Aesthetic question about optical RA4

hgaude · Dec 5, 2014

I have been doing BW in my revived darkroom for a while now and easily have the capacity to do color. (Which I did WAY back in the late 70's/80's when I started) I have two main photographic arenas; just for fun, and my portrait studio.

In the 'just for fun' arena, justifying doing color is easy enough, but my question really relates to whether there is any aesthetic advantage to printing my work optically as opposed to the film/scan/digital print/RA4 workflow.

I DO understand that this is totally subjective, but I've never compared an RA4 from the same negative through both processes. In BW there are so many creative variables that can affect the printed image, not to mention the fiber paper advantage, but in RA4 it *seems* to me that there are far fewer, am I missing something from a creative perspective that optical printing could bring?

Thanks in advance!

RPC · Dec 5, 2014

It is evident to me from reading this site that scanning can introduce color problems depending on scanner, scanning software and other variables. Color paper is made to work with color negatives, and I believe the highest quality is achieved by printing optically. The nuances of any given film will likely be lost in scanning. You can use software to do whatever you want after scanning, but then you might as well shoot digital. I have seen lots of prints from scans and lots of optical prints as I work at a large lab that use to process film and scan and print, and print optically in my own darkroom, and to me good optical prints look far more natural than scans, if that is important to you; it is important to me. Needless to say the end results are dependent on proper exposure and processing.

Bob Carnie · Dec 5, 2014

I do both and I can say they are both good.... this thread is destined to go bad as the proponents of digital workflow(people like me) will not have a proper voice to counter any arguments put forth for a pure optical workflow. but in my world I can say both are equal.

hgaude · Dec 5, 2014

RPC said:
It is evident to me from reading this site that scanning can introduce color problems depending on scanner, scanning software and other variables. Color paper is made to work with color negatives, and I believe the highest quality is achieved by printing optically. The nuances of any given film will likely be lost in scanning. You can use software to do whatever you want after scanning, but then you might as well shoot digital. I have seen lots of prints from scans and lots of optical prints as I work at a large lab that use to process film and scan and print, and print optically in my own darkroom, and to me good optical prints look far more natural than scans, if that is important to you; it is important to me. Needless to say the end results are dependent on proper exposure and processing.

Thats really where I'm coming from I think - once its scanned it may as well have been digital to start with and I guess I wanted to start this thread in part to be able to have a discussion about things like color variations, but more specifically from the optical end. i.e. I use a lot of vignettes on portraits and how does that affect the color balance on the area that is burned in... I occasionally have to lighten eyes, which optically means a dodge, what happens to the color in that case, etc etc...

Photo Engineer · Dec 5, 2014

I have compared both methods and find that at proper viewing distance these methods compare very well. However, the flaws in the digital image become more apparent with time as the dyes spread (and fade).

PE

hgaude · Dec 5, 2014

Bob Carnie said:
I do both and I can say they are both good.... this thread is destined to go bad as the proponents of digital workflow(people like me) will not have a proper voice to counter any arguments put forth for a pure optical workflow. but in my world I can say both are equal.

I hope that doesn't happen! I definitely am not concerned about comparing the two because I am totally familiar with the scanned to print route.

I am curious though; since you do both, in what cases do you choose to print optically?

hgaude · Dec 5, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
I have compared both methods and find that at proper viewing distance these methods compare very well. However, the flaws in the digital image become more apparent with time as the dyes spread (and fade).

PE

I would never have thought optically printing RA4 would have different fade characteristics! Now THAT may have implications to the client that I am concerned about...

Photo Engineer · Dec 5, 2014

The dyes in RA4 paper are anchored in place and have dye stabilizers present to prevent oxidation and light fade. The digital dyes are not anchored, and they have little or no stabilizers present to prevent fade. A simple example of image spread with digital was "buried" in Henry Wilhelm's site on image stability. It is kind of like an old tattoo, blurry. Also, there is a UV absorber OVER the M and Y dyes in RA4 paper, but no UV absorber over any dye in digital papers. Exposure to sunlight can be very harmful to dyes.

However, your OP was unclear to me. I was comparing a fully digital print from a color neg, vs an RA4 print. An optical RA4 print and a digital RA4 print are totally identical for all practical purposes.

PE

hgaude · Dec 5, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
The dyes in RA4 paper are anchored in place and have dye stabilizers present to prevent oxidation and light fade. The digital dyes are not anchored, and they have little or no stabilizers present to prevent fade. A simple example of image spread with digital was "buried" in Henry Wilhelm's site on image stability. It is kind of like an old tattoo, blurry. Also, there is a UV absorber OVER the M and Y dyes in RA4 paper, but no UV absorber over any dye in digital papers. Exposure to sunlight can be very harmful to dyes.

However, your OP was unclear to me. I was comparing a fully digital print from a color neg, vs an RA4 print. An optical RA4 print and a digital RA4 print are totally identical for all practical purposes.

PE

Ok, that makes sense, I was lost for a second there myself on the fading issue!

Your comments make me wonder about products that strip the emulsion off the backing and bond it to canvas though. This has been a common practice for a very long time and I've always wondered what that process means to image stability...

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2014

Scanning does not work for me because while my scanner will provide 16 bits per color, it I want to use Gimp to put two panorama photographs on and 8"x10" sheet Gimp will convert the images to 8 bits per color. I will stick to wet printing because I can in black & white and color.

bvy · Dec 5, 2014

I've been doing a lot of RA-4 printing. Optical RA-4 (direct from negative) requires a properly exposed negative with good dynamic range. Dodging and burning works well enough for large areas, but it will do little to nothing for a thin or underexposed negative. That might be advantage of scanning then digitally processing the image, and making an RA-4 print from that -- you can easily boost contrast and (within reason) recover shadow detail or highlights without resorting to masks, hydrogen peroxide and the like. But I like the more direct route.

wiltw · Dec 5, 2014

Let's be clear about something...the Input does not necessarily imply a type of Output!

You can use film to produce an image, and then optically expose the image in an enlarger, process the paper thru chemistry, and then end up with the conventional (RA-4) print.
Or you can use film, scan it and run that file into a laser print exposure system which passes it thru chemistry, and end up with an 'optical' print with dye-in-emulsion characteristic same as conventional paper (e.g. Fuji Crystal)....
Or you can run the digital film file (or a digital camera file) into a matrix printer (typical inkjet) and get a dye/pigment based 'sprayed' print.

Two kinds of input, two kinds of output, but Input 1 does NOT imply only Output 1...the path thru scanner can imply either Output 1 or Output 2. Similarly Input 2 can result in either Output 1 or Output 2!

Photo Engineer · Dec 5, 2014

However the path 2B offers the lowest quality overall, 1B the next lowest and 1A the highest when all parameters are considered such as sharpness, image stability, "apparent grain - ie, real grain vs micro 'dots' from a digital print", etc.

PE

gzinsel · Dec 5, 2014

In life, on any given topic of production/consumption, you get to pick 2 of the 3 following. speed, quality, and price/cost. In my opinion, when possible pick quality and price. Yes, it may take you longer and be slightly more expensive, but in the end, most people will be "more satisfied" with higher quality of work, of course, you are sacrificing speed and ease. Which are main arguments for . . . well, , , "the other".

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
However the path 2B offers the lowest quality overall, 1B the next lowest and 1A the highest when all parameters are considered such as sharpness, image stability, "apparent grain - ie, real grain vs micro 'dots' from a digital print", etc.

PE

Exactly my thoughts.

wiltw · Dec 5, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
However the path 2B offers the lowest quality overall, 1B the next lowest and 1A the highest when all parameters are considered such as sharpness, image stability, "apparent grain - ie, real grain vs micro 'dots' from a digital print", etc.

PE

Agreed whole heartedly...it is why I almost never print inkjet prints, maybe only to take a 4x6 photo of some item to the store as reference when seeking to buy something just like it..."I want one of these!"

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2014

When I use a 16 bit per color scan it is not as good as an optical print, but better than a 16 bit per color forced into 8 bits per color by Gimp and then print. Path 2B I affectionately call a "stink-print".

polyglot · Dec 5, 2014

I do both. While it's easy to screw up a C41 scan, you can often get better colour from a scan than a straight print, especially if there are contrast issues in the scene.

Nothing beats the on-paper sharpness of an optical exposure from big C41 film though, and if the negative isn't problematic then you don't need the curve and hue manipulations that digital gives you.

Sirius Glass · Dec 5, 2014

polyglot said:
I do both. While it's easy to screw up a C41 scan, you can often get better colour from a scan than a straight print, especially if there are contrast issues in the scene.

Nothing beats the on-paper sharpness of an optical exposure from big C41 film though, and if the negative isn't problematic then you don't need the curve and hue manipulations that digital gives you.

Again I agree. If I want to screw things up, I shoot 4"x5" to get my humility back.

hgaude · Dec 5, 2014

polyglot said:
I do both. While it's easy to screw up a C41 scan, you can often get better colour from a scan than a straight print, especially if there are contrast issues in the scene.

Nothing beats the on-paper sharpness of an optical exposure from big C41 film though, and if the negative isn't problematic then you don't need the curve and hue manipulations that digital gives you.

In my case, the exposures will be studio lit, so they will be tailored for my normal style and look. My goal would be to create optimum exposures in the film to bring out everything it can do without needing unusual adjustments in post, but even optimum exposures will need 'style' tweaks usually, i.e. dogding and burning, etc.

Its looking like it will be worth investing in a little paper and chemicals - SURE wish I could get Kodak Supra in sheets though. I DO notice the different color palette in my normal d&*&%al workflow and have switched away from labs that went to the Fuji. There is just something about the Kodak skintones that just works for me. I get the feeling a Kodak workflow from Portra to Endura would be a winner, but c'est la vie!

polyglot · Dec 5, 2014

Well since you have studio lighting, no mixed light hues, good exposure control and all that... an optical print should look fantastic.

Nothing wrong with Fuji Crystal Archive or even the house-brand RA4 paper that Freestyle sells. You'll find a bigger change just due to a point of hue adjustment in the enlarger; my guess is that your issue with the digital prints was how the different shops calibrate their workflow. For analogue it's not calibrated, you just do what looks good to you.

Besides, colour printing is way cheaper than B&W printing. Go for it.

Photo Engineer · Dec 5, 2014

There is a big difference to the way a print appears depending on the spectral response of the paper and the dyes in the films. Yes, Portra > Endura will be a winner as they are designed to be! We did it for years that way and I was involved in the process.

PE

Poisson Du Jour · Dec 6, 2014

My hibridized RA4 process is Velvia 50 scans to Kodak Endura Professional metallic. These prints are so good that I sold the first one for $1,340 earlier this year, plus a swag of smaller ones each month. We don't see any home darkroom produced RA4 prints now. Only the occasional smattering of B&W prints.

RPC · Dec 6, 2014

If one scans to print to RA-4, then doesn't one have to go to a lab for printing the files? I know of no way it can be done at home, and that is a big factor that kills it for me. I want to have exact control over the results; color, density, cropping, aspect ratio, etc. when I want it, instead of waiting for some lab to mess it up. So optical printing at home is the only way for me to do that. Inkjets are out of the question.

L Gebhardt · Dec 6, 2014

RPC said:
If one scans to print to RA-4, then doesn't one have to go to a lab for printing the files? I know of no way it can be done at home, and that is a big factor that kills it for me. I want to have exact control over the results; color, density, cropping, aspect ratio, etc. when I want it, instead of waiting for some lab to mess it up. So optical printing at home is the only way for me to do that. Inkjets are out of the question.

If you use a good lab that has a properly run machine you can submit files and get back very consistent results. Then all the work goes into creating the file. You have the same level of control, however not nearly the same turn around time in most cases.

I found that with the RA4 papers on the market the biggest issue was contrast control. For landscape shots you don't always get the right contrast on the film to print well on the high contrast papers that seem to be all that is on the market today. If you are working in a studio I bet you can work around that and get the results you want. I got tired of making masks for most shots.

Another issue, that I think favors inkjet, is the choice of paper surface. I prefer the look of fiber based prints, and you can't get that with RA4. However you can get a nice super gloss surface if that floats your boat. However the surface I like the least is the RC matte or glossy papers so popular these days for both RA4 or inkjet prints.

Aesthetic question about optical RA4

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency