|
|
|
-
Not yet. We saw some prints last month and they still had a way to go. I believe this fellow got discouraged with Azo. Why, I'm not sure.
Michael A. Smith
-
"I believe this fellow got discouraged with Azo."
Let me speculate why - he could not get close to the quality of AZO contact prints made with in-camera negatives no matter how hard he tried. And perhaps he had a strong initial belief or preconceived notion that digital negatives could equal, perhaps even surpass, in-camera negatives vis-a-vis AZO contact prints. I am curious as to his results.
-
I was also working on a digital negative curve for AZO. We got very close with Berger FB Glossy, and Forte Polywarmtone, but for some reason, the ones we did with AZO weren't in the same league. In theory AZO should be the perfect paper for this type of thing, but its curve is so different than enlarging paper, it would take a long long time to perfect. I gave up with all of them. Basically, it is more fun being in the out doors shooting than sitting in front of a computer.
-
Brian: yes being in front of the computer is a bore. My interest in the digital negative is to complete a series of photos where I have 4 defective 4 x 5 negatives and I am printing them to Ilford Galerie. I completed the AZO curve test in one shot. And did it for no good reason. You would be surprised to find the curve for grade 3 AZO is similar to the curve for Galerie grade 2. Its hard for me to make a direct comparison to a print from a in-camera negative because I never had any 8 x 10 negatives scanned. Michael: if you'd like I can send you the calibration test print which is the "ole moire lady" calibration image used with 4 curves on one print. Cannot say when I would be able to make a direct comparison. I would say the quality is good and would allow one to "save" an image. And your non-photographer friends ain't going to know.
|
|
Adv Reply
