another great kodak color paper bites the dust - Ultra RIP

[rusty71]

Photographic film and paper will just be one more product America can't make....EC

You mean one more product that America WON'T make. From razor blades to steel, we've sold the whole country down the river. Yangtze river that is!
The photo shop where I work uses Kodak RA paper and chemistry. I was told that Kodak has dramatically increased the minimum amount of materials they must buy to stay a Kodak stockhouse.
Sounds to me like Big Yellow is cutting its own throat. Too bad. I really like their films and color paper.

 

[rusty71]

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

Yes, that is true. People leave their precious photos on these damned magnetic media. Then they do something stupid like fail to back it up, or format the card and I get them in the camera store, crying and begging to rescue those photos.
Darwin's law of evolution applies to everything but photography, apparently!

 

[srs5694]

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. All prints, even those that originate on film that went through the 1-hour C-41 machine, are printed on non-RA-4 paper using what appears to be inkjet technology. FWIW, I've also gotten prints that look like non-RA-4 prints from some mail-order photofinishers. (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. There's also a difference in texture; non-RA-4 glossy prints have a rubbery feel to them.)

I'd also argue that even if CVS only used inkjets for its digital kiosks and used RA-4 for its 1-hour film processing, there'd still be some of the effect that kicked off this subthread -- a shift from RA-4 to non-photochemical materials and processes, contributing to a decline in RA-4 paper sales. Ten or twenty years ago, if an individual walked into a drug store to get an 8x10, it would almost certainly be done on RA-4 paper. Today it might or might not be, depending on the drug store and the service ordered, and that translates into a decline in demand for RA-4 paper and chemistry.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

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.

 

[srs5694]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

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.

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.

 

[langedp]

Agreed. It looks like Kodak is optimizing Endura around the laser light source rather than analog (optical) since that's where the volume is. Those of us that still print optically on cut sheet sizes will have to adjust.

Dave

 

[dslater]

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.

This is one of the problems with inkjet printers - if they are not used a lot, the ink dries and the heads clog up. Then you have to clean the heads which wastes ink and makes operating them that much more expensive. This is a problem for all inkjets - not just photo printers.

 

[dslater]

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'm curious, how does RA-4 laser printing work? Is basically the same as an office laser printer without the toner or is it some kind of digital projector? What's the resolution like on these things? Is it only 300 - 600 DPI?

Dan

 

[jd callow]

RA4 laser or led's project an image on to light sensitive photogrpahic paper just like an enlarger except it is often one row of pixels at a time as the paper moves across the light path. The resulting image can look pixelated to the aided eye. I believe that the increase in digital RA4 printers required the paper manufactures to adjust the speed of the paper (Kodak had a seperate line of papers called Digital and Digital II as I recall) but little else.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak has a new digital paper listed on the web page that I referenced above.

PE

 

[srs5694]

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.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

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.

While manufacturers may "tweak" their product further towards laser exposure, you should remember, historically, that for some decades Kodak only offered ONE color paper..it is only after RA-4 that we have seen a proliferation of contrast grades and special interest papers such as metallic.
When there was only one paper, most photographers did just fine, and if they needed another surface to their prints they sprayed them with photo lacquer, which was available in matte, semi-matte, luster, retouch, and glossy. Need more contrast? Light more contrasty. Need less contrast?, learn to use fill light to bring up the shadows.

As long as there are 2 major manufacturers making RA-4 color printing paper, the price will be held down due to competition. Not to say that there won't be price increases, but they won't dramatically rise. Inkjet is another thing entirely, as the profit from inkjet is in the ink sales, with most brands of printers requiring ink from only one source...the manufacturer..no competition, so no reason to bring price down.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak offered several grades of color paper since the 60s. Each had a slightly different contrast.

T1920 and Ektacolor Professional were available in both rolls and sheets. The 1920 was higher in contrast and more like Ultra, while Professional was more like Portra.

PE

 

[jd callow]

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.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

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 agree...as long as there are various film choices to shoot on, then there can be various results with even just one paper.

 

[dslater]

Well, I just tried to order some Endura Ultra paper from Adorama. Their site showed in stock. Placed my order, later got an e-mail from them stating it was out of stock and on backorder. A little later, got another e-mail stating they had just been notified it had been discontinued and my order was canceled.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[Richard Harris]

If it's anything like Fuji EK is probably just finishing most of it's cut paper sizes and surfaces. Fuji only supply standard CA paper in cut sizes now. No pro grades and no pearl finish. Just hope Kodak stays in there but little hope I guess. Digital minilabs will kill the optical paper market leaving high contrast papers designed to take manipulated and adjusted digital files. RA4 is safe but that doesn't guarantee a product for the home market.

 

[dslater]

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

Hmm - maybe it was the size I ordered - I ordered a package of 8.5x11 paper. I placed another order at B&H for 8x10 paper and that one has shipped.

Dan

 

[Photo Engineer]

I agree with one thing. If Kodak would start answering things like this, it would go a long way to solving such problems. I'm getting tired of checking things out on the behalf of both Kodak and APUG members. We, as customers deserve more from Kodak.

I do know that the WW manager of Professional Products is aware of the comments posted here and there will be some action taken at Kodak, but if it is not put in front of the people who have the problem getting the products, it isn't real to us.

PE

 

[jd callow]

I agree that it would be nice to have someone from Kodak post on APUG. I know there is a large Kodak following here and that an occasional post would be greatly appreciated.

 

[langedp]

... 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

PE,

Thanks for your diligence in tracking this down. It seems like the OP was a little too "eager" to proclaim Ultra dead. Makes you wonder the intentions.

I agree that Kodak should be more responsive to its analog customers so that you don't have to do their customer service job for them. Thanks again.

Dave

 

[Photo Engineer]

To all;

The additional comment about the webmaster for Kodak's site being laid off was also incorrect. I have been able to verify that as well. I mentioned it earlier, but he is still there plugging in updates as they come along to him.

I think gratuitous comments like that and misleading comments or 'eager' comments such as Dave has commented on are doing us all a disserice no matter what Kodak does. It is also harmful to Kodak's business, again whatever else Kodak may do.

To me, it smacks of kicking someone when they are down, but not out! And, to me it is like kicking many well meaning friends who I have known for over 30 years.

PE

 

[langedp]

On a lighter note, I just finished up a batch of prints for the relatives for the holidays. They were shot on Kodak Portra film, printed on Kodak Endura paper, and processed in Kodak chemistry. Boy do they look nice.

(And no, I have no affiliation with Kodak. I just like their stuff)

Dave