be perfect, we realized that making your own silver chloride emulsion was for those who truly enjoyed, and got their deepest pleasure from, working in the darkroom and who only made a few prints a year. It clearly was not for those whose primary concern is making photographs--lots of photographs, as Paula and I do.
I think that some points need to be commented on or clarified.
Michael did indeed consult with me and pay me for making a run of my emulsion and a set of prints for him. I did indeed tell him that the reciprocity failure, latent image keeping and raw stock keeping were untested with my emulsion at that time, and would need to be tested. That was about 2 years ago in the early stages of my work. I have now run those tests.
I have not posted my formula in this thread. My formula is quite a bit simpler and quite different as noted earlier.
The fact is that I am getting about 95% yield on my coatings, and the speed does vary with small batches, but this has no relationship to what could be done with the proper plant facilities. With a good coating machine and the proper scaling, my formula could be coated quite as easily as any other production emulsion formula.
The advice I gave them was that there were several places that could make what they wanted, better than I could alone. I named facilities that might help them as far as I knew them. I warned them that a small machine run would not necessarily make possible a large scale run and that duplicating Azo paper would not be an easy task. It took me a year to get to the point I showed them nearly 2 years ago.
I think that the scaling problem is being seen right now in the results that Michael has described of his sample coatings. It is similar to the growing pains that I have had over the 3 years making this emulsion in several locations.
If you wish more information from an outside review, you might wish to re-read Alex Hawleys comments here in this forum.
Good point. I do know that Michael is pretty critical of what an Azo (like) emulsion should and would evidence. In fact I imagine that he would be the final determiner of those characteristics considering the breadth of the experience he has had with that particular material.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Originally Posted by Ryan McIntosh
I posted three scans in this thread. I also posted Azo prints made from the same negatives on the same day that I was printing on the Mowrey paper. And for a third example, there's the original Azo scan of the Cola Sign in my gallery that I made nearly two years prior to the others.
Of course, one can't make any accurate assessment of these prints from low jpegs on the internet. However, as I said before, Ron's emulsion works. Yes, it differs in some characteristics from Azo as I explain in the thread, but that is the nature of emulsion making. Its fully capable of very fine results.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)