Color Paper Viability

[RedSun]

I have two boxes (rolls) of Fuji Super Type C color paper. I do not know its age. I bought them about 5 years ago. I tried to print with ColorLine color analyzer, Jobo and some old chemicals. But it was not a success. Since both RA chemicals and the color paper were old, I'm not sure which to blame.

What is the best approach with this? Cost is clearly a consideration.

 

[RedSun]

View attachment 237970

 

[MattKing]

Buy a small kit of RA-4 chemicals.
Discard a layer or two of the outside of the paper roll.
Do some colour and exposure ring-a-round exposures on the paper, using a known good negative.
See what you have.

 

[cmacd123]

indeed, any sort of test you have to have as few variables as possible. it is too bad that one can not buy a 25 sheet pack of 5X7 paper like in the old days. Make a print from a good negative on Fresh Papaer, and then see if you an coax the older paper to print the same negative with quality that is acceptable.

 

[RedSun]

If this were BW printing, then it is not an issue since even the fresh chemicals are cheap. The color balance is another issue. There are just too many variables.

Not sure about the cost of "small kit" of RA chemicals. Even I get fresh RA-4 chemicals, I'm sure if I can get color balance right. It is time consuming to print test strips on the Jobo.

 

[MattKing]

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/11812-Arista-RA-4-Color-Print-Processing-Kit-2-Liters

 

[RedSun]

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/11812-Arista-RA-4-Color-Print-Processing-Kit-2-Liters

That is $39 kit. I only need the developer. I get a lot old bleach. Think it is still good.

 

[MattKing]

If you need just developer, look at Adorama.
You may need starter as well.

 

[btaylor]

My experience has been that messing with outdated paper or chemistry is a waste of time and energy. RA4 is not difficult, but your processes need to be spot on.

 

[RedSun]

My experience has been that messing with outdated paper or chemistry is a waste of time and energy. RA4 is not difficult, but your processes need to be spot on.

So the boxes of roll color paper has no use?

 

[MattKing]

As mentioned above, get some fresh paper to dial in good results, and then see if the roll paper can be made to emulate those results.
If it can, make sure you keep it well - the freezer is best - and monitor your results as you use it.

 

[koraks]

But it was not a success.

Please share some details on what exactly didn't work out as intended. If you can show some examples, that would be even better.

 

[RedSun]

Please share some details on what exactly didn't work out as intended. If you can show some examples, that would be even better.

This is what my plan is. Last time, I got stuck with color calibration. Or taking too much time on that. The photos came up, but the colors are somehow off. It is just hard to pinpoint what to blame, paper, chemical or color balance.

 

[btaylor]

Yes, it is very hard to know what is to blame for the poor results with so many variables. For about $100 you can get fresh chemistry and a 100 sheet box of fresh Fuji paper from Freestyle. I would start there IMHO. Then you can start to dial in color balance. Oh, and take a shot of a gray card so you have a reference color to match in your prints.

 

[MattKing]

Oh, and take a shot of a gray card so you have a reference color to match in your prints.

Or even better, a combination of a grey card and some sort of colour reference, such as a Macbeth chart or Kodak colour control patches from the Kodak Colour Darkroom Dataguide.

 

[RedSun]

Or even better, a combination of a grey card and some sort of colour reference, such as a Macbeth chart or Kodak colour control patches from the Kodak Colour Darkroom Dataguide.

Yes, I have all these. Good stuff.

 

[koraks]

the colors are somehow off.

As long as you don't have white borders that are non-white (eg yellow) or blacks than don't get beyond a dark blue, there's no indication of either bad paper or bad developer. That leaves you with color balancing, and that's something that takes some experience in getting it down. Just practice, and like the other said, include a clear benchmark in your images to have something to hold on to.

 

[RedSun]

Here is the best one I've had the last time. I even printed two photos and framed them. The white is white.

 

[koraks]

Looks pretty OK insofar as it's possible to judge an image like this. Maybe I'd dial out a few cc of M if I were to print this. But it's always always bit of always personal choice where you want to take the colors, unless your aim is exact reproduction (but then you'd use a different approach towards recording the image).

 

[RedSun]

Here are the test strips. Those took a lot of time.

View attachment 238009

 

[MattKing]

Use a cardboard mask at the easel, and put a number of test strips on the same sheet.

 

[RedSun]

One more. The actual color is more grey than the scanned.

View attachment 238015

 

[RedSun]

It seems to me the color paper was probably ok. The RA chemicals are still not certain. Color balance is still work in progress. I used Colorline 500/700 analyzer. Not sure if that helps or make it more complicated.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on how old the paper was when you bought it, and the storage conditions all along. But Super C keeps pretty well, and the culprit is more likely to be the chemistry. So I would just buy some fresh chem and see what happens. Part B of the dev tends to go bad first; it should be clear rather than brownish.

 

[MattKing]

The advantage that the analyzer gives you is that it, in conjunction with a standard negative (a "Shirley", in Kodak parlance), allows you to match the enlarger's output between prints and between sessions.
Once you have things dialed in, it can also help you determine a good starting point for your test strips.
I can't really see whether the negative you are working with is a good one to use as a standard. The negative for this one would be better: