jim_shanesy

"And has anyone checked AZO scale vs. grade 0 or 1 enlarging paper?"

 

A negative that prints easily on the Grade 2 Azo that they're selling now (Kodak keeps changing it) developed in amidol will yield a roughly equivalent print on Bergger VCNB paper with 30-55 units of yellow dialled in developed in Dektol 1:1. (Contrast grade of 1/2-1.) If a water bath is necessary for the Azo print, you'll probably end up dialling in 80 units of yellow, which is a contrast of about 0.

Even though there's one born every minute, I can't imagine they'll find enough suckers to keep them afloat. This outfit will be out of business really soon now, their prestigious Soho location notwithstanding (or maybe even because of it).

Readyloads work fine in a Polaroid holder of any vintage. Mine is a 545 and I shoot Readyloads in it all the time.

 

What won't work in Polaroid holders are the old two sheet Readyload packets. For those you need the old Kodak holder or you'll get light leaks. In a Polaroid 545 you must use the new single sheet Readyloads. I suspect this is why Kodak abandoned the two sheet system, as Fuji Quickloads always worked in any holder.

Sorry. Make that PRT. Asleep at the keyboard again.

Scott-

 

Would your would-be supplier happen to have any old stock of the tungsten version of this film (PRN)? In my opinion PRN was the finest C-41 film ever made, and I'd pay a pretty penny for it, especially in the 120 format.

I can't say enough good things about The Positive Image. Far and away the best E-6 processing for many a mile. Their C-41 work is also excellent. To me Chrome has always been second best (although excellent as well).

"All good art is abstract in its structure."

-Paul Strand

Try Ektachrome 64T (EPY) with an 85B filter. It has a longer scale than many black and white films, beautifully natural color balance and is extremely sharp. All other chrome films look unbearably harsh to me in comparison.

400 TMax is IMHO the best black and white film manufactured today. It yields good image stain in pyro developers, exhibits less base fog than any other film I've ever tried, is razor sharp and will build unbelievable density without blowing highlights. This last point is very important for photographers who want to use alternative processes. It also has outstanding reciprocity characteristics. At 100 seconds of indicated exposure, the correction is only about 1.5 stops. To me all the hype about the "silver rich" and "thick" emulsions of some of the European films which use the older formulae is just that. Where the rubber meets the road, 400 TMax blows 'em all away. Whether or not Kodak "actively supports the large format community" is irrelevant. The film is still the best. Get some while you still can. To me it's tragic that it cannot be obtained in any size larger than 8 x 10.

 

Just one man's opinion. But I certainly think you owe it to yourself to try a box.

I like the low key lighting ratio, but you need to add a hair light to separate the top and back of her head from the background. I'd use a snoot cone to insure that you don't introduce any flare. Even without this I'd like it but for those glasses rims cutting straight across the eyes. That absolutely ruins this portrait for me. I'd do it over.

Hats off, ladies and gentlemen. An artist!

"Are the reported benefits of contact printed & Pt/Pd printed LF pyrocat HD negatives maintained when diffusion enlarging from roll film to multigrade VC papers?"

 

Are the reported benefits of eating apples maintained when eating oranges? Of course not.

Try Ektachrome 64T. Balanced for 3200 K. Much less contrasty than either 160T or 320T, and is available in all sizes from 35mm to 8x10. In 4x5, it is available in Readyloads. I think it is the best film Kodak makes.

 

With the demise of Pro 100T I don't feel that there is any good color negative film out there. Portra 100T is very contrasty, plugs highlights easily and its color balance is downright gruesome.

Sure, I'd love to have it. Portra 400 NC is what's muddy, particularly in open shade. It also goes very blue in the shade. But PMC maintains good color balance through about 7 zones. Send your snail mail address to jshanesy@starpower.net.

Just shows to go ya how heinous an act it was to discontinue the Pro line. PMC, while not the best film in the series, was still the best 400 speed film they ever made and the colors were not muddy. They just weren't sickenly saturated like so many films today. It had well balanced, natural colors.

 

I didn't use PRN because I found it too contrasty although the color balance was superb. Its tungsten counterpart, PRT, was so absolutely miraculous that I used it exclusively.

 

I'd love to have a Pro Pack of it, if Peter wants to part with it. Has it been stored in a refrigerated environment?

The best substitute I've found for Azo in amidol for contact printing large format negatives is Bergger Prestige VCNB enlarging paper using a Saunders dichroic head as a light source. Develop in Dektol. Nice neutral tone, slightly warm. You can dial in whatever contrast you need. Very rich paper. And, it's double weight. I like it a lot more than Bergger's alleged contact paper, which seems to be nothing of the sort.

 

I recently showed Michael Smith ten of my prints. Some were printed on Azo, some enlarged onto Bergger. The one he seemed to like the most was one of the Berggers.

I know that all those large format color guys used to use Vericolor II Type L as long as Kodak made it. When they discontinued it, many of them did what Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee did with Super XX Pan - buy all they could and stick it in the freezer.

 

The Meyerowitz book certainly looks to me like a tungsten balanced film from the long scale and gentle color balance. I don't think it could be Portra of any kind. Portra's much too harsh to yield such beautifully delicate photographs.

Just to set the record straight: the problems cited with the new Azo apply only to grade 2, as grade 3 is still made the same way. The solution is to develop it longer and really doesn't relate much to any change in the developer. It's still a little softer than the old Rochester grade 2 no matter what you do.

 

Since Michael Smith had to move heaven and earth to get Kodak to reverse its decision about discontinuing grade 3, I think it's pretty certain that they're not going to run any DW Azo for you. Just to get them to commit to running one more master roll of grade 3 took a massive financial commitment.

How I envy you. PMC, the 400 speed Pro film, was from the best line of C-41 films Kodak ever made. PRN was the 100 speed (roughly equivalent to Portra 160 VC but much better) daylight film and the tungsten stuff, PRT, was the most amazing color film I've ever used. It had a longer scale than Tri-X.

 

Then, one day, as I was waving hello to my neighbors, the birds were chirping and all was well with the world Kodak just took it all away and replaced it with Portra. After 60 years they finally got it all perfect and then just took it away. And gave us Portra, which is pure crap in comparison.

 

Cherish your 400 Moderate Contrast. You'll never be able to buy any 400 Speed film that good again.

 

BTW, would whomever you bought it from possibly have any PRT, Pro 100T left? I'd pay handsomely for it.

 

Jim

I have no idea how a higher silver content would "show" in a negative or print, but having shot a lot of large format negatives with both HP5+ and Efke PL100 I can tell you about what I perceive as the differences between them.

 

They're both very energetic in pyro developers, but HP5+ will plug in the highlights a lot sooner than will Efke. Both films can build substantial density. Of course, HP5+ has more speed and a little less reciprocity failure than Efke, although neither one is any great shakes in that department. If you're going to be shooting long exposures, I'd recommend 400Tmax rather than either PL100 or HP5+.

 

The reason I use Efke is its long scale and its ability to handle tremendous exposure without plugging up the highlights. I can therefore compress a very contrasty scene into a PL100 negative more easily than I can an HP5+ negative.

 

I've shot satifsying protraits on both films, so I can't really address your question as to how they compare "in terms of portraiture". HTH

"Regardless of the improvements of 400 speed films over the years you should stick to the slowest speed film you can use, especially with formal photography."

 

I agree. And for a wedding, the slowest you can use is 400. BTW, the 400NC is a better film in my estimation than the VC, but in the 160 speed the VC wins.

I have a Sunpak 622 and I really love it. It's bulky and heavy, but it's got plenty of power, uses C cell batteries and the rectangular head makes it easy to mount a Lumiquest 80-20 bouncer. Of course what I'm giving up is bare bulb flash, but I always have my studio strobes for that. Remember that with the 503cxi the meter is an averaging one, even though it's TTL. In some situations it's not the best way to meter.

It's possible, but so are a lot of other things which will degrade the quality of your prints. Why would you do it?

 

Some of the most beautiful photographs I've ever seen are contact prints of 4 x 5 negatives. Mounted on 13 x 15 mat board they have powerful impact.

In order to do fine work you must do it yourself. A contact print will always prove superior to any enlargement done by the same printer. That's why when fine photographers want bigger prints they get a bigger camera. If you don't believe this is true just take a look at the early work of Ansel Adams, which is all contact printed. A good example of this is his portrait of Edward Weston under the eucalyptus tree. (Portfolio VI). Sublime. Later enlargements of the same 8 x 10 negative look fuzzy and muddy. And Adams was a fairly good printer.

Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee are the fountainhead of knowledge regarding development of modern films by inspection. They do it because it allows them to obtain the very finest negatives possible which they use to print what many collectors and photographers consider to be the finest photographic prints made today. Got to the link above. There's an excellent white paper there by Michael which describes as best as is humanly possible what to look for and when to pull the negative. Any naysayer about DBI has no credibility with me until I've seen his/her prints and compared them to M's or P's, which are exquisite in every regard.