I enjoy (ed) using the paper and really liked the results. Yes, I have seen great prints on other paper....but I really like the look of the AZO /chloride paper.
I am very optimistic about the outcome and eager to get more paper...as I am too judicious in my current use of remaining azo...
I appreciate Michael and Paula's effort in this endeavor and wish them the best.
In the meantime I will continue to have fun and explore other papers / developers, etc.
After all, part of the fun is the journey, no?
Many people have coded preference for prints with high Dmax and glossy surfaces and find it hard to really like prints like kallitype and pt/pd on matte surface papers. I have a fair amount of expertise in printing both of these processes, but must admit that sometimes the lack of brillance is disappointing. They always look so great in the water, but on dry-down the magic just goes away. Carbon prints, on the other hand, have things going on that you won't see in any other process because of the 3-d dimensional quality produced by the relief, and they can have Dmax as great as silver. It is truly the most distinctive and unique of all photographic processes.
Originally Posted by doughowk
I don't do much silver printing, but what little I have done has been with AZO. I like the look, and I also like the fact that it prints more like alternative process work (long exposures) than silver. And fortuntely, I still have a fair amount of 20X24" AZO in #2 and #3.
One must appreciate people like Michael Smith who have found the perfect combination of film and paper for their work and have worked so hard to keep them available, at considerable sacrifice I imagine to their own financial well-being. Let's wish them luck in working out the kinks with the future Lodima paper.
I've used the last of my Azo, and eagerly await its replacement.
I liked the simplicity of making prints with just a bare lightbulb, no contrast filters. And because the paper was so slow, flashing was much easier to get texture into bare white highlights.
So to repeat the start of the thread, what's everyone going to use in the meantime? I think I'll get graded ilford paper and try Ansco developer.
Thanks Alex for sharing your experiences and providing some avenues to explore.
There really is no comparison between a well crafted AZO print and a print made on other enlargement papers. That is not to say an AZO print is superior, just that I don't think you can get that close to the look of an AZO print when you put it next to a print made on another paper. I hope Lodima does make it to market because I do believe that there is a quality to a silver chloride print that puts it in a category all by itself like platinum, collodion or a dag.
With that being said, I am in the same boat as others. I played around with AZO after the before mentioned View Camera article was published and increased my interest after joining APUG. I joined the Chinese group order of Amidol, but used up all my AZO before the amidol arrived. Now I can't justify buying AZO at current prices and since it looks like Lodima is at minimum 1 to possibly 2 years away I will end up selling the amidol since I don't believe it gives any advantages over Ansco 130 or PPPD or (or even dektol and selenium toning in some cases) with standard projection papers. When Lodima makes it to market there will probably be enough interest generated to get another large amidol order put together. Untill then, like Alex I will experiment to get something I like for contact printing 8x10 and larger negs.
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
How many of you ferrotype your glossy prints? After all, gloss does not come into its own on FB glossy papers until they are ferrotyped.
This is one of the methods used by the masters in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I don't ferrotype - I never cared for the look. It seems to me that the ferrotyped surface is just too obvious, and thus, distracts - sort of like too much reverb in an audio mix.
I don't ferrotype either. I've seen it done in many years gone by but I generally prefer the natural texture of the glossy FB paper.
I ferrotyped for a time back in the 1980's but like others have said, I don't like the look.
I've found that if I take a neg scaled for enlarging paper that I've printed on Oriental Seagull grade 2, I can get a very similar look to the Azo print I can make from the same neg, with a slight preference for the Azo print.
If I take a neg scaled for Azo, though, I can get a much better print on Azo than I could with enlarging paper, and I think this is part of the reason that Azo prints have the potential to look as good as they do--you can use a richer negative.
Ah, yes, the 80's.
Originally Posted by Donald Miller
Big hair, Journey, and ferrotyped glossy prints.
Those were the days.