Using FUJIFILM Maxima RA4 paper

[DREW WILEY]

{Moderator note: this post was split off of this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...rchive-adox-color-mission.212083/post-2961696 }
I don't know if it's wise to revive this thread or start a new one; but I'm going to bring alongside a discussion of Maxima paper, over which there is no confusion concerning its identification. I'll just make a few initial comments today, but add to those as I continue to get familiar with this paper.

I've begun with a 30-inch wide roll which I just received. Price-wise, here in the US, for the same size roll, entry-level thin CAii (same as the cut sheet papers) is $200 cheaper per roll, and professional Super C ii, $100 cheaper than Maxima; but polyester-based Fujiflex Supergloss is about $300 higher in price than Maxima for the same size.

20 and 24 inch Maxima rolls are either unavailable or outright discontinued. A little bit of 16 inch width might still be around. But 30, 40, and 50 inch wide rolls are well stocked. I only queried about the glossy version of Maxima, not the matte surface type; but that seems to be available in the same sizes.

This is an exceptionally thick paper, so the roll was a little heavier than I had anticipated, and I had to fiddle around in the dark adjusting the feed rollers to my paper cutter. But it didn't take me long to get the knack. I cut about 2 months worth into 24X30 inch sheets, and then cut down some of those in 20X24 sheets plus 8x10's for test purposes. Later on, if I get some worthy new 8x10 film shots, I might do a few 30X40 inch prints.

The emulsion is quite slick and somewhat "sticky", even with non-sweaty fingers. I don't know if that translates into a more fingerprint prone and fragile surface or not, but I'll find out in a day or so. I do suspect the gloss level to be quite high for a RC paper.

Over the next few days I'll be color balancing with some precision test chart negs to see how the hue and contrast response of Maxima compares to Fujiflex, Super C, and cut sheet CAii. I'll run these tests for both my Additive RGB enlarger and my conventional CMY 10X10 Durst colorhead, since I plan to use both enlargers with this paper.

 

[mshchem]

I don't know if it's wise to revive this thread or start a new one; but I'm going to bring alongside a discussion of Maxima paper, over which there is no confusion concerning its identification. I'll just make a few initial comments today, but add to those as I continue to get familiar with this paper.

I've begun with a 30-inch wide roll which I just received. Price-wise, here in the US, for the same size roll, entry-level thin CAii (same as the cut sheet papers) is $200 cheaper per roll, and professional Super C ii, $100 cheaper than Maxima; but polyester-based Fujiflex Supergloss is about $300 higher in price than Maxima for the same size.

20 and 24 inch Maxima rolls are either unavailable or outright discontinued. A little bit of 16 inch width might still be around. But 30, 40, and 50 inch wide rolls are well stocked. I only queried about the glossy version of Maxima, not the matte surface type; but that seems to be available in the same sizes.

This is an exceptionally thick paper, so the roll was a little heavier than I had anticipated, and I had to fiddle around in the dark adjusting the feed rollers to my paper cutter. But it didn't take me long to get the knack. I cut about 2 months worth into 24X30 inch sheets, and then cut down some of those in 20X24 sheets plus 8x10's for test purposes. Later on, if I get some worthy new 8x10 film shots, I might do a few 30X40 inch prints.

The emulsion is quite slick and somewhat "sticky", even with non-sweaty fingers. I don't know if that translates into a more fingerprint prone and fragile surface or not, but I'll find out in a day or so. I do suspect the gloss level to be quite high for a RC paper.

Over the next few days I'll be color balancing with some precision test chart negs to see how the hue and contrast response of Maxima compares to Fujiflex, Super C, and cut sheet CAii. I'll run these tests for both my Additive RGB enlarger and my conventional CMY 10X10 Durst colorhead, since I plan to use both enlargers with this paper.

Looking forward to seeing your findings!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Now to color balancing, etc :
There were no surprises. The printing speed and "standard negative", colorhead settings came out almost exactly the same as with previous papers. Fuji's quality control in this respect is rather remarkable. In this case, I used my additive enlarger due to its superior filter purity and fancy feedback circuitry. I have a set of standard negs - all of the MacBeth Color Checker Chart under ideal lighting, but taken with different films. In this case, I used my 4x5 Ektar standardized neg.

Maxima works perfectly with ordinary optical enlargement. I suspect the only reason they quasi-discourage that in their literature is because Maxima is a rather punchy commercial product that might have just too much contrast and saturation for, say, traditional, portrait photos. With scanning and industrial laser printers, that can be adjusted via software. In optical enlargement, it's easy enough to do with unsharp masking IF needed (seldom needed in my case). Or just buy a slightly less punchy paper like Super C.

As I suspected, Maxima is essentially the RC equivalent of premium Fujiflex - very similar gamut, hue saturation, and contrast. Pro's and cons : Fujiflex is much more expensive, but is more robust to handling and has even a slightly deeper maximum black. Being high sheen, Flex is harder to mount and display, especially in large sizes. And as I suspected, the surface of Maxima is slightly sensitive to scuffing.

Now in the opposite direction, Maxima versus conventional CAii cut sheet product. Maxima has a significantly more punchy look - cleaner, more saturated hues, higher contrast, deeper blacks, wider gamut.

I don't think I need to say much about Super C paper, because it lies midpoint to the two extremes.

 

[koraks]

too much contrast and saturation for, say, traditional, portrait photos. With scanning and industrial laser printers, that can be adjusted via software. In optical enlargement, it's easy enough to do with unsharp masking

For the record, while masking can certainly be used to alter contrast and saturation, it's (1) a tall order for most and very few printers I know actually do this, and (2) it's not unsharp masking that's used to these ends.

To control contrast, flashing is a far more accessible approach. While it has the drawback that it primarily affects the high values in the print, the benefit is that it allows for very easy and flexible separate balancing of shadow vs. highlight hue without having to make dedicated masks.

As to contrast, it's important to note that all Fuji's RA4 papers are the same emulsion and inherently the same contrast/curve shape. What differs, is the saturation and dmax between the papers. This is what makes the cheaper papers seem like they're less contrasty, but in reality, this is simply because the whole tonal scale is a little shorter. This can easily be verified by anyone with a step tablet. Still, the subjective difference is very real and recognized by anyone who takes a closer look at these papers. However, the practical implication is that it does not help if you have a rather contrasty negative to use one of the more affordable papers in the hope that it will somehow be better capable of accommodating the negative's tonal range. You'll just end up with a print with the same black & white points, just with lower saturation and lower dmax.

It is indeed correct that Maxima offers a higher saturation than other Fuji RA4 papers, which is mostly due to the combination of thicker emulsion layers and thicker interlayers. This combines into (1) higher density per layer and (2) less crosstalk between layers due to developer byproduct migration into adjacent layers. Combined, this results in higher dmax and esp. higher saturation / more pure hues. This paper also has a much, much thicker supercoat, which is the basis for the longevity claims Fuji attributes to it.

One side effect of the higher saturation of papers like DPII and Maxima (which are very closely related in many ways) is that they tend to be a little more challenging to balance just right. Novice printers will find the entry-level papers like Crystal Archive (a.k.a. ADOX ColorMission) to be significantly easier to color balance.

 

[arturo_rs]

After two rolls of Maxima....the next roll that I´m going to buy is DP II.

At first, I loved Maxima for that higher contrast and saturation. Later, seeing older photos using DP II made me realize that, perhaps, Maxima was too much.

For me, back to the origins I have to say.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You are quite incorrect about masks, Koraks. I have darkroom and graphics guides going clear back to the 1940's explaining unsharp masking as a way to generate both contrast-increase and contrast-decrease masks. I don't know when the last of the Kodak Color Printing Guides were published, maybe in the 80's, but this was explained for both color neg films as well as chromes. But the option has seldom been applied for color negs, since over that span, there were other forms of color printing deemed more worthy of the extra effort (dye transfer, Cibachrome). Regardless, I've made hundreds of them, and know what I'm talking about in terms of contrast control. It is also possible to control which hues to emphasize/de-emphasize at the same time; but I'll leave masking for another discussion someday.

Plenty of people seem interested in masking for black and white printing, and adopting it for color work should be no great leap. Thousands of people, including home darkroom workers, did unsharp masking for Cibachrome contrast control; it was a pretty much a hopeless medium without that. I remember sitting in an audience hall in San Francisco with about 500 people in it, when Ciba was first introduced, with one of the key patent holders of the method giving a basic unsharp masking seminar using FP4 film. Those seminars were given in multiple cities across the country, distinctly before unsharp masking caught on with black and white printers.

Flashing has a more muddying effect, is overall, and can't be as selectively targeted as masking. But it has had it's applications, and perhaps someone else might want to describe their own darkroom protocol in that respect. Once in awhile I'll pre-flash color film to alter deep shadow blueness under deep blue skies, but I don't use that technique with printing paper.

Yes, Maxima can be over the top for some images. I have a very large selection of LF and MF color negs to choose from, so fit the shoe to the foot, so to speak. Other negs were better suited to Super C, or Fujiflex Superloss, or even to economy CAii cut sheet. In other words, no one shoe size fits every foot, when it comes to papers. And, as needed, I've used masking with every one of these papers to fine-tune contrast and highlight reproduction.

After awhile, with experience, one simply selects scene contrast ranges in the field which best fit their favorite paper. In the studio, lighting ratios can be artificially controlled. I shoot Ektar CN film quite a bit for its similarity to a chrome film look, with its cleaner hues (but still some distinct idiosyncrasies). It's higher contrast than other CN films. But with optical enlarging, contrast is also a function of the degree of magnification. My 4x5 color chart negs printed as only 2X onto 8x10 paper yesterday, are obviously going to come out a lot less intense in a 20X24 or 30X40 print. And small test strips at actual scale are always done in advance of the full sized print itself, to check for color balance as well, since standardized negs are one thing, real-world negs often a little different.

But thanks again for your input of paper manufacturing distinctions, Koraks. In this country, if people want to get beyond the cut sheet product into a more premium paper in larger sizes, I'd strongly recommend taking a look at Super C ii - they might find it more versatile than Maxima. But for me, I specifically wanted something more like Fujiflex in look, on a surface easier to mount and display. I do a surprising amount of quite subtly nuanced color imagery where extended gamut is really make or break in terms of bringing that out. I don't need a loud medium for loud colors - even CAii will handle that.

I'll start actual big enlargements next week.

 

[koraks]

Looking forward to seeing the results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you. My biggest concern is whether or not tiny scuff marks will show up in the supercoating due to me cutting the roll down to size emulsion-down, along a precision ground stainless edge. If so, I might need to do it emulsion up and modify the overhead retainer strip with a special self-adhesive teflon machinery tape, to minimize friction, which I do have a roll of on hand. But even big rolls of Ciba, which had an especially sensitive surface, cut well emulsion-down, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. Such tiny blemishes are rarely noticeable in a framed print; but I use an inspection light when checking initial samples.

 

[thomascn6113]

I bought a roll of matt in 24" about a year and a half ago and finally got it cut down last year. While expensive, I dig it. The contrast works for the photos I print and the saturation is great. The whites are really clean. Filter pack wasn't too difficult to work out too.

The only thing I didn't like was cutting it i to sheets. Turns out I have some small,.nearly inperceptable light leaks that fogged some sheets. Then I noticed static discharge from the strip on my rotatrim. Not sure how to fix that though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It fiigured out the color balance almost instantly, with the very first test strip. It was only 2 cc's different from my last roll of Fujiflex. Fuji sure has their quality control dialed in. I might not even have to run a balancing test for my Durst colorhead, despite it's filter controls being quite a bit different from my additive enlarger. Knowing that the Maxima paper has almost the same response as Fujiflex, I merely have to start analogously in that case too. With real subjects, however, shot with uncontrolled lighting, it often takes more than one test strip, or even more than one full-sized print, to bag a keeper.

Hmm ... static with an RC paper? That's unusual. I don't get that even with Fujiflex. Cibachrome was infamous for static. Static is typically a cold dry-air situation. If it's coming off your clothing, you can order a static-resistant cleanroom smock, or even a grounded wristband. If the culprit is cutter roller friction against the bar, just attach the extreme ends of your rods and metal cutter strip to a tiny speaker wire grounding cord, and then somehow ground that to something else, like a wooden 2x4 or pot of soil using a large nail. I used that trick to ground my metal monorail view camera when shooting in dry cold desert conditions, in order to prevent dust being attracted to the film when I pulled the darkslide. That was before I had anti-static surface sprays - you could try that too.

 

[koraks]

My biggest concern is whether or not tiny scuff marks will show up in the supercoating

I wouldn't worry too much for now; IME these papers are really robust.

 

[thomascn6113]

Thanks for the tip Drew. My darkroom can be cold and dry at times because the airconditioning is oversized.

I was rummaging around and found some Endura matte and Endure metallic sheets that were still kinda usable. Has anyone ever used the pearl paper Fiji makes? Curious if it's anything like the Endura

 

[mshchem]

I'd really like to see some photos of your setup and workflow. I watch videos of Analogue Andy making carbon prints and all things alternative. I get the idea of making unsharp masks and the like, still seems rather complicated.
I love the show us your darkroom thread here. I bought parts yesterday that I'm going to try to put together a 5th Beseler 4x5 enlarger
Remember that a four bedroom ranch with a lower level walkout can be had here in Iowa City for what a large walk-in closet in San Francisco, Vancouver BC.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Last time I checked the local real estate listings, there was still a rusty camper shell stuck in the mudflats that could be had for less than $700,000; but you'd have to sleep on the roof when the tide is in.

Actually, I hope to head out this afternoon if the rain lets up, to photograph some interesting rusted wreckage at low tide.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thomas - I'm having a problem accessing Fuji's website this morning, but if I recall correctly, their 'Pearl' product is somehow surface coated so as to deliberately make it difficult to scan, i.e., hard to illicitly copy. So it must have some kind of protected documentation special market in mind.

Kodak "metallic" was something else, more of an advertising display special look.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A few more comments on the handling properties of this film. It has less taught spring or recoil to the big rolls than other papers I've used. This makes it easier for me to properly align and square it on the roll cutter. Nice.

It has the highest gloss of any regular (RC) paper I've used. Not as glossy and Fuji Supergloss or Cibachrome polyeter-based product. Some people might not like that much sheen, but I do. One has to be more careful about "orangepeel" when cold-mounting high gloss products, let alone heat drymounting. But I'm not that far along in my experimenting with it yet. In any event, it will be easier to mount and display than true high glossy polyester-base media.

 

[koraks]

Has anyone ever used the pearl paper Fiji makes? Curious if it's anything like the Endura

Yeah, the Pearl product has a sort of metallic sheen, like Endura Metallic.

their 'Pearl' product is somehow surface coated so as to deliberately make it difficult to scan

It's obviously an aesthetic choice and has nothing to do with scanning. That btw is a non-issue to begin with. Nobody at Fuji bothers about optimizing a paper so it can't be scanned. They make papers people like to see prints on and that are cheap. That's what sells.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Nobody at Fuji bothers about optimizing a paper so it can't be scanned.

You believe it to be accidental?

Fujicolor Crystal Archive Professional Digital Paper Type DPII Silk | Fujifilm [United States]

www.fujifilm.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, there you go again, Koraks, contradicting a direct marketing release by Fuji. Didn't make much sense to me either, in terms of market niche. But it's out there, along with some confusing dealer descriptions. The latest market designation is DPII "Silk" - but I've seen "Pearl" used too, probably confusing it with a different Pearl product version - the metalic look. "Pearl" also gets used for a satin surface sheen on some papers. Simply "DP" has been taken to imply "Pearl"as well as "Portrait paper", correctly or not. We tried to sleuth the source of that needless confusion on an earlier thread.

Glad I ordered Maxima, which seems unmistakable enough. Still had to make sure it was the gloss version, and had to ask them to make sure it was "EWI" (emulsion wound-in); otherwise, they weren't even aware of that distinction.

I just finished printing a 20X24 Maxima print with an exceptionally wide range of foliage hues in it, from a 4X5 Ektar original. It truly does have a wider gamut than their other RC papers, along with deeper blacks. The colors look realistic and not PS nuked like many inkjet prints. Used my conventional YMC Durst 10X10 colorhead and ordinary Rodagon 180 lens; I didn't want the contrast and saturation going clear over the top and needing to unsharp mask it to tame it.

When I print some 6x9 negs that size next week, I'll opt for the RGB colorhead and an Apo Rodagon lens, since in those cases, the greater degree of enlargement might benefit from a little more contrast, at least with some images.

 

[koraks]

You believe it to be accidental?

Frankly, yes.

Note that this is the silk paper and not the metallic sheen pearl that was discussed here.

The surface of the silk paper is very similar to the surface finish seen on some papers from the 1970s and 1980s, when scanning was simply not a 'thing' at a mass scale.
The product characteristics of 'difficult to scan' is most likely a 'bug sold as a feature'. An unintentional side-effect, but somewhere someone would have picked it up and decided they could pass it off as a desirable trait. The reason it exists is most likely the same as the metallic pearl paper: because it was a type also offered by other manufacturers and photofinishers tend to demand from each manufacturer that they at least match the offering of the competition. In short: a "me-too product". Historically, these rough surface finishes predate scanning, which precludes that argument from being the reason they came into being.

Also, where are the people clamoring for this? We've seen the issue of difficult-to-scan color paper pop up twice in recent years here on Photrio. In both cases, the question boiled down to "how do I fix this so I can still scan my prints for digital publication?' Supposedly, the market segment this argument is supposed to make sense in would be that of e.g. wedding albums, where a photographer may want to achieve a lock-in with their customer for additional prints of wedding pics. The problem here, however, is that for this lock-in to be attained, the photographer would have to force the customer to accept the very visible/pronounced 'silk' finish (which is nothing like the material silk in any way) for all of their photos. If you pick a sample of modern wedding albums, I'd be highly surprised if as much as 0.1% were printed on this paper surface. The majority would be lustre and gloss.

Btw, have you tried scanning the 'Silk' paper? It scans quite well. Yes, there's a noticeable surface texture, but it's no more visible (even less so) than in the actual print. You have to enlarge the scans considerably before it becomes problematic. You get a very faithful reproduction of the real thing, but with (interestingly) a somewhat more subtle rendering of the texture due to the diffuse light source typically used in most scanners.

The latest market designation is DPII "Silk" - but I've seen "Pearl" used too

These are totally different products. I have them both here. Fuji uses the pearl calendering roll apparently only on DPII, possibly because of total emulsion thickness (the silk surface is a cold-pressed post-treatment). The Pearl paper is called "Crystal Archive Digital Pearl" at least here in Europe where the paper is made, and it comes only a gloss finish, and I expect it's plain Crystal Archive in every other way except the inclusion of particles that impart a metallic sheen.

As to the 'official marketing' stuff from Fuji: this is the product page of the DPII paper, the only paper that currently comes in a silk texture: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/products/dp-ii/
You'll notice there's no mention whatsoever on that page, neither in the product datasheet, of scanning. The only reference to reproduction relates to copyright and boils down to "check with maker if you are allowed to reproduce".
Here's the page that discusses the paper finishes/types: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/news/our-range-of-paper-surface-types/ If you scroll to the entry for 'silk', there's again no mention whatsoever of reproduction/scanning.

It's a non-issue. Fairy tales. These finishes exist because (1) some people find it snazzy that their photos look different from the others and (2) photo finishers pressured Fuji into matching the market offering available when they weren't a monopolist yet and (3) it's technically relatively easy to add 'new' products this way, as it involves virtually no changes to the actual product structure.

I just finished printing a 20X24 Maxima print with an exceptionally wide range of foliage hues in it, from a 4X5 Ektar original. It truly does have a wider gamut than their other RC papers, along with deeper blacks.

It only took several years of naysaying on your behalf before you realized I wasn't talking out of my posterior. It's good to have this on record. I'll remember it well.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I never naysayed anything about Maxima, and I'm just entering its learning curve. It simply wasn't available here. I suspect the high contrast level will present a challenge to a number of darkroom printers. I'm from the Cibachrome generation who thought of unsharp masking as routine, so no big deal in a high quality workflow. But unlike chromes, it's sometimes difficult to sort out by eye which color negs to set aside for masking, and which to attempt straight out.

I'm going print a few promising rainy day 35mm frames to nominal 10X12 inch size, which is a good indicator of what happens at a higher level of magnification than I use for larger film work. I'm not anticipating any rude suprises, since I already have quite a bit of experience with Fujiflex, which is also high contrast, high saturation. But if there are differences, I want to become comfortable with them.

As far as marketing BS from manufacturers, I'm well aware of that sort of thing. But it is, in fact, how they are attempting to sell that "Silk" product. Even a rough surface would be easy to copy under a traditional diffuse light copy stand with either a film or digital camera. We have more than our fair share of burglars around here; but so far, I haven't heard on any of them going around stealing wedding snapshots so they can mass produce them.

 

[thomascn6113]

I'll dig around for some finished prints if I get a chance. It might take me a while, my chemical plant is in maintenance. Maybe I'll post a couple that are static fogged and get everyone's opinion.

 

[mshchem]

I remember high school senior year graduation portraits (1975) the frugal parents would buy the minimum from the studio. Then take a small print to the drugstore and get cheap copy, wallet prints made, silk and pebble texture originals made for horrible copies.

I love high gloss.

 

[DREW WILEY]

None of this kind of second guessing tells us who made the decision to market "Silk" as stubborn to scan. Nor does it matter if it was something old dug back up, or if it was re-invented. If some big shot in a corporation has an idea, it happens, realistic or not. But its not a bird species I'm personally interested in.

I'm back to a few Maxima tests again this afternoon, and that does have quite a bit of gloss! (unless someone orders it Matte).

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, Ilford MGIV RC paper in Satin surface scans better than Pearl or Glossy surface versions, if you use a flatbed scanner with a narrow moving light source.