Photographic film and paper will just be one more product America can't make....EC
One interesting result of a Kodak survey that I heard of is that fewer people get prints today. They prefer getting digital images (analog -> digital or direct digital) and viewing them on a computer.
This has reduced the amount of analog paper consumed.
PE
Hmm - I see, the kiosk is not really a minilab - does the CVS still do 1 hour photo processing? If so, I would think the prints you get back from the processor would still be RA-4.
I was unclear. The CVS has a 1-hour lab with attached kiosks so that customers can bring in digital media. (The difference is clear under a loupe; inkjet prints are composed of lines, which somewhat resemble TV scan lines. RA-4 prints, even those made digitally, don't have this streaky appearance under a loupe.
The Kiosks are printing ink-jet or dye-sub prints. Neither of these media have "lines" unless there is a problem with the printer. Even when viewed under a loupe. On Inkjet, if there are microscopic lines, then the print head is partially clogged.
With laser exposure of RA-4 paper, there is no need for various contrast grades, as the printer can adjust for contrast prior to the laser exposure of the RA-4 paper.
Such problems must be extremely common, then. I've seen them with prints from several different sources -- my local CVS and at least a couple of mail-order/Internet labs. I've never been able to keep inkjet heads satisfactorily clog-free myself, either. This is one of the reasons I'm none too keen on non-RA-4 prints -- they may look pretty good when everything works perfectly, but in the real world, the machines just plain don't work perfectly.
Such problems must be extremely common, then. I've seen them with prints from several different sources -- my local CVS and at least a couple of mail-order/Internet labs. I've never been able to keep inkjet heads satisfactorily clog-free myself, either. This is one of the reasons I'm none too keen on non-RA-4 prints -- they may look pretty good when everything works perfectly, but in the real world, the machines just plain don't work perfectly.
This is an excellent point relevant to the original subject of the post. With the shift to digital imaging, RA-4 paper may survive if even a subset of photofinishers keep using it, but different grades might not.
I have a large roll fed ink-jet printer (Epson 9600 Ultrachrome). I make very large prints for one of my clients, both of artwork and of photographic originals. If I get even a "hint" of lines, I go thru the printhead cleaning program and clear it up. The problem with Kiosks is that the equipment is basically unserviced for long intervals except for ink and paper. Also, I use a rip which allows me to do a 4x or 8x print What that means is the print head goes over the same path 4 times or 8 times (you choose which in the RIP). This slows down the printing but makes for a very smooth image.
I would have to say in regards RA-4 mini-lab printing, I'll bet that 99% of all RA-4 mini-lab prints are made with laser exposure, whether the original is film or a digital file. Now you might think this is a "bad" thing, but in reality it is a "good" thing, as the only way to keep printing services available for analog materials (film) is to be able to do the printing thru the same machine that does the digital. It is not now economical to have a separate optical printer/processor just for film in the average mini-lab. There is nothing inferior with this technology, it can produce excellent, first quality prints, IF the operator is skilled in running it. Also, RA-4 prints are far more economical to produce in regards raw materials cost, than inkjet or dye-sub prints are.
I would have to say in regards RA-4 mini-lab printing, I'll bet that 99% of all RA-4 mini-lab prints are made with laser exposure, whether the original is film or a digital file. Now you might think this is a "bad" thing, but in reality it is a "good" thing, as the only way to keep printing services available for analog materials (film) is to be able to do the printing thru the same machine that does the digital. It is not now economical to have a separate optical printer/processor just for film in the average mini-lab. There is nothing inferior with this technology, it can produce excellent, first quality prints, IF the operator is skilled in running it. Also, RA-4 prints are far more economical to produce in regards raw materials cost, than inkjet or dye-sub prints are.
I basically agree with you that anything that keeps traditional products in production is a "win" for analog photography, even if the primary use is in a digital processor. My main concerns for the medium-term (the next few years) would be:
- Will manufacturers tweak their products for their primarily-digital customers in ways that will make them difficult for analog people to use? Discontinuing grades of color paper would be an example of this, but they might conceivably change spectral response, speed, or other factors in ways that could be detrimental for more traditional users. I don't know what's on the horizon in this regard.
- It's good to hear that RA-4 is still more economical than competing technologies when used in high-volume labs, but I'd be concerned that this might change, either because of dropping demand for RA-4 or improved (read: less expensive) non-RA-4 technologies. If that happens the market could change rapidly. I don't know how likely such changes might be, though.
In my experience the pro papers have about 1/4 to 1/2 grade difference in contrast adding the consumer papers (like kodak edge) might push the range to a 3/4 or possibly a full grade. These papers also seemed to move saturation up a notch as well, which might give the impression of greater contrast. In other words I don't believe the difference is that great. Portra in mat and ultra in glossy or a flex finished paper gives you a fairly wide difference, especially if the portra image is shot on NC and the other is (Agfa) Ultra, otherwise its all pretty subtle.
I have confirming e-mails and have now checked 3 sources. Kodak has not discontinued Ultra Endura paper. Some sizes have been discontinued, but the product has not.
Therefore, I suggest that those who are making posts to the contrary check again. It is available, but maybe not the size or surface you asked for.
Kodak's web site has been updated by that 'fired' webmaster to reflect a new Endura VC paper showing Kodak's commitment to analog color paper by ongoing R&D.
ULTRA IS NOT DEAD. This is from EK.
PE
... I'm getting tired of checking things out on the behalf of both Kodak and APUG members. We, as customers deserve more from Kodak...
PE
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?