• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Availability of RA-4 paper

koraks said:
The practical relevance of all this of course is limited if you're happy with your results, so it's more of an academic interest of mine.
Click to expand...

No, it's interesting. I will next week print some old "difficult" pictures made with the dichroic head and try to make them match as closely as possible.


koraks said:
if you're happy with your results
Click to expand...

I'm rarely happy with my results ! And that for sure was the case with the dichroic as with the LEDs
 
koraks said:
making some monochromatic step wedges and determining the chromacity at various density levels
Click to expand...

Yes that's easily noticed when making test prints. The colour balance is never perfectly equal.
It can sometimes be approximately corrected with flashing at a different colour seting and dodging/burning also at different colour settings.
I will try to make "straight" prints and see how close they match.
 
I'd expect a difference between an LED RGB head and both styles of halogen : RGB or CMY. But at this point in my life, I have no interest in investing in a Heiland, especially the cost of an 8x10 version. I am quite curious, however, how big a of an RA4 print you can from it, relative to light output.

But to get a more objective test, you'd need to work with a special control target like the MacBeth Color Checker Chart, and a better color balanced film than Superia.

Incidentally, the yellowing of the edges of the paper is generally related to how old it is before exposure. All RA4 media do that. Even fresh cut sheet CAii has quite white borders.
 
DREW WILEY said:
I am quite curious, however, how big a of an RA4 print you can from it, relative to light output.
Click to expand...

Out of a 135 negative with a 50mm lens at f5.6, exposures are in the 50''-1'30'' range for a 50x75 cm print. The film-paper distance is then around 110cm. The pictures I've posted above were made out of a crop of a 135 neg (about half of the neg surface) film-paper distance 68cm it took around 30'' at f5.6.
DREW WILEY said:
But to get a more objective test, you'd need to work with a special control target like the MacBeth Color Checker Chart, and a better color balanced film than Superia.
Click to expand...

Sure, I do own a color checker chart (not a McBeth though) and it's mandatory for a really objective test. A little of topic, for B&W I use a densitometer and step wedges to evaluate the results of my home made developers "experimentations" but at the end of the day, what gives me the best understanding of what I'm doing is just taking the same picture from my darkroom's window, I know...Highly unscientific!
Portra are probably better balanced, anyway since my color pictures are mostly taken under "uncontrolled" artificial light, good color balance is for me quite relative. But you're 100% right a color control chart photographed on Portra would be the thing to do!
 
Thanks for the general clue. But it's difficult to extrapolate the surface area of small LED top designed for small film to what might happen at larger size. The lumen output still seems quite unrealistic for commercial applications, where much larger prints are involved. And if an unsharp mask if also needed, that adds about another stop of density at least. Keep in mind, for example, that when we're referring to a 30X40 print in the US, we're expressing it in inches, not centimeters.

But at least you're on the road, and hopefully the color rendering of the Heiland will prove satisfactory. Hard to say where all this LED tech will go in the future; but excessive heat has always been a problem with halogen illumination.

Here we can't acquire Maxima at all at this time. I do print on Fujiflex Supergloss, a truly premium product, as well as Super C (which has changed somewhat since I last used it). So there are plenty of Fuji paper options here; but Maxima made only a brief commercial appearance among the big laser printing labs and then disappeared.
 
DREW WILEY said:
But it's difficult to extrapolate the surface area of small LED top designed for small film to what might happen at larger size.
Click to expand...
In fact my head is a 4x5 one (I use it on my durst L1200). I don't print 4x5 in color. Just 135 and 120. The exposure times used with the LED head are about the same as the one I had with my dichroic head.
DREW WILEY said:
we're referring to a 30X40 print in the US, we're expressing it in inches, not centimeters
Click to expand...

Of course I know that and I would love to be able to do 30x40 inches prints...way to large for my Parisian apartment size darkroom! I'm already glad to be able to make 20x24 (inches) prints.
DREW WILEY said:
I do print on Fujiflex Supergloss
Click to expand...

I would love to try it. Is it still manufactured in Japan?
 
fophem said:
Out of a 135 negative with a 50mm lens at f5.6, exposures are in the 50''-1'30'' range for a 50x75 cm print.
Click to expand...
I never used any of the Heiland units; I understand there are several versions and I wonder how they relate, speed-wise.

From my own perspective, using DIY LED equipment, I was printing 30x40cm at f/11 the other day; exposures around 10-15 seconds from 35mm negative. If I extrapolate this to 50x75cm and f/5.6 this would be around 5-8 seconds.

For 4x5 color neg at f/16 a usual time for me is 2-3 seconds for an 8x10" print, up to 5-6 seconds for a really dense negative (e.g. long expired film). So 8-24 seconds at f/16 for a 50x75cm print.

This is with the lower-powered ca. 100W LED head I'm currently using; before I was using a head that was around 1.5~2 stops faster. I actually programmed a digital "ND filter" because color printing times were uncomfortably fast with that unit - I often found myself printing at times between 0.3 and 0.8 seconds, for which I never optimized the timer (forget about burning & dodging, hah!)

DREW WILEY said:
The lumen output still seems quite unrealistic for commercial applications, where much larger prints are involved.
Click to expand...

That was a very relevant concern back in 1995.
 
koraks said:
If I extrapolate this to 50x75cm and f/5.6 this would be around 5-8 seconds.
Click to expand...

On my LED system, the light source replace the diffusion box. It's placed just above the film, no condensers or diffusion boxes in between. So when printing a 135 size negative, only about 1/13 of the light power is effectively used. (it's a 4x5 inches light box).
 
fophem said:
On my LED system, the light source replace the diffusion box.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think Heiland usually solves it this way - perhaps always. I myself kept the diffusor/condenser topology of my Durst 138 when migrating to LED. It's not quite as efficient as a true condenser approach; in terms of efficiency, it's somewhere in-between. But since LED is so much more efficient (especially when printing color!) than dichroic-filtered halogen/incandescent, the net result is just a lot faster printing times for lower total power input. The smallest dichroic head for this enlarger was a 300W unit I think, which came with a ridiculous and noisy vacuum cleaner bolted to it to prevent a total meltdown, LOL. So much for 1970s tech.
 
koraks said:
which came with a ridiculous and noisy vacuum cleaner bolted to it
Click to expand...

Yes I've seen a Durst 138, but never used one. I always thought my Durst L1200 made enough noise!!
The silence is a LED side effect I really enjoy.
 
Doesn't sound like any 70's Durst tech I use, albeit I've done a fair amount of customization since. Doesn't decibel sound like mine either - which is rather quiet. The whole idea is to pull air rather than push it anyway. I mainly rely on a huge exterior mounted industrial variable speed squirrel cage fan which does it the correct way. The only noisy fan is a booster unit with its mini-hood placed directly over RA4 mixing containers - only briefly used, and fed into the main fume hood. All my enlarger fans are quiet, including the onboard Durst one adjunct to my 300W head on my L184. I suspect only the fans associated with early condenser heads are primitive and noisy.

And it still sounds like the Heiland is rather slow printing compared to what I'm accustomed to in halogen. But my gear was formerly used for Ciba printing, including big heavily masked sizes, which was way way slower to print than RA4 media. Still, I had one Durst halogen unit which could punch a 30X40 INCH Ciba with a .90 attached mask in 15 seconds. Now that beast was energy intensive and hot! No need for a separate heater in winter! It was 50% of my total electrical bill; and I replaced it with my own more energy efficient design.
 
mshchem said:
Plentiful here in the USA. Fotoimpex usually has cut sheets, I just checked nothing much there now??
Click to expand...
Our supplier of Master Rolls filed for insolvency. We would have to go to cutting minilab rolls which is of a lower productivity (as we are a real factory). We are setting this up now despite the lower productivity but it was soooooo much better to get big rolls...snifff....
 

I suspect that there will be an opportunity as time goes by.

Is Kodak paper really dead? It's a helluva brand, probably not
 
mshchem said:
I suspect that there will be an opportunity as time goes by.
Click to expand...

Opportunities can be created...

mshchem said:
Is Kodak paper really dead?
Click to expand...

As a doornail. There's another thread about this. The only "Kodak" paper being coated at the moment is Lucky paper, coated in China.
The remaining plant that coated Endura etc. up to about 2 years ago will close next month. I have no doubt that the coating line itself will be scrapped.
 

I agree with your assessment. Still, who knows, China can do it if they would decide to.
 
DREW WILEY said:
And it still sounds like the Heiland is rather slow printing compared to what I'm accustomed to in halogen.
Click to expand...

If you are using 2kw+, maybe. They are seriously bright.


fophem said:
Is it still manufactured in Japan?
Click to expand...

I believe it may have or be about to cease production. It was a niche of a niche - and it depends hugely on if you like the hypergloss of Ciba/ Ilfochrome/ Ilfocolour - and for those purposes (and the kind of uses you need that finish for) things like Diasec are overall more effective - and require only regular lustre paper.
 
This is all so scary. One mfg left for such a complex product.
 
Lachlan Young said:
And there's no reason why others (Harman Technology, Adox) would not be able to make it too, but people would need to be realistic about the price.
Click to expand...

In theory, yes. People would mostly need to be realistic about how that market works. It's not comparable to the markets Harman and Adox serve. It's a different ballgame. I think Harman and Adox understand this very well and therefore stick with what they know and do best.
 
koraks said:
That's correct, due to lack of demand; both Trans and Flex. It was indeed made in Japan.
Click to expand...

And most of the usage was for graphic arts/ display signage purposes, not anything remotely close to what people might assume to be fine-art applications. Jobs which are now done by various UV and similar printers.
 
Lachlan Young said:
And most of the usage was for graphic arts/ display signage purposes, not anything remotely close to what people might assume to be fine-art applications.
Click to expand...

Flex and Trans, yes.
But my mention of three parties coating RA4 is not about flex & trans; it's about RA4 paper in general. Flex & trans were coated by a single facility, and now none.
 
koraks said:
Flex and Trans, yes.
But my mention of three parties coating RA4 is not about flex & trans; it's about RA4 paper in general. Flex & trans were coated by a single facility, and now none.
Click to expand...

I was only talking about Fujiflex and Fujitrans (Fujiclear), not the rest of the ranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register