Lodima Fine Art Paper ready to take orders

[c6h6o3]

There are a lot of problems with Lodima paper. It will take time and work for M&P to get it right. Let's help them make it perfect.

As to the relative qualities of enlargement vs. contact printing, I'd urge you to look at the photographs of Brett Weston, who did both. My favorite print of his is an enlargement, and I only know that because I was told. I defy you to tell the difference by looking only at his prints. Granted, he had much better enlarging papers to work with, but I've seen some simply magnificent prints on Ilford Multigrade, a paper which I regard as mediocre at best. The skill of the printer makes a lot more difference than the paper does.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's just it, though, and I agree with you completely.
If I look at a Brett Weston print, I tend not to wonder if it's a contact print or an enlargement. I just admire the art. Don't care about what paper he used either...
What I want to celebrate is diversity. That there are so many options (still). Something for everybody to be excited about. That's what matters.

[doughowk]

I won't be giving up my enlarging paper; but, after seeing M&Ps prints up close, and after seeing what Michael Smith can do with a couple of my 8X10 negatives, I am far more willing to lug out the big beasts. Lodima is a paper that has been worth waiting for. It makes contact printing both easier and more expressive.

[ilya1963]

Without a fear ...

diversity of one thing could be mind blowing if you allow it to....

[Mahler_one]

Not too many of us have access to an 8x10 enlarger, and thus if we shoot 8x10, contact printing is the only option. I was with Doug and Mike at the recent Michael and Paula workshop, and of course, after looking at Michael's and Paula's prints "live" and "up close", the results with Azo and Amidol are-de minimus-exceptional. Tom and C6 have a wonderful point though: There are great prints made using an enlarger. Furthermore, from many examples that I have noted from fellow APUG members, there is some GREAT work being done by many of our members. Of course, not having the opportunity to hold and examine these prints ( as opposed to viewing over the internet ), makes comparison with Azo prints impossible. We are lucky to have the opportunity to make our photographs using diverse techniques, and one would agree that it is hard to say that one method is "always superior" ( my words ) to another. However, allow me to repeat that Mike was also with us at the workshop. His work with many different techniques ( Platinum, Azo, contact printing on traditional enlarging paper, etc. ) was exceptional, and illustrates the points that many of us are making: It is the artist who is using the tools, and not the tools that are using the artist. Memorable images can be made in many ways.

It certainly would be informative to see a series of prints made by John Sexton and compare the range of tones with prints made on Azo using Amidol by a Master using such materials, i.e., Michael or Paula. Would one still be entirely convinced that Azo/Amidol has a higher demonstrable range of tones, and is "better"? Simply wondering without any value judgments...without appearing sexist or silly, the situation might be similar when trying to say which beautiful woman does one favor, i.e., the blonde or the red head. To return to reality, the kinds of objective evaluation of prints and/or negatives produced with chemicals or techniques that are reputed to be "better" might, in fact, show very little differences when viewed under similar conditions by an unbiased audience. The observers would not be able to handle the prints...simply observe two prints of the same subject made from the same negative, framed and matted the same way, lighting the same of course...printed to a similar DMax ( if possible ), etc., etc. Not talking about prints that are of a different "color", i.e., platinum in which one might be able to tell the difference from such color ( unless one could tone a conventional print to mimic the tone of a platinum prints ). However, such objective evaluations are not easily available. I am reminded of a post on APUG which pointed out that such "blind observers" (sic) have not been able to tell the difference from a print made on RC VC paper from one made on FB RC paper. Not talking about longevity, etc...simply saying that both papers processed to archival standards for that particular paper yielded results that could not be differentiated.

The "upshot" appears to me to be that a given photographer might always think that the techniques he or she uses to produce a photographic that captures their personal "vision" is superior to another technique that might also have been utilized.

Ed

[Markus Röhling]

Is there any information online about the spectral sensivity of Lodima available? Can it be handled at subdued room light like traditional gaslight papers? For Azo I found charts here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/g10/g10.pdf What would be the differences between Azo and Lodima in this respect?

Markus

[doughowk]

Michael Smith said he uses a light sufficient to read a newspaper by. At the workshop we were using a Thomas Safelight. At home I've used 25watt bug lights 4-7' away without a problem. Working in such well-lighted conditions is one of the pleasures of using a slow contact paper.

[EASmithV]

What happens to Lodima if I dev in Dektol?

[c6h6o3]

There are a lot of problems with Lodima paper. It will take time and work for M&P to get it right. Let's help them make it perfect.

Any problems I may have with it notwithstanding, I should state that I think Lodima is the best photographic paper in existence, including Azo. I intend to buy a good bit of it. It has denser blacks than Azo, and the color is spectacular. I would never forgive myself if I thought that my criticism, which I only put forward in hopes of improving an already fine product, had dissuaded anyone from buying it.

Since the death of Bergger VCNB, I know of no enlarging paper which I consider good enough to use. (Yes, I know that Bergger is marketing a paper, but it's not the same.) This is the reason I'm not making any enlargements at present. When I find a good enough paper, I'll begin whittling down the ever burgeoning backlog I have of 6x6 cm negatives that need printing.

[jgjbowen]

Since the death of Bergger VCNB, I know of no enlarging paper which I consider good enough to use. (Yes, I know that Bergger is marketing a paper, but it's not the same.) This is the reason I'm not making any enlargements at present. When I find a good enough paper, I'll begin whittling down the ever burgeoning backlog I have of 6x6 cm negatives that need printing.

Jim,

Why not contact print the 6x6 cm negatives? I've seen some jewel-like medium format Azo contact prints by Peter Schrager. I understand Paula also has quite a number of 6x6 Azo prints.