Graded Forte Fortezo and (eeeegads) Dektol.
"EVERY film and paper is good .......... for something"
But Brook, great light and Azo are not mutually exclusive. They can be used together as elements leading to something more than either individually. Great light with details held in both shadow and highlight is better than great light with shadows blocked and highlights either non-existent or over-burned.
Originally Posted by Brook
In the same vein if you had needed to tow a much larger boat, which would be better, your Toyota or his Dodge?
There are, of course, many other silver papers out there besides Azo. But I have never seen in any enlarging paper the number of mid-tones that a silver chloride paper is capable of.
I, too, have seen some lousy Azo prints. I have even made some myself. But all things being equal, I would bet that the same negative printed by someone who knows how to make great prints, on Azo and also on any of the other silver papers, would reveal that the print on Azo was "better."
Now, "better" is a subjective thing. Azo is a smoother-toned paper than any enlarging paper. If you like, punchy red-filtered skies and the Ansel Adams enlargement look to your prints you will probably not prefer Azo. It will not appear better to you. But if you prefer prints more like those contact prints Adams made in the 30s and early 40s, or prints by Weston, then you will prefer silver chloride paper. The only silver chloride paper remaining today is Azo.
Of course, you do have to have the right negatives for it.
If any of you who will be at the large-format conference in Massachusetts in about 10 days, Paula and I will have hundreds of prints with us. We'll try to make time for anyone who wants to look at all of them.
I will say that I have seen some bad Azo prints too and I have made some myself...I will go on to say that I have seen good Azo prints too (Michael and Paula's among them)...
Be that as it may, the sensitometric characteristics of the material take this assessment out of the subjective arena and bring it into objective reality...there is no...I repeat no silver paper that has the exposure scale of Azo grade two...
Think of it this way...Ansel suggest having a density range of appr. 1.0 - 1.15(subtacting low density value from high density value...not subtracting fb=fog) for silver enlarging...
By comparison grade two Azo has an exposure scale of 1.65-1.75. That is the equivalent of two more complete stops of density contained on the camera negative that Azo grade two can contain when compared to conventional silver paper.
Originally Posted by jdef
I hope that you won't mind me responding to your post...you have been on my ignore list for awhile..I think that you understand why...Once again, you are using your own venacular based in who knows what means of testing.
To wit...paper is not normally expressed in density range among those who choose to communicate in an open and honest manner. The term that is most often used is "exposure scale". But be that as it may..please send me representative samples of the papers you mentioned and I will conduct evaluations based on known scientific models and using known and accepted terminology. I will be happy to reimburse you for your actual cost of materials and shipping. I will conduct these tests and post the results for all to see here on Apug. My tests will involve testing the papers you mentioned at grade two and comparing the ES of the papers that you mentioned against the ES of Azo grade two. A couple of 8X10 sheets should be adequate.
My address should you care to respond is Donald Miller 3355 E. Hampton Ln. Gilbert, Az. 85297. I am a man of my word and will reimburse you for your actual cost of materials. I hope that you understand that my opinion engenders a great deal of skepticism about your methods.
Should that not be of interest to you...then I will arrange for Sandy King or some other person who works at this level to do the testing as an impartial third party. If you would prefer that Sandy to do it, then I will still pay for the materials and shipping at your actual cost. So you have nothing to lose Jay.
No other comments are required or asked for. The only thing that you need do is put the paper in the mail along with a bill for the actual cost of the samples and the cost of shipping. I don't want another pissing match with you...I will test the papers or have Sandy test the papers that you ship at the same grade as Azo and we will see if your testing results are what you represent them to be.
Should you choose to not respond then I will simply post on this site and in this thread that you chose to not conduct an honest appraisal apart from just flatulant verbalization. You might say that your reputation is now on the line. Are you a man of your word?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by jdef
The problem is, and I am sure that you will understand it, that we want to be absolutely sure that we have representative samples of the paper that you claim to have tested. If that weren't done in that manner, there would always be the possibility that one could claim differences based on emulsion changes by the manufacturer. So what I am suggesting is the only fair test, wouldn't you agree?
So why don't you just be a man of your word and send Sandy or me a couple of 8X10 sheets. Or should I just take this that you were blowing in the wind once again...you have my address...
I will post the actual results of your actions...the next move is yours.
Little matters what kind of negative you need. What matters is how the paper responds to it. Azo responds very well. It is probably the paper that best shows what is on the negative and that is why is fairly easy to make a great print on Azo. Now for the ones that do not care for those qualities, it is OK. What is good for one, need not be good for others. Thanks god it is that way!
Other papers may exist that need negatives of higher density range, but that is by no means a great quality about them.
By the way, I did visit the CAW site and copied the following which seems to be different from what you represented earlier.
"Ordinary photographic negatives with today's printing characteristics may not have sufficient density range to produce vigorous prints on Printing-out Paper. Negatives made with most pictorial films likely will require added development time to produce the requisite density range. However, the resulting higher mid-tone contrast may be objectionable. The approximate density range required to produce vigorous shadows and clean highlights is 1.80."
Also this is not an apples to apples comparision since the coloration and visual appearance are quite different with this material from conventional silver developing out papers since this is a printing out paper. I am not sure that you were aware of the difference in these materials.
I have not used this material myself but it seems that CAW acknowledges a somewhat non linear response by virtue of the comment that follows ... "However, the resulting higher mid-tone contrast may be objectionable."
I thought that you might want to update your records to coincide with what CAW states as opposed to what you reported earlier.
I look forward to receiving a couple of sheets of the other paper.
- Nor does the need for high density range for Azo necessarily equate to a greater quality...
Originally Posted by colivet
I prefer a higher midtone contrast than what I have seen from Azo, while still maintaining smoothness in the highlights and shadows. I choose the paper I use from the negative and how I want the print to look, not the other way round.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
" I won't be sending you anything, ever."
Really? No kidding!!!! I wonder why???