Azo status

"Anyone do 4x5 contacts on Azo"

Well, not quite yet but I'm getting geared up for it. Jonathan, with the help of a paper cutter, a box of 100 8x10 sheets will turn into 400 4x5 sheets. That knocks 75% off the cost of paper per print.

A few thoughts: 1) The qualities of Azo are objective but subjectively appreciated.

There is more than one way to be in the world. This diversity can be a good thing.

Why get our knickers in an argumentative knot about it? 2) ad hominem arguments,

e.g., about Michael Smith, a) have no bearing on the information posted, b) have no

merit in any discussion about Azo or other methods of printing, c) demonstrate both

ignorance and a certain nastiness that is detrimental to photography and creativity.

3) I don't imagine Michael Smith needs to be defended and I am not a 'disciple' but

have appreciated what I have learned as well as the spirit in which the information

was given in help from Michael A. Smith. And, yes, I have found Azo to work for me.

I am happy that its cause is being championed. Perhaps we would all be happier if we

kept on topic and avoided becoming personal. Life is too short for pettiness.

Michael,

 

I appreciate the efforts you and Paula have done for this fine paper. I have almost used up the first box of 100 sheets in 8x10 grade 3that I bought from you. Wonderful stuff. I will log on to your web page in the next few days and order a box of each grade in 8x10.

 

For those of you who have not yet tried this paper, please indulge. Even if you shoot mostly 4x5 like me, you will get hooked. Printing doesn't get any easier than this. Oh...use the Amidol!!!

 

Beware, you might start getting the itch for larger formats...I'm trying to get in good enough shape to lug my 5x7 gear around, maybe even 8x10 if my wife doesn't freak about a bit more photo gear :-)

 

For those of us who want to keep using this paper, we need to put our money where our mouths are. And Michael, if you and Paula do make money off this, then God bless you. I know you have worked your asses off trying to keep this in production.

<i>M2: I never said it was altruistic. We are not a charity, but we do basically sell the paper at cost--when cost includes shipping materials, credit card processing charges, time for our assistant to write up orders and box it, or my time to do same. And we provide advice on how to use the product and answer questions, sometimes endlessly, day and night. Try that with Badger or B&H or the others. Is that worth something? It seems to be for those who want to know something. Curiously, just before I read your response I spoke with someone who had questions about a number of things in LF photography. He sent an email that arrived as I was open to open the one that came with your posting. It said, "Thanks Michael for the most informative 5 mins I have had in a long time." And the discussion I had with this fellow was not about Azo. What's that worth? </i><p>

 

If it is not altruistic then why do you make it sound like that? What is this "Thanks for helping us keep Azo alive" bit? All those costs you mention are equally shared by other dealers on any type of sales no matter what. I know that Jeff at Badger will talk to you for any questions you have, perhaps he is not very knowledgeable with azo, so he has little to say on the subject, I have spent an hour talking to Kevin Sullivan at Bostick & Sullivan about Ferric Oxalate and problems I was having diluting it. He was very informative and in addition he sent me a fresh supply free of charge. So what it that worth? is worth whatever level of customer service and comfort you provide your customers to increase your sales. Nobody is forcing you to do this and you are certainly not the only one who does it. <p>

 

<i>M2: Glad you agree that Azo has longer scale. If 21 steps means more separation than 20 steps, even if the scale is shorter, so be it. But because the scale of pt is shorter it appears to have less separation, visually. </i><p>

 

Uh?...a scale that has 21 steps is longer than a 20 step scale. What is this it has more steps but is shorter so therefore must have less separation? that does no make sense. At least not sensitometrically. If what you mean is that a negative that has a DR gets compressed into a shorter reflection scale when printed in pt, I will agree to that, but that is why we tailor the negative to fit the reproduction scale. As such a negative that has more steps in the highlights must by definition have better separation. Since your perception is greatly biased in favor of azo, I will take with a grain of salt your statement that "visually" it appears to have less separation, this is your perception according to your likes and way of printing.<p>

 

<i>M2: I have seen beautiful POP prints and beautiful platinum prints and beautiful albumen prints and beautiful most everything prints. But most pt prints are in fact dull and lifeless. People bow down in front of them because they are platinum, without really looking to see if first they are good prints. And, by the way, there are bad Azo prints, too. I even make some myself. </i><p>

 

Now we are getting to the main point. I will admit that when the platinum resurgence started many people thought them special because they were pt, but since then the novelty has worn off and the standard of printing has been raised to an excellence level. Those who were mediocre have fallen off the side and those who have master this process make incredible prints which have nothing "dull and lifeless" about them. If anything they have better and more glowing highlights than any azo print I have ever seen. Perhaps when you show your photographs people want to learn how to print like you, but when I show my pt prints, even with my meager beginner skills, people want to learn how to do them, that should say something about the process if not the photographer. So when you say that "in fact they are dull and lifeless" that is pure arrogance speaking. You have decided this is a fact, that compared to azo anything else is substandard and although there could be some few exceptions anything other than a print made on azo is a bad print. <p>

 

<i>M2:Five years before I ever printed on or really knew about Azo I thought Ansel Adam's enlargements were crappy. His contact prints on contact printing paper, however, were something else--among the most exquisite and beautiful prints that I have ever seen. Nothing philosophical about this. It just requires careful observation of what is right there. I seriously listen to music, and am an amateur musician, but I cannot begin to hear the things in music that many of my musician friends can. And there is nothing wrong with my hearing. Much of it has to do with knowledge of what is possible. If you don't know what you are looking for you can't see it. It is not a philosophical issue that people cannot see what is there</i><p>

 

This statement makes me smile, whenever you and I get in this argument. I get as much cheering e mail as I get death threats. Invariably, those who agree with me, tell me their main objection is not that you push azo so much, but this perceived inflexibility and arrogance which appears in your responses. Right off the vat you dismiss those who don't agree with you as uneducated, inexperienced and that they "cannot see what is there." In other words us morons who cannot see what is plain as day and could not find our a**es with both hands and a mirror...:-)<p>

Again these are your opinions and your perceptions. To borrow your example I have musician friends who are like that, they take me to a jazz bar and tell me about this wonderful musician, and there sits a guy with a bass plucking the cords every so often and going, pluncckk...plaanckk...plllliiunck...and my friends go nuts about this, and ask me, did you hear that? wasn't that wonderful? to me it was god awful music that sounded like moose mating. To them it was heaven, well the same way with the way you evaluate prints and decide what is there or not there. What I see on a print is what you might not see, or what I might "fail" to see might not really be there. I fail to see why is it you are the judge of what constitutes a good print. All your experience gives you is the ability to produce prints which are liked by the people with the same taste for prints you have, nothing more, nothing less.<p>

 

<i>M2: My "marketing strategy" has nothing to do with Azo. 99% of the museums and collectors who buy my photographs and Paula's photographs have no idea on what paper they are printed and couldn't care less. All they know is they are beautiful objects to look at and be inspired by.</i><p>

So we are back to this uh?...well this still does not answer to me why you took so much offense to Jay`s comment. Nevertheless, those same museums which bought or accepted your print donations might have bought or accepted Witkin`s work. This is no proof of "inspiration" or "beauty" it only proves that your work merits safekeeping for the viewing of future generations. The same applies to collectors, there are as many reasons as to why they might have bought your prints as there are belly buttons or opinions, this in itself does not offer proof beauty or inspiration. Some might have thought them beautiful, some might have thought them a good investment, some might even have bought two because their neighbor bought one and they just have to up stage them...who knows!<p>

 

<i>M2: Come on, Jorge. Azo is a contact printing paper. The percentage of people who make contact prints relative to those who make enlargements is minuscule. Even if everyone who made contact prints printed on Azo the market (for Kodak) would still be minuscule.</i><p>

Perhaps, I will even concede you the point, but so is pt printing and it has a healthy resurgence with more and more people doing it every day. Inarguably pt printing is more expensive than Azo, so how come azo is not also enjoying such resurgence? Every two or three months we get to read another doomsday letter like the one above, so we get back to the main reason we started this argument, perhaps Jay is correct and there is no reason to get attached to a printing method which is constantly being threatened with being discontinued.

 

 

M: Winding this down, I hope.

 

J: Nevertheless, those same museums which bought or

accepted your print donations might have bought or accepted

Witkin`s work. This is no proof of "inspiration" or "beauty" it only

proves that your work merits safekeeping for the viewing of future

generations. The same applies to collectors, there are as many

reasons as to why they might have bought your prints as there

are belly buttons or opinions, this in itself does not offer

proof beauty or inspiration. Some might have thought them

beautiful, some might have thought them a good investment,

some might even have bought two because their neighbor

bought one and they just have to up stage them...who knows!

 

M: Well, I know because I have direct personal contact with most

of the buyers of our photographs.

 

M (from before): Come on, Jorge. Azo is a contact printing paper.

The percentage of people who make contact prints relative to

those who make enlargements is minuscule. Even if everyone

who made contact prints printed on Azo the market (for Kodak)

would still be minuscule.

 

J: Perhaps, I will even concede you the point, but so is pt printing

and it has a healthy resurgence with more and more people

doing it every day. Inarguably pt printing is more expensive than

Azo, so how come azo is not also enjoying such resurgence?

Every two or three months we get to read another doomsday

letter like the one above, so we get back to the main reason we

started this argument, perhaps Jay is correct and there is no

reason to get attached to a printing method which is constantly

being threatened with being discontinued.

 

M: In fact, Azo is enjoying a resurgence. I know for a fact that

more Azo of certain grades and sizes was sold last year than at

any time for at least the past 10 or so years. And by a huge

percentage. For many years I was the only buyer of certain

grades and sizes. Now, a much greater quantity is being bought

and used. That may still not be enough for Kodak, although they

ARE keeping the paper in production. It is the last fibre based

graded paper. Most of the doomsday letters are bogus. Just

empty rumor. For at least 15 years I have been hearing rumors

that Azo was no longer being made. They are started by the

camera stores because they do not want to bother handling a

product that is not a "big mover." 80% of any shops sales are

from 20% of the products. In these times, retail stores and

manufacturers are in a hurry to drop that 20%.

 

J: perhaps Jay is correct and there is no reason to get attached

to a printing method which is constantly being threatened with

being discontinued.

 

M: That's like saying you shouldn't fall in love because there is

always the risk that it won't work out and you'll be hurt. Jay, and

perhaps you, (good thing you had that "perhaps" in there) might

live that cautiously, but I do not.

 

Enough Jorge?

 

A handshake.

 

Michael A. Smith

4x5 Azo has not been made in well over a year. B&H may keep it

in their catalogue, but that does not mean it is available. If it is, it

is only what remains of old stock at the warehouse. How's this: if

anyone wants 4x5, send me an email privately and I will see if it

is still available. If it is, I will get it for you. At B&Hs price.

Absolutely Michael. To all of you who dislike my effrontery of arguing with Michael I can only say that he and I view things differently, and sometimes we argue (heatedly at times) about our differences, and for the life of me I have no idea why he puts up with me. That said, I don't think Jay was trying in any way to impugn his character and I certainly know I was not. Ultimately it is none of my business concerning the sales of azo and he has done a lot for photography, particularly B&W and that can only be good for all photographers regardless of the chosen method of expression. I believe I can argue with someone and still respect them, as I do Michael. I hope azo continues to do well and that all of you who love it can save it.

Bob,Platinum is a contact only proces,as is Azo, which would make either an alternative to the other. Question my sincerity if you like, but not my english.

Michael Kravit, Jim Shanesy, and anyone else who took offense to my post, if you believe M.A. Smith's motives to be selfless, you're either in denial, or very naive. A selfless act for the good of the contact-printing community would be to organize a non-profit co-op to buy Azo in large enough quantities to satisfy the demand of the co-op, and maybe get a price break in the bargain. Not a mind bogglingly difficult concept. It was not my intention to start a debate over M.A. Smith's motives, but here you have it in his own words ". Sure, we want it for ourselves, but if that was the only issue we would have kept the orders we placed in the past for ourselves, gotten our own lifetime supply, and then said, "That's it. No more." And we would be making the beautiful Azo prints and everyone else would be out of luck.( Which is EXACTLY what he did with Super XX) But we want others to be able to be able to make contact prints as they were made by the great modernist photographers so we started selling it." Ask him to sell you a few boxes of Super XX and see how deep his commitment to other photographers runs. And Jim, "I can testify from personal knowledge that they work literally from dawn to midnight, 365 days per year in passionate pursuit of the fine photograph" why do you think that is? To satisfy the world"s hunger for M.A.Smith photographs, or for the same reasons the rest of us do, because we want to? What I wrote in my post is the plain truth, and your righteous indignation doesn't change that.

M.A. Smith, don't misunderstand me. You wrote " He said that we were saving Azo 'to fund his own use of his favorite material.' That is simply not true. I took it as a slur and an insult, which I believe it is." It's not a slur, or an insult, and it's not what I said. I never said you were saving Azo, I said that you were soliciting orders for a product that you carry to fund your own use of same. Perhaps the word guarantee would be more appropriate than fund, if your profits are as meager as you claim, and I have no reason to doubt that they are. I stand by my post, and believe it to be accurate, and in no way insulting or nasty or any of the other terms applied to it by those who disagree whith its contents. Good luck with your Azo, but if its fate is sealed and it passes into history alongside the venerable Super XX, I'm sure Jorge would be more than happy to show you a beautiful alternative.

Sincerely (really, I mean it),

Jay De Fehr

Jay, I'm not questioning your English - just the use to which you decided to put it on this occasion. Just because both are contact processes does not make them alternatives: by that logic any of the alt-processes are alternatives of each other and contact printing on normal enlarging paper is an alternative to Pt/Pd - clearly not the case in terms of image appearance, which is surely the criteria. As for why I questioned your sincerity: you can not slag someone off and then wish them the best of luck; it sounds more than a little disingenuous. I do not use either Azo or Platinum processes, nor have I had any contact with Michael Smith in any other respect, so I have no axe to grind here.

Thanks, Jorge.

 

Okay, one more time and this is the end, I hope.

 

This fellow Jay has some sort of axe to grind here. Is he

resentful that I got Super XX for myself and for Paula? That I

called Kodak and after lots of time and arguments got them to

reserve it for me and Paula? That I sacrificed and spent five

years paying off visa cards to do it? And that no one else was

willing to make those kinds of commitments or sacrifices?

 

Super XX: Why did Paula and I not do the same thing for Super

XX as we are doing for AZO? Well, I would have, but it was

discontinued forever. There was no hope to save it, even if I

spent, literally, more money than I had earned in my total lifetime

to that date in 1994.

 

Super XX was discontinued for several reasons: it was more

difficult to make than other films. It had ingredients that were

found in no other films that were increasingly expensive and

difficult for Kodak to get. (In 1994 one sheet of 8x10 cost me

$4.75--it was much more expensive than other films.) And then

came the kicker. Even if everyone who used Super XX had come

up with vast sums of money Kodak would not have continued to

make the film. They were changing their computer system for

film making and to incorporate Super XX, with its different things

in it, into the system, was prohibitive. At least that is what they

told me at the time.

 

With Azo, it is a different story. They still retained the capacity to

make Grade 2, so the product was still "in the computer."

 

Got it, Jay? It would behoove you not to post nasty things like you

just did and suggest things that simply are not true did unless

you knew what the facts were. An apology is in order here.

 

Why did this discussion get started in this direction? Here is my

guess. Unfortunately, about a year or more ago, Jay and I had a

dispute on another forum. In answer to a question of his about

Azo all I did was direct him to the Azo Forum on our web site and

told him that I hoped he would get his Azo from us. I did not

answer his question. (The answer to his question was there at

length on the Azo Forum. I had answered it before, or had

answered a very similar question, and was getting tired of

repeating myself.) I also suggested he get Azo from us. He

mistook my brusque comment about buying Azo from us as only

caring about selling Azo and not being helpful in answer to his

questions. (He did not know that I had spent hundreds and

hundreds of hours on the Internet answering questions and

helping those who knew less than I did in those areas where I

have some expertise.) Jorge rose to his defense. At the time of

my posting, our ability to continue to fund our huge Azo

purchases was questionable, and yes, I took every opportunity to

try to get others to buy it from us. There was a long and

acrimonious discussion (that makes this one feel like a walk in

the park), and eventually I apologized for my original brusque

response, which was indeed brusque. At the moment of my

posting I was in a hurry about something and did not have the

time to give a proper answer, especially in light of the fact that I

had already given it elsewhere. I thought it had dropped (it had

for me), and was over, but obviously Jay is still carrying around a

chip on his shoulder.

 

Michael A. Smith

Hi again Michael. It seems like every time you use this or another non-commercial forum to solicit business it ends up in this kind of a debate. I point out the obvious, then you and your defenders accuse me of all manner of atrocities and demand an appology. Here's the thing you've never addressed, even though you claim that it's so offensive and inaccurate. Why don't you run your Azo business as a non-profit? That's what most other evangelical organizations do. If keeping Azo in production for the good of the photographic community is truly your intention and motivation, why not spare us the martyr act and participate in a cooperative in which ALL users of Azo who are so inclined might share in the price reductions and availability made possible by volume purchasing. It's a simple concept with a proven track record, and you already have the infrastructure and community of users in place. Your current business model is identical to a small-time drug dealer; create a demand, control the supply and take product as payment. Also a simple concept with a proven track record, but drug dealers don't claim altruism. As for your purchase of Kodak's remaining stock of Super XX for your personal use, I couldn't possibly care less. I'd never even heard of it until I read your description of hoarding it and saw your photograph of yourself standing in front of a room, or cooler, or whatever, full of the stuff. I just find it remarkably illustrative of your current strategy regarding Azo. Got it Michael?

I don't believe this, but sorry, I cannot let it pass. In general,

people tend to believe what they read and hear, and although at

this point I think it is pretty obvious to everyone that Jay has some

kind of vendetta going here, I learned a long time ago that one

ignores accusations and misrepresentations at one's own peril.

And so I respond.

 

What is it with you, Jay? That chip on your shoulder is mighty

large. At this point, however, I am not sure what you are resentful

about, but resentful you surely are.

 

Once more (and I am sorry this basically repeats what I have

said already, but this fellow appears to be thick and needs

things spelled out in even more detail than I have already

spelled them out), essentially, the Azo "business" is already a

not-for profit. There is so little cash profit, that as I said earlier, if I

thought this were a business I should have my head examined. I

cannot understand why you cannot understand that. Any cash

profit we make does not begin to begin to cover our time.

Not-for-profit institutions pay salaries to those that run them. If

we took salaries from this, the Azo "business" would have been

dead after the first year. That we are starting year three is due to

my contribution of time and energy. Maybe your time and energy

are not worth anything, but mine is. And I contribute it (got it,

CONTRIBUTE it) so that others can have this paper available to

them. If our prices are a little higher than some places' prices,

and they are (and they are lower than others), that is because the

other places already have people in position who are working on

exactly this kind of thing--buying and selling products and their

salaries are already covered. One example of my contribution: it

took a lot of time and effort just to convince Kodak to keep this

paper in the product mix. Others who sell Azo don't spend their

time that way. No, you don't think of things like that. All you can

see is, "well, a box cost him "x" and he is selling it for "x" plus "y"

so he is making a profit. It seems you have about zero

understanding of how any organization or business operates.

 

Your likening me to a drug dealer is repulsive. The hundred

dollars a year we save on our own Azo use--remember we don't

get it for free--we only gain the difference between our cost and

our selling price, and that difference is very, very little--is

inconsequential.

 

And then you flat out contradict yourself and lie. "As for your

purchase of Kodak's remaining stock of Super XX for your

personal use, I couldn't possibly care less." You do care about

our purchase of Super XX or you would not have brought it up in

the first place.

 

And forget the apology I asked for earlier. At this point I know it

wouldn't be sincere even if you were decent enough to offer it.

Enough already.

 

Michael A. Smith

The policy of this forum as outlined from inception by Q.T. Luong

 

Do NOT:

* Ask questions unrelated to LF photography.

* Post classifieds (for sale or wanted adds).

* Make personal attacks.

 

Apparently we have some who refuse to abide. Might I mention that the

Classifieds area in Photonet is WHERE WE POST OUR FOR SALE ADS. To

that end I suggest that this thread be deleted and this nonsense put to rest.

Sounds like Jay needs to go fly-fishing with his friend.