Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,296   Posts: 1,535,676   Online: 1115
      
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 155
  1. #31
    Andrew Moxom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,868
    Images
    333
    While I normally stay out of such things on a public forum, something does not smell right here. So all enlarging papers are now considered dinosaurs and of inferior quality. While I applaud people for resurrecting emulsions that have gone away, the elitism I see in this thread is just pure unfounded snobbery. I'll stick with my enlarging papers for now until those who can buy 3k or 5k worth of the new paper to beta test lodima so the manufacturers can iron out the wrinkles. I'll continue to make inferior prints on mature and proven emulsions in the meantime. Each to their own I guess.

    I would gladly try this paper, but is there really enough proof to say that it's superior to anything else out there, and why the hype?? I sense an attitude of if you don't contact print on this, you aren't a real photographer.... my .02
    Please check out my website www.amoxomphotography.com and APUG Portfolio .....

  2. #32
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Andrew;

    I think that if one does a careful analysis, one will find two benefits from Azo paper types.

    1. Contact printing from LF negs is ever so much better than enlarging anything.
    2. Azo type contact papers have a very soft toe and soft shoulder that enhances the shadow and highlight detail. Of course, not all varieties of contact papers, developers and etc... reveal or contain these latter characteristics. This is why we must rely on expert judgment.

    PE

  3. #33
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,232
    Images
    20
    The way I've described it is--it's not so much that the paper is more beautiful than enlarging papers, but an Azo type paper or the new Lodima paper, which I've tested, makes it possible to use a longer scale neg (about one zone more contrast) with more detail, and to render that detail easily on the print. I have negs that print well on enlarging papers and make similar prints on Azo, but I have negs targeted to Azo that make excellent prints on Azo that couldn't be made easily on enlarging papers.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    West Virginia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Moxom View Post
    ......... I'll stick with my enlarging papers for now until those who can buy 3k or 5k worth of the new paper to beta test lodima so the manufacturers can iron out the wrinkles. I'll continue to make inferior prints on mature and proven emulsions in the meantime. Each to their own I guess.

    I would gladly try this paper, but is there really enough proof to say that it's superior to anything else out there, and why the hype?? I sense an attitude of if you don't contact print on this, you aren't a real photographer.... my .02
    Well said Andrew, and I do understand your point. Everyone has something to sell, and the hype is just part of the sales pitch. It is so easy to be swept up in the moment and the threat of if you don't buy, you will forever be full of regret. Ever heard the line from a salesman that goes something like, "you can not afford not to take advantage of this, and now!"

    All fine and good, but I have an even greater concern about Lodima paper. I posted my questions in a similar discussion over on the LF Site. Below is my first post there.

    B. Dalton

    >>>>>>
    Not to throw cold water on a hot iron, but has anyone addressed the issue as to the warranty this new paper may carry? I would certainly be interested in trying any new paper, but I would never venture more than one box to begin with. Buying $5-10K worth of an unproven paper is way beyond a risk that I would undertake without some guarantee, in writing, as to the long-term storage of such a product.

    Does anyone know the keeping properties of Lodima? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that Kodak Azo was one, if not the only, silver chloride paper that had good keeping properties. It is well proven that Azo keeps very well for over forty years, but what guarantee as to keeping properties do you get with Lodima? I have not seen any guarantee?

    This is a completely new product, with untested and unproven keeping properties. What happens if my $10K stock of Lodima should go bad after a few years in storage? Do I get a refund? Do I get replacement paper? Or, am I just out of luck? There are far too many unanswered questions to risk a large sum of money without some sort of understand as to who stands behind the product and what the terms are in case something goes wrong. Just something to consider. I would certainly be interested in purchasing one box of 8x10 to test. I will not be sending $10k!
    >>>>>>

  5. #35
    JLP
    JLP is offline
    JLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,596
    Images
    19
    Symmar man, Do you think Ilford will refund your money if your paper stock goes bad after 5 or 10 years after purchase?
    If you don't want to comit to the Lodima paper fine but then you probably wouldn't know the difference either.

    I would certainly be interested in purchasing one box of 8x10 to test. I will not be sending $10k!
    So why did you not buy a box when it was available for testing? It is of course easier to throw your sour grapes now that you can't get a box.
    _______________
    Jan Pedersen
    http://janlpedersen.com

  6. #36
    Roger Thoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    851
    Images
    7
    Just placed my order for 5 boxes of 100. As far as I could see you can order as little as one box of a 100 sheets. You certainly don't have to spend 5k or 10k to try Lodima.
    Roger

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by JLP View Post
    Symmar man, Do you think Ilford will refund your money if your paper stock goes bad after 5 or 10 years after purchase?
    If you don't want to comit to the Lodima paper fine but then you probably wouldn't know the difference either.


    So why did you not buy a box when it was available for testing? It is of course easier to throw your sour grapes now that you can't get a box.
    Well said Jan.

    I had a chance to speak to the manufacturer when the paper was being developed and their advance age testing showed that the paper was good for at least 10 years but those that would not step up to the plate for trying this paper are already convinced that they are not interested. I have printed on 30 year old silver chloride paper and it is as good as the day it was produced. I had some conventional enlarging paper that was shot a year after I bought it. Go figure.

    I remember reading a long time ago in the Adams photo series that Contact printing always had a natural leg up on projection printing visually and employing the laws of physics. Once I opened up my eyes to contact printing I could not make another enlargement and that was over five years ago.

    If you don't want to make an order don't. What we don't need is negativity in this post and we sure as hell are not going to waste our time with you on this subject. I sent my check for several thousand dollars for this paper and an happy as hell that I have the opportunity to do so. At the end of the day I hope that the large order goes through because I will in a select group of people that have the opportunity to enjoy it. It is a truly a marvelous product and will only get better.

    Fortunately I learned a long time ago that nothing in life of any real value is ever attained by thinking small.

    Cheers!

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,645
    Seeing is believing. Some time ago gave away a box of Canadian AZO because not impressed. Briefly working with Lodima paper has changed my focus. It may not be a magic bullet for all negs, but it sure comes close. Paula Chamlee said its easy as a printer to get bright whites and deep blacks, but what is difficult is the tones in between. This paper makes that goal more achievable. Placed a modest order yesterday, and looking forward to printing my ULF negatives with Lodima.
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    From Andrew Moxom: "While I normally stay out of such things on a public forum, something does not smell right here. So all enlarging papers are now considered dinosaurs and of inferior quality. While I applaud people for resurrecting emulsions that have gone away, the elitism I see in this thread is just pure unfounded snobbery. I'll stick with my enlarging papers for now until those who can buy 3k or 5k worth of the new paper to beta test lodima so the manufacturers can iron out the wrinkles. I'll continue to make inferior prints on mature and proven emulsions in the meantime. Each to their own I guess."

    I would gladly try this paper, but is there really enough proof to say that it's superior to anything else out there, and why the hype?? I sense an attitude of if you don't contact print on this, you aren't a real photographer.... my .02"

    Have you ever tried, Andrew, making contact prints on silver chloride paper? If you have not, then your comments are totally worthless. If you have, and have not achieved superior results, then perhaps you did not know how to print on this paper. While printing is printing and most things are basically the same, printing on silver chloride paper differs in that 1) conventional print developers (Dektol and others) do not give pleasing tones, and 2) developing times are significantly shorter than with enlarging papers (except for the "Canadian" Grade 2 Azo, which doesn't count here).

    In my first article about silver chloride papers, published in View Camera in 1996, i mentioned that from time to time over a number of years, I had tried printing on silver chloride paper, but could never make a good print from it. I knew my prints on enlarging paper, which were good prints to most eyes (they were collected in many museums and by many collectors), were lacking something--but I did not know what they were lacking. In 1975, when I met Dody Thompson, Edward Weston's last assistant and she looked at my photographs, she said that while my prints were indeed fine prints, something was missing. She then proceeded to get out and show me about 100 of Edward Weston's prints. Putting them side by side with my prints, it was obvious that something was missing in my prints, and I knew that the only thing it could be was silver chloride paper, of which then, there were only two still being manufactured: Azo and Velox. I tried them both again (I had tried them previously from time to time, but could not get a good print from them, not knowing I needed shorter developing times), did not like the blue color of Velox and decided to print on Azo. Eventually, some years later, I reprinted all of my negatives that had been printed on enlarging paper onto Azo. The difference was astonishing. Not only was were the Azo prints more beautiful--longer scale, deeper blacks, but because of the long scale of the Azo paper only about 20% of the dodging and burning was necessary. The prints were better, and easier to print. I did not, and still do not, see anything wrong with that. One comment I received a long time ago was from someone who said that printing on Azo made him feel guilty, because it was so easy.

    In my experience (I grant you, maybe it is not wide enough), in every case where I have seen a print from the same negative made on enlarging paper and on silver chloride paper, the silver chloride paper is more beautiful. It is richer tones, deeper blacks, and more subtle grays (more separation ion the mid grays). And those whose prints they are agree with this assessment.

    This is no "Beta Test." I have been testing new silver chloride emulsions for well over five years. The "pre-production" run we had last year could be considered the Beta Test. Everyone who ordered the paper received no more than one box. But this large run is not a Beta Test,

    Now, we are ready to make the largelrun of paper. (I will first be testing a proper grade 2 first. The pre-production run was a grade 3, although it was billed as a grade 2. We will have a proper grade 2.) We need lots of order of the paper to us is high in any case as the manufacturer needs to recover their R&D costs). If I had the money I would put the entire sum up myself, but I do not. So we need lots of orders.

    In closing, if you make contact prints and want to keep printing on enlarging paper, just do so, but please, if you do not know what you are talking about, keep your absurd accusations of "unfounded snobbery" to yourself.

    Michael A. Smith

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    To quote B. Dalton:
    "Not to throw cold water on a hot iron, but has anyone addressed the issue as to the warranty this new paper may carry? I would certainly be interested in trying any new paper, but I would never venture more than one box to begin with. Buying $5-10K worth of an unproven paper is way beyond a risk that I would undertake without some guarantee, in writing, as to the long-term storage of such a product.

    "Does anyone know the keeping properties of Lodima? Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that Kodak Azo was one, if not the only, silver chloride paper that had good keeping properties. It is well proven that Azo keeps very well for over forty years, but what guarantee as to keeping properties do you get with Lodima? I have not seen any guarantee?

    "This is a completely new product, with untested and unproven keeping properties. What happens if my $10K stock of Lodima should go bad after a few years in storage? Do I get a refund? Do I get replacement paper? Or, am I just out of luck? There are far too many unanswered questions to risk a large sum of money without some sort of understand as to who stands behind the product and what the terms are in case something goes wrong. Just something to consider. I would certainly be interested in purchasing one box of 8x10 to test. I will not be sending $10k!"

    I am puzzled why some people post this kind of stuff without first asking me, the distributor for the manufacturer, the questions he raises.

    The manufacturer has tested the paper for keeping properties and has told me that it should keep for 10 years at a minimum. He said it should keep longer, but would not guarantee that. Now what does that guarantee mean? Will I get money back if the paper goes bad in five years or in nine years? No. Some things you have to take on trust.

    The paper is a silver chloride paper. All silver chloride papers, because they are slow papers compared to enlarging papers, last a long time. We have printed on silver chloride paper that is now 90 years old. There is some slight fog, but the prints are beautiful. Papers from 70 years ago (a number of brands--not just Azo) also show slight fog, but also gives beautiful prints. Paper from 40 years ago is perfect with no fog, but does have a slight lessening of contrast. Slight.

    The Lodima paper: Will it last a long time? Probably it will, as it is a silver chloride paper. The paper is warranted against defects the same as Kodak warranted their paper. The last batches of Azo had an expiration date on it of a year after manufacture. That meant nothing except, I imagine, that Kodak would guarantee the paper for that amount of time. That paper is now three to five years out of date. The paper is still perfect.

    If you get one box of paper and you like it, what will that tell you about its long-tern keeping properties? Nothing. Unless you don't use the paper for over ten years. You can wait ten years to see how the paper ages before purchasing any more, and I hope in ten years we will still be able to have it made, but can we absolutely count on that? I would sooner count on the paper lasting over ten years.

    Michael A. Smith

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin