Only question I have is why two variables? paper and developer.
Did you try any of these papers with Amidol?
Thanks George. I haven't used Amidol with Kentona or Slavich; others have I believe. I have used it on the other papers mentioned including the hand-coated stuff. All with the same negative, and over several month's time.
Originally Posted by George Losse
I have no doubt nor dispute on Amidol's capabilities. My goal is to arrive at developer/paper combination that gives equal results to my eyes, in order to get away from the limitations, and now huge expense, of the availability of developer and paper. I don't feel like I'm compromising anything. As others have said, the Amidol/Azo combination is very easy to use. But I don't think it takes much more effort to use these alternatives. Its just getting back to basics and using them effectively.
Due to the crush of other things I have not been able to participate here as I could in the past. But someone drew my attention to this thread.
The quest for a replacement paper for Azo is continuing. Paula and I will be testing paper in April when we return from a trip we are on. So far the replacement paper has not been right. We expect that eventually the paper will be the same as or superior to Azo.
Regarding a comment in this thread about the "marketing hype" surrounding Azo, a quick summary of my activity regarding Azo.
In 1996 I wrote an article about Azo for View Camera magazine. A number of photographers, who had not previously been familiar with Azo started printing on it. Some years later, Azo was going to be discontinued. Kodak told me that "someone had to step up to the plate and stock it" in order to keep it in production. They offered me and Paula a limited distributorship. We turned them down and asked Freestyle to stock the paper. They did stock it, but before a year was out called us and asked us to buy all of their remaining inventory--the business had been sold to a new owner and they were dumping Azo. Wanting to save the paper, we immediately called Kodak and eventually became limited dealers of this paper. We never marketed it. The only thing we ever did was post its availability on our web site and from time to time write about the results we had achieved with it. We never advertised it. I go on record here objecting to the slur about "marketing hype." We could have gotten paper for ourselves and not sold any to anyone else. We became dealers to others not for financial gain (there was no profit in selling Azo--if our time is counted at even $5/hour we lost money), but so others could use this wonderful paper.
Paula and I will not cease in our attempts to have a repalcement paper made.
Michael, I for one appreciate all of the work you have put into getting a replacement paper made. When i got into my photography again after a long layoff I did some reading about the wet process printing. I have not done a lot of printing in the past. I only started developing and printing my B&W in the last 3 years. The information from your site was of great help to me. You made the process simple. Azo could be used in almost daylight! You can see and work in a light darkroom! My Azo/Amidol prints were very good to my eye. My best prints to date were made with this combo. Simplicity in printing is a great advantage to me. I hope to one day become an acomplished printer and if the Lodima Fine Art paper will give me the results I get with my Azo, I only had the new grade 2, I will support you and Paula 100%. The ease of using a paper like Lodima in printing will allow me more time to expose negatives. I will continue to explore other papers but can't wait for the Lodima. I am sure it wil be the best.
Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith
Speaking only for myself, I have never felt there was any marketing hype around Azo. There was and is certainly enthusiasm; enthusiasm from people who used it and discussed it. That type of enthusiasm is no different than what is seen for say Rodinal or G-Claron lenses. The fact that this enthusiasm stimulates interest is again, no different from many other things, both photographic and non-photographic.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I guess I didn't read the marketing hype comment being related to Michael selling the paper, I thought it was referring to people selling their prints hyping the superior quality of Azo.
In any event, I didn't see it directed at any one individual.
Same here. It didn't seem directed at anyone.
Originally Posted by mikebarger
Matt's Photo Site
"I invent nothing, I rediscover". Auguste Rodin
I believe Michael was talking about how he has never advertised AZO paper anywhere besides for his website, and the sucess of the paper has only been because of that.
Maybe with the new Lodima paper, it could be advertised abit to draw in some new users that may not be familar with AZO, Michael and Paulas website or any photo board where AZO is discussed?
Just an idea.
There has to be some type of marketing if a product is to remain viable, simple fact in today's world. If there is no marketing, there will be no product. It may be the best paper in the world for printing, but if no one knows about it, how long will it be in production?
Hype is from the use of "hyperbole" in advertising. Exaggerated claims are used to sell cars, like Toyota's Prius which does not get the mpg advertised, or political ideas which are popular hype. tim
So proper marketing would be "Lodima Paper: in the grand tradition of Adams, the Westons & others who care about their print quality". While hype would be "it'll last forever" fine print, if properly sealed in time-capsule ;-)
I'm looking forward to using Lodima paper. I'm learning to like Kallitypes; but there is something special about a contact print made on B&W glossy paper.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"