Azo Paper and Michael A. Smith

[kenneth_smith3]

Pardon my statement instead of question, but I thought this might be

worth noting. In my pursuit of the ultimate long tonal range print, I

found information about Azo paper on the Michael A.Smith/Paula

Chamlee website, and reviewed all that material, as well as Blinking

Eye's articles. Impressed I sent off to Michael for the paper and

mixed up all the exotic's of ABC developer and Amidol in great

anticipation. My first contacts however were not impressive. I was

able to make a fuller toned contact by just using a VC paper and a

no. 0 filter, (the negatives developed in ABC are purposely dense)

Several remixings of chemistry and many different manipulations of

water bath yeilded nothing better with the Azo. Agast I contacted

Michael A. Smith, and he asked me to send my materials to him, as my

experience was the first he'd heard of that went so sour. Despite the

fact that I was not a paying workshop student, Michael printed my

negative at his next sesssion. The solution was simple, and as

embarrassing as it is to admit, despite many years of printing, I was

guilty of violating rule number one; print for the highlights. With

convention enlarging, habit always had me printing for long

development times for rich blacks and slowly evolving highlights. I

am now giving highlights priority, making sure they have adequate

exposure, and pulling back times in the developer. Both Azo contacts

and conventional papers are showing no loss of richness.In fact the

longer tonal range is far more atmospheric and satisfying than the

punchier images I had been in the habit of making. The point however

to this lengthly message is that this man took the time through

several e-mails and actual printing to straighten me out. I just

thought it would be nice if people were aware of someone like that in

the photographic community. Thank You Mr. Smith (no, we're not

related.)

[jay_de_fehr]

If a large part of my income was derived from workshops advocating the use of a nearly proprietary material like Azo, I too would defend its use by whatever means necessary. In the business world it's known as "public relations".

[igor_johanson]

Kenneth - it was interesting to read about a different printing method than I have been using.

I always select exposure so that I have a MINIMUM texture in the highlights, barely less than pure white of the paper. (Excluding specular highlights of course, which should be pure white). With some papers I even wait until they dry to determine correct exposure.

 

I then develop for maximum blacks.

Your procedure seems wrong to me, would lead directly to flat prints.

 

As for the public relations - I do not appreciate too much of the persons, who in the interest of self promotion, claim that they are the best in the world. They are several on the net. That puts the entire history of photography into garbage!

[igor_johanson]

K - you are still on the wrong track. "I am now giving highlights priority and pulling back times in the developer."

 

You do not pull times in the developer (unless you do not have proper contrast paper). You slightly SHORTEN exposure and develop full.

[donald_miller1]

Igor,

Have you ever used Azo and Amidol? Simple question requires only a simple answer. Yes or No?

[conrad_hoffman]

Kenneth had the rare and wonderful experience of good customer service and a solution to his problem. He did the most generous thing and advertised the fact. The responses here baffle me. Yes, you would think anyone offering a niche market product would give good service, but that just isn't always the case. Further, I would think that as an experienced printer, Kenneth would be the best one to determine if his problem was solved or not.

[Troll]

Michael A. Smith is one of the GOOD GUYS! I don't understand the animosity exhibited on this thread -- this is not the Leica Forum.

[steve sherman]

I recently attended a workshop with Michael and Paula last month. It was only the second workshop I have ever taken in 20 years. However, between the early eighties and last month I have given scores of workshops myself. What struck me the most was how hard both of them worked. From Friday evening to Sunday evening it was photography and sleep (and not much of the latter either) I was the first to leave each night, well after mid night. They shared their techniques and opinions with a passion. You maynot relish a large camera and the magic of AZO but these two photographers know how to see and they know how to teach others to see. Isn't that what photography is all about.

[brian_ellis3]

You're corect that you should be exposing for the highlights, but IMHO you shouldn't be using development times to "control" anything. Development times are fairly standardized. With Azo and Amidol, the usual time is 45 seconds to a minute. If you find yourself using times much shorter or longer than those in order to correct some problem that you're having when you use the normal time then there's something wrong with your exposures, either the time is wrong or the contrast (VC filter or paper grade in the case of Azo) is wrong or both are wrong.

 

I realize that you could say "well it works for me so it's right" but trying to correct printing problems by using radically different development times from print to print might by happenstance work for one or two prints but in the long run I think it's a recipe for frustration and inability to make consistently good prints.

 

It was nice of you to bring Michael's help to everyone's attention. While Michael does have a personal interest in keeping Azo alive, as someone else pointed out plenty of people have personal interests in things but are totally unhelpful. And of course many of us get help and don't do what you did either. Knowing Michael from taking his and Paula's workshop, I suspect he would have helped you even if you used Ilford paper.

[michael_a._smith1]

Thank you, Ken.

 

Ah, I see the vendetta continues, Jay.

 

For those who don't seem to know how to print: the problem with

Ken's print was that it had too much contrast--blown out

highlights and blocked up shadows. The solution was to give

more exposure so that the highlights would come in and to

adjust development (with use of a water bath) to get the

shadows open, yet still rich.

 

By the way, Igor, I have never claimed I was the "best" at anything

and have infinite respect for the great masters of photography.

Others, however, here and in other forums, have posted that they

thought my prints were the most beautiful ones they had ever

seen. And yes, I have quoted them. It is one means of defending

myself against the attacks. I'm sorry that my postings make

some anxious and that they feel the need to constantly mount

these attacks.

 

I have stated on a number of occasions that I do not think

Paula's and my prints are "the most beautiful ever" or even close.

But I cannot help it if others feel that way about our work.

 

And I think it was on this forum recently (very recently--less than a

week ago, I think) that someone (someone we do not know)

posted on some thread that they saw a print of Paula's at the

Ansel Adams at 100 show at LACMA (there was an

accompanying exhibition of landscape work by contemporary

photographers), and that he thought it was the best print he had

ever seen. Don't blame me if others make such comments.

Instead, ask yourself why they bother you so much.

[michael_a._smith1]

And thanks, too, Don, Conrad, Bill, Steve, and Brian.

[john_kasaian1]

Kenneth, I don't understand the animosity either. Our late S.K.Grimes provided the very best customer service around, and there have been countless posts from grateful customers attesting to the fact. I don't see why similar service rendered by Michael Smith should be met with such cynicism. If it is merely a backlash in response to all the AZO/amidol preaching, then surely the practitioners of pin hole photography would have gotten their digs in when a person with a shutter run amuck had recieved exemplary service from someone who makes a living fixing the darn things. FWIW, I think those who go the distance for thier customers are to be commended. I've dealt with far too many insurance companies and banks whose interpretation of 'service' is something akin to approved practices in animal husbandry! ;-)

[eric_mortensen3]

I seriously do not understand what is wrong with some of you people. Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are the REAL DEAL. I suspect that is more than most of you can say. Professional photographers that make beautiful prints. And, they share their techniques with others. Why is it unethical for them to advocate use of one of the finest printing papers available when it is in danger of being discontinued? Are they under any obligation to provide "customer service" when they are not in fact making ANY profit off of azo sales, but merely keeping it alive?

Should they be spending their time making smaller packages of azo at home so JOE moron can sample it at his own convenience??

They may be photographers of the highest caliber, but they aren't the FU@$ing RED CROSS!

you people should show some respect!

[igor_johanson]

�I seriously do not understand what is wrong with some of you people.� - Nothing!

�I don't understand the animosity� - there is no animosity.

 

-- Jay has stated simple opinion about public relations. That fact is not acceptable to the rest of participants and/or followers of the cult. Peace be with you. I do not see that �the vendetta continues�, Michael.

 

I have expressed personal, more caustic opinion which I reaffirm here. Sorry guys. It applies to all who produce such claims, not personally to anyone, so there is no personal vendetta here either.

I know, Michael, that you are only quoting the others. Maybe you should not. You don�t need it. Anybody could post similar testimonials. For what good?

[bob.]

Precisely why a few people feel the need to snipe at others for no very good reason I do not know, but those that do so need to realise they do far more damage to their own reputations than they do to the reputations of those they attack.

 

The world is full of the bad, the sad, the mono-maniacs and the conspiracy theorists; statistically, some of these will be LF photographers who frequent this forum. Such is life. It's sad but there you go. As with the trolls, the only way to deal with them is to ignore them, however tempting it is to respond...

 

Cheers,

[skygzr]

Alas, it�s the anonymity of this Internet thing that encourages incivility, be it here or elsewhere. People will say things in a discussion group that they would never say in person.

 

Before I dust off the flamethrower, I always imagine myself speaking

face to face. Sometimes it goes back into storage.

 

Let�s all meet at someone�s house, have a beverage of ones� choosing, stay up late and talk about photography. That way, we can at least KNOW the person to whom we�re being rude. Any volunteers? Sorry, my house is too small.

[bryan_weiss]

Michael's numerous postings which have helped many of us including myself produce better images should be praised. The amount of his valuable time he spends freely giving out his techniques is amazing to me. So he makes a couple of bucks on AZO and workshops. Big deal.

[enrico__]

...and one day someone will be saying, "whatever happened to that stuff called AZO...??"...

[david vickery]

As per Bob's suggestion I will refrain from Posting my first thoughts. But I would like to say Three things;

 

1---We all print(read expose for the highlights density that we desire) and Developer for the shadow densities that we desire(read choose paper contrast, choose vc filter, adjust development with water bath, or development with two different developers selectol soft/dektol, etc. etc ---- it all depends on the materials being used) And some contradict themselves by not paying close enough attention to what has been said.

 

2----If anyone has had the rare opportunity to view close up even just one of Edward Weston's contact prints, and actually paid some attention to it, you would understand the strong desire to keep the last conventional contact print paper alive.

 

3-----My check for my next Azo order will be in the mail Monday.

[jeff_rivera5]

I was the one who commented on Paula's print at LACMA. It was and is a beautiful print.

 

There is no question Michael loves AZO. And looking at their prints, who can blame them. I've never met him, but through his writings and postings, he seems to always be willing to help. If you don't like AZO, don't buy it and don't print on it.

 

And let's not give someone a hard time for trying to earn a living doing something they love. We should all strive for the same, the world would be a better place.

[joe_davis]

My father always said if you criticize people who are successful, you yourself will never get ahead. He also said if you do not have anything constructive to say, then don't say anything. As far as I can see, Michael Smith has gone out of his way to be helpful in every way without asking for praise or compensation. Mr. M. Smith helps out a Mr. K. Smith with some printing and he gets this kind of a response? I do not understand the cynical replies from the two posters when no negativity was called for. That's being really petty. And it is a most unfortunate trait to have.

 

Aside from that, what is wrong with someone trying to preserve a wonderful paper like AZO? How many of us would have the courage to invest huge amounts of money to keep a photographic paper in production? In my neck of the woods I can't even buy Ilford Galerie or Agfa Insignia anymore. Lucky for me I bought some before they were all out and stuffed them into a freezer several years back. The store stopped carrying AZO 15 years ago. It now only carries some multigrade FB, but mostly RC papers. If we don't speak up for the materials that we cherish, then the companies will stop making them and we'll all be printing on RC papers and perhaps going digital in the future(God forbid). I have not yet tried AZO, but I will as soon I finish the remainder of my Ilfomar paper.

[michael_a._smith1]

Just out of the darkroom and I thought I'd check this thread

again. Thanks everyone. I am truly touched.