michael_a._smith1

It is good to learn about your success with my Amidol formula,

Ed. I'm puzzled about the selenium though. We use it 1:128. At

1:15 I would think it would tone too much. I mention this in my

article "On Printing." Whatever works, however.

Weston used a different formula,and developed for a longer

time, but the papers were different back then. While, in general,

while the old methods work just fine, you do have to bring them

in line with contemporary materials.

At the request of a number of people Michael A. Smith and Paula

Chamlee will be conducting their "Vision and Technique"

workshop at the home of Per Volquartz in Pasadena, California,

from Friday evening January 24 through Sunday afternoon

January 26. See www.michaelandpaula.com under "Workshops"

for a full description of what the workshop entails and the

workshop fee. Please direct all questions to me at

michaelandpaula@michaelandpaula.com. Thank you.

Michael A. Smith

Generally, when people do not get the range of tones with Azo

they have heard about, it is because they are developing their

negatives in PMK Pyro, rather than ABC. There are extensive

discussions about this on the Azo Forum at

www.michaelandpaula.com. I would recommend that you forget

the Jobo Rollo Pyro and switch to developing by inspection with

ABC Pyro. I believe you will see an immediate difference.

It is also important to make negatives that are not thin--neither

underexposed nor underdeveloped.

Michael A. Smith

You ask if 11 x 14 is worth the expense and size for sales. That's

a wrong question to ask, I think. The only question that is

important is "Would I enjoy working with a camera larger than

8x10?" And only you can answer that. Someone suggested that

you borrow a camera and try it. I second the idea, even if is only

for an afternoon. You'll know right away. 8x10 is a great size.

larger is usually much heavier and is always exponentially more

expensive. But it is hard to beat those large contact prints, if well

made. Unfortunately, most are not and the photographers could

have saved themselves a lot of time and expense by not

bothering in the first place. And keep in mind that 4x5 contact

prints are wonderful, too--little gems that draw viewers right in.

Michael A. Smith

We ship Azo to Europe most every week. We are the only ones in

the world who carry Grade 3 in 100-sheet boxes. Every other

supplier will tell you it is no longer being made in that size

package and tthat you need to buy 500 sheets and then they

ghave to special order it. We keep all sizes and grades in stock

all the time.

Also see our Azo Forum. The most complete Q.& A. for everything

to do with making silver gelatin contact prints. SOme of the

responses to questions are so knowledgeable, that Paula and I

have learned things, much to our surprise. originally, I thought it

would be a place where, pretty much, I answered questions, and

I do, but it has become so much more.

Michael A. Smith

www.michaelandpaula.com

The fellow who has invented a light source for Azo--one that will

work, with the proper adapter, on all enlargers, is not the same

fellow with the 5,000 Watt bulb. (By the way, where was that

article published--I never did see it.) This will be a cool bulb, not

a hot one. We'd reveal all about it now, but it is not perfected yet.

A special bulb has to be made in the right configuration to give

even illumination. And manufacturing a new light bulb is not

easy, nor, I understand, inexpensive.

And to the fellow who said that Azo is defunct: as someone else

responded, it is not. Full details about current sizes and

availability can be found at www.michaelandpaula.com.

Michael A. Smith

There are several extremely thorough discussions about ABC

Pyro on the Azo Forum at www.michaelandpaula.com. As Joe

Freeman said, it is already there. The Forum will be organized

by topic this weekend so that similar threads can be compared.

From everything I hear and read, what I have been

recommending for years: ABC Pyro, Development by Inspection,

Azo paper, Amidol, does yield the finest results for most

everyone who tries it.

Since you are moving up to 8x10 you might want to try using ABC

Pyro and developing by inspection. Developing by inspection or

not, ABC is MUCH better for negatives that will be contact printed

than is PMK. There is extensive discussion about this on the Azo

Forum on our web site. (Look under "Azo" at

www.michaelandpaula.com)

The Azo forum has many threads dealing with this, but they are

not grouped together. We are working on it and hope they will be

in a couple of days.

Michael A. Smith

If you have a scene with something like a flat landscape

stretching out in front of you AND something like a tree or a pole

in the foreground or near middle ground then you cannot tilt as it

will throw the tree or pole out of focus. You then have to get it

sharp by stopping down alone. ( I almost always use trhe front tilt

rather than the back tilt for focus; that way perspective is not

distorted.) When stopping down the 1/3 , 2/3 rule works, but I still

believe you are safer starting with focus in the foreground and

only when stopping down does not get it, then focussing into the

scene. All things being equal, if you can only get either the

foreground or the background in focus, it is generally best to get

the foregound focussed as our eyes expect near things to be

sharper than things in the distance.

I wrote earlier, "Then you stop down to be sure." I neglected to

say that you ought to stop down way past what you think is in

focus. I'm usually at f64 or f90, even though quite often everything

looks sharp wide open. For contact prints diffraction is not a

factor until you reach f256. If you will be making enlargements

tyou needn't stop down quite that far unless, of course,

something is not in focus on the ground glass.

To check focus, reach around and stop down the lens while

looking at the most out-of-focus spot. Then open up (so you can

see what you are looking at) and repeat for all other spots that

may or may not be coming into focus.

Michael A. Smith

That happened because you tilted the lens. If you need to tilt "too

far" it can throw the middle out. Here is what I do: focus first on

the nearest thing (unless it is extraordinarily close) and then tilt

the lens to bring the background into focus. Then refocus the

lens. By alternately adjusting the tilt and the focus in most cases

you can get everything in focus. If you cannot get everything in

focus this way, focus more into the scene (less bellows

extension). Then you stop down just to be sure. And yes, you

have to check near, far, and middle, when the tilt is extreme.

When not tilting or when tilting only a little, it is not necessary to

check the middle as it will be in focus.

Michael A. Smith

As Kevin said, if you are always two stops underexposed give

two stops more exposure. Forget "suggested" film speed

recommendations. It does not really matter why you are always

two stops underexpossed. The fact that you recognize that you

are is the important thing. So expose more and you'll have it.

Simple solution, really.

An answer to Hogarth hughes who wrote " He (Weston) would

develop the one negative (often by inspection, [shudder!]),

complete processing, examine it, then decide to try again,

changing exposure a little. He would keep this up until he had

what he wanted. This could take days, weeks, months."

Hogarth, sir, you do not know what you are talking about. When

photographing vegetables and other still lives he never made

one twice because of the exposure. He made variants because

he saw the same things several ways. And he did not develop

"one negative at a time," but many at once.

When Weston made the photographs on his Guggenheim trips

in 1937 and 1938 he exposed over 1,500 negatives. Almost

every one was a "keeper" (those that were not were due to things

like camera movement, double exposure (one), and other such

things). he printed 90% of them on normal paper.

You can think what you want about Edward Weston's technique,

but please, get your facts straight.

Michael A. Smith

Paula and I know where to reach her, but write me off-forum.

michaelandpaula@michaelandpaula.com

Michael A. Smith

I have been told by a number of people in the digital field that

they think their prints are the "best," but on repeated questioned

and comparative viewing they ALWAYS admit that, no, a digital

print cannot come up to the quality of a contact print on Azo. And

these were very fine digital prints. To my eye, however, the digital

prints do come up to the quality of contact prints on enlarging

paper.

A single 1/4" screw holds my 35-pound 12 x 20 (w/8x20 back)

and that is without a lens. It also holds my 57 pound 18x22,

again without a lens--and the long lenses I use are heavy. So,

call Ries, get a 1/4" screw, and use it.

Michael A. Smith

Still a PMK cult, I see. Do you folks know that ABC yields better

results than PMK, at least for negatives that will be contact

printed. There is a great discussion about this on the "Azo

Forum" on our web site: www.michaelandpaula.com (Look

under "Azo" and find the ABC vs. PMK thread). I always knew ABC

was better, and several participants exlained why (I never knew

the reasons). At the Large Format Conference in Albuquerque,

even Gordon Hutchings said that ABC was better if one would be

making contact prints.

Paula and I have seen high quality digital prints, but we have

never seen any that compare to contact prints on silver paper.

And we were recently told by a fellow who fancies himself the

finest digital printer around (commercial fellow with about a

zillion dollars of equipment) that he believes we never will.

Yes, the wet darkroom is threatened. Paula and I, by insuring

that Azo will be kept in production, try to do our part to keep it

going.

Michael A. Smith

Of course it is a print from a negative without solarization.

Whoever could think such a thing knows nothing at all about

Edward Weston.

Charis is quite alive. I expect to be seeing her in a few weeks. I

met her about 15 years ago when she was working on her EW

book. I spent about two weeks ago helping her get organized.

Paula and I will be publishing an Edward Weston book this fall.

sign up on our web site: www.michaelandpaula.com to be

alerted to pre-publication sale price. Dody Thompson, Edward's

last assistant is writing an essay for it.

Michael A. Smith

I have started a forum on Paula's and my web site:

www.michaelandpaula.com so that anyone who has questions,

comments, etc., about Azo paper and whatever may relate to its

use can have a place where that is all that is discussed. This is

also a place where I can most easily answer any questions that

are directed to me. The forum is on our site under "Azo" and then

there is a separate link to "Azo Forum."

Michael A. Smith

This question is for those who run this Photo.net LF forum. As

many participants know, I post answers to subjects where I am

knowledgeable. I do not ask questions. Last week I posted long

and thoughful answers to one of the threads--4x5 or 8x10 I think

it was. The postings never appeared. This was my first time on

Photo.net (as opposed to the forum on Tuan's site).

I have little time to answer questions and have always figured

that by answering young photographers questions it was one

way I can give back to the greater world of photography--a world

that has given much to me. But I cannot do that if my responses

will be edited out or if for some other reason they do not appear.

As I have liitle time to access this site for the next few months

could brian Mottershead (hope I have your name right) or

someone else get back to me by direct email at

michaelandpaula@michaelandpaula.com.

Thank you.

Michael A. Smith

Per has it right, but in my experience it is only the camera that is

the problem. I good lens shade is a must, but the only truly

satisfactory solution is to use a camera one size larger than you

needed for the film size.

<p>

Another problem could be that you are developing one sheet of film at

a time. When I started using 18x22 (at $45/sheet) I wanted to be super

careful and developed film one sheet at a time--unlike my normal 8-12

sheets at a time. They all were uneven. So I went to developing six at

a time and they were perfectly smooth. I'd recommend that you develop

six at a time.

Relevant to critique of Post-Modernism: Quote from Sir Herbert read,

eminent Art Historian; "Art is about feelings. If one has ideas to

express, the proper medium is language."

I have an old Gundlach lens that I put in a Packard Shutter that is

110 degrees and was made for 8x10. It covers just fine. Does anyone

know hat the focal length would be. A long time ago someone once

calculated it at 4 3/4" I think, which would translate to about 118mm.

but I'm not sure if I am remembering correctly.