Color Printing?

Bob Carnie · Oct 13, 2013

I suspected as much as not only is the paper incredibly faster the colour of the latent image is different from what I ever remember.

I have always wanted to shoot an 8x10 colour project and make some fine prints on an enlarger but I was put off by the complete speed.
I would be able to print and see the image on the easel and with some pretty predictable times in the ***good old days*** I just am not sure there is a paper out there that is maximised for it.

Your findings back my thoughts.

Drew.. ** the founder of photography** on the other hand could turn a sows ear into a silk purse.. I have always said that he is the most interesting man on the earth.. keep thirsty my friends.

MattKing · Oct 13, 2013

Just a thought here.

Could the performance of the current papers be improved by changing/filtering/augmenting the light sources?

Are there issues with UV in the light source?

Bob Carnie · Oct 13, 2013

For papers to work with laser or Led exposure the sensitivity or band-with of light that exposed the colour layers is very precarious.
This is also true for laser exposure of Black and White paper.. Agfa Classic would work with laser light, Ilford Warmtone would not.
The manufacturers need to figure out how to design the emulsions to work with the output of the laser and LED ouput, not the other way and could be IMO very difficult task.

Others with experience like PE or Simon Galley could probably give more insight than I regarding this issue, I just am the monkey making the prints.

frotog · Oct 13, 2013

Funny thing is that I can get excellent results with the digitally optimized ilford b/w papers under the enlarger, both fb and rc. Granted, it prints just like grade 4 galerie, but this oftentimes is just the ticket for mural prints. Other than that, I don't notice any differences between galerie digital and conventional b/w papers in terms of exposure and tonality.

I would love to hear what PE or Simon Galley has to say about the digitally optimized papers and their incompatibility with traditional tungsten/halogen exposure.

RPC · Oct 13, 2013

I don't know exactly what paper you people who have problems are printing with, but I am using the current Fuji Crystal Archive Type II cut-sheet paper and simply am not having any of the problems talked about. I have been printing with Kodak papers for 30 years and see little difference with the current CAII paper other than a little higher contrast I mentioned earlier and it is faster. Have you used cut-sheet paper or just from rolls? Since they will be exposed with different light sources, perhaps Fuji manufactures each with different response characteristics. If you haven't used the current cut-sheet version I suggest you try it before bad-mouthing it. If there was anyone out there reading this thread thinking of trying color printing , you have probably scared them away by now.

pentaxuser · Oct 13, 2013

RPC said:
If there was anyone out there reading this thread thinking of trying color printing , you have probably scared them away by now.

That's precisely why we need, as I asked, for everyone on APUG who has had experience of the new Fuji paper to give us their experiences as you have.

I have no doubt that frotog's opinion is genuine as indeed is Drew Wiley's but as things stood it was simply two APUGers with diametrically opposed opinions which doesn't help those who want to try RA4 printing and don't want to try cutting their own sheets from Kodak roll paper which it seems does not suffer from the same problems as the Fuji paper if I have understood frotog's contention correctly.

pentaxuser

bvy · Oct 14, 2013

In case my opinion matters... I've been color printing only since the beginning of this year. I'm using Fuji CA Type II (lustre) and Kodak RA/RT chemistry. I process in drums at 94F. I like the results I'm getting. You can look at my gallery: Everything in color (Polaroids excepted) are scans of 8x10 color prints, with no corrections in most cases. The paper works for me, but I'm admittedly a "casual" printer. I don't inspect my prints with a microscope or run complicated color matching tests. I find the process no harder than black and white.

frotog · Oct 14, 2013

RPC said:
Have you used cut-sheet paper or just from rolls? Since they will be exposed with different light sources, perhaps Fuji manufactures each with different response characteristics.

The cut-sheet CAII is the same as CAII in rolls. According to the fuji rep that I spoke to, it is their least expensive silver halide color paper and is expressly marketed to their minilab clients. The cut-sheet packaging is the exact same digitally optimized emulsion on the same thin budget base - only difference being that it is packaged in sheets for the student or home hobbyist.

Roger2000 · Oct 14, 2013

Like many others, I use fuji and kodak paper with an enlarger and get excellent results.

To anyone reading this with an eye on starting colour printing, I say do it.

With the exception of Bob, the naysayers are trying that little bit too hard to sound oh so intelligent, with super-critical faculties, when I suspect the opposite is nearer the truth.

DREW WILEY · Oct 14, 2013

All one has to do is visit Fuji's website, or take a sneak peak at an actual dealer's price list, to realize that "Crystal Archive" is a suite of products, just like I said, and not one paper. But otherwise, every variety I've tried has similar color balance, though contrast, sheen, and
paper surface, and even base material, differ between specific papers. Good chemistry is important. I've printed chromogenic papers for
three decades, and CAII is just as easy as any of them. If you understand the optical parameters of either colorheads or lasers you start
to realize that the sensitivity peaks to the paper have to be similar. A damn tech sheet will show you that if you know how to read it. And
Mr. Pentax - I don't have a "diametrically opposed opinion" - I actually use these products! The other dude repeatedly makes statements to
the effect he doesn't even know what it is. Don't believe me - fine. Just go to the damn Fuji website and look for yourself. It ain't all
minilab product. Go to the horses mouth - learn to print it yourself instead of depending on some ridiculous web chatter by people who have
never even touched the stuff.

anikin · Oct 14, 2013

pentaxuser said:
That's precisely why we need, as I asked, for everyone on APUG who has had experience of the new Fuji paper to give us their experiences as you have.

I have no doubt that frotog's opinion is genuine as indeed is Drew Wiley's but as things stood it was simply two APUGers with diametrically opposed opinions which doesn't help those who want to try RA4 printing and don't want to try cutting their own sheets from Kodak roll paper which it seems does not suffer from the same problems as the Fuji paper if I have understood frotog's contention correctly.

pentaxuser

I also use Fuji color papers and see no problems. Excellent products. My only difficulty is that they have such a huge variety of papers, and it's hard to figure out from their web site which one I'd like the most. Verbal descriptions are not always a good indicator to the characteristics of the paper. I wish Fuji would offer a sampler pack so I could try them out and buy a roll or two of the product that suits my style the best.

The new papers have much sharper contrast and much stronger/cleaner colors, so color mistakes such as color cross-over on negatives or unintentionally mixed lighting are much more visible. Subtle near-gray scale prints require higher skill level from the printer compared to when one used the old papers. I suspect that's because the old papers had much muddier colors than the modern ones. I personally like the new papers better - you can always muddy up your negatives by adding carefully constructed masks or adjusting processing, but it's nearly impossible to clean up colors of a muddy paper. Really, that should not be a deterrent for the new printers.

Eugene.

DREW WILEY · Oct 14, 2013

Excellent point, Eugene. Part of the problem isn't that the paper has changed as much as films have. Having more saturated, more contrasty
color neg films available means there is less room for error in printing. That just comes with the territory. It's still far easier than printing chromes, but some of these newer pro films need proper color balance to begin with. But realize that some of the papers on their website are no longer in production, like Super C and Type P, though they are still commonly available until supplies run out. Everything being made now is somehow based on the CAII formula, even the expensive Fujiflex product. Neither Kodak nor Fuji are particularly good at communicating to potential new users. Over the years, I've learned that often, to find out the facts, you have to test for yourself. That takes time and money, but it's also a fact of life in photography, because supplies always keep changing.

labyrinth photo · Oct 14, 2013

we are very happy using Fuji CA DPII. the cut sheet paper here in the UK is thinner in the base and therefore kinks more easily, the roll paper seems to be better but we don't have much evidence to back that up, maybe it's a tactile thing.
regardless of whether it's better or worse than old papers is irrelevant, it is all we've got so we make the best of it.
if you aren't getting what you want then you pull out a few tricks to get the print where you want it. improvements in film stock help.
we just keep on going regardless, it still beats any other print technique out there and gets the best results so simply. i speak with the other pro lab printers in london and no one is complaining about paper and i see great print after great print being made.
i know here i'd rather be working day in day out so you just get on with it.

pentaxuser · Oct 14, 2013

labyrinth photo said:
we just keep on going regardless, it still beats any other print technique out there and gets the best results so simply. i speak with the other pro lab printers in london and no one is complaining about paper and i see great print after great print being made.
/QUOTE]

Without wishing to appear "picky" can I just ask that you confirm that you do optical enlarging as we home enthusiasts do? I infer that you do but you don't actually state this in so many words. This is important as the problem with Fuji CAII paper is alleged to occur with optical enlarging. The kind of mini-lab RA4 printing is these days mainly laser printing for which the paper is said to be optimised.

Thanks

pentaxuser

DREW WILEY · Oct 14, 2013

Do yourself a favor. Download the tech sheet for the specific product or products being offered in your country. You need to get the actual
Fuji product no. for this, although that number will also involve size and packaging notationo. You just don't seem to get it. "Digitally Optimized"
does not necessarily equate to "non-analog", or even "less than ideal analog". Most minilab prints come out ugly regardless of whatever was
put into them.

DREW WILEY · Oct 14, 2013

The reason you need the product code is so you can compare it with what is being offered in major markets like the US. You UK Fuji site is
quite abbreviated compared to ours. I enlarge onto "Crystal Archive Type II", which is distinctly specified for both digital and analog, not DPII, which I've never even seen.

frotog · Oct 14, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
All one has to do is visit Fuji's website, or take a sneak peak at an actual dealer's price list, to realize that "Crystal Archive" is a suite of products, just like I said, and not one paper.

Fuji began using the tm "Crystal Archive" sometime in the late nineties to designate their, at that time, newly developed, longer lasting emulsions. To be clear, all the current fuji silver halide papers carry the CA trademark. CAII, their only paper currently being packaged in cut sheets is the same paper as their commercial minilab paper. AGAIN, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME THE PAST TWO TIMES - CAII IS THE ONLY FUJI PAPER AVAILABLE IN CUT SHEETS. CAII, as I said before, is not available in any sizes larger than a 12" roll or a 20x24" sheet.

Their professional papers (and trans and metallic materials), none of which are available in cut sheet form, all carry the further designations of "super" and "professional". None of these papers were ever intended for use under an enlarger. This doesn't mean that they won't work, only that they produce poor results compared to the former, optically optimized papers that they replaced. Can you contrast and color mask them for better control under an enlarger? Of course you can. You can also use high fidelity analogue mikes and tube amps and record directly to mp3 if you're so inclined. But the majority of people who know better would think you a fool. The kinder among them would consider you clever, but a fool nonetheless.

Here's a link to type ii http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products..._papers_printing_materials/type_II/index.html

Notice their other offering on the right hand margin.

CA super type pdn is the same as super type p except with back print. CA super type CN (the rightful descendent of the old "CA Super C") is nowhere near the same as CAII, the paper currently available in cut sheets.

All the professional papers, unlike the CAII, exhibit the dmax you'd expect from a professional line, whether exposed by an enlarger or by laser light. The CAII, on the other hand, besides having the cross-over typical of a digital paper being used in an tungsten/halogen traditional drkrm., has the worst dmax of any of the papers currently available. This is not at all surprising as CAII is fuji's budget paper, primarily intended for laser exposures in frontier machines like the one at the local walmart and with prints that small, you can get away with horrible dmax (read less silver).

I think it's safe to assume that Fuji's cut sheet packaging of CAII makes up less than 1% of the total sales of this particular emulsion in the CA line.

Does anyone here really think Fuji is worrying about the extreme minority of their clients who are still using enlargers to make their exposures?

Truzi · Oct 14, 2013

I certainly cannot add anything of value to the technical data posted, nor do I have any experience with color printing.
However, I would like to point something out. Look to other industries, and the labeling on those products (any products).

Being optimized for digital printing may in fact indicate some sort of difference that makes it work with current digital printing, and better than a previous version did. I do not see that as excluding or harming optical printing ability, per se.
It does also seem a bit like an advertising catch-phrase found on so many products that want to show they are still current with whatever is predominant or in-style at the time (except for BP's gas with "Invigorate, which seems to harken to advertising of the 50s, long before my time).
I'm not saying there are no differences, but I would merely venture a guess that the largest difference in digitally optimized paper is the statement that it is optimized for digital.

Roger Cole · Oct 14, 2013

You guys have pretty much talked me into it. Once the basement build out is completed later this year and I have running water in my darkroom, I'm pretty sure I'll get back into color.

I printed RA4 without problems in the 80s along with Kodak Type R and what was then Cibachrome. Maybe I was just uncritical but I still have prints from those days that I think look good (and some that are clearly badly faded on Type R, not sure why some faded and some didn't - the RA4 and Cibachrome look fine) and didn't have a problem with it. Drew's advice in other matters has been spot on. I'll do it again in a few months.

bvy · Oct 15, 2013

Welcome back, Roger. It will be good to have another color printer to talk to -- or in my case, learn from.

DREW WILEY · Oct 15, 2013

Here in the US, Pro photog products and minilab products are classified separately by Fuji, though there might be some incidental overlap. I just checked
some boxes last nite of 20x24 cut-sheet CAII (regular paper based), and it's labeled "Made in Netherlands", "Packaged in the UK". That doesn't automatically guarantee that the identical product is actually sold in the UK, but it would sure be odd if it wasn't. The specific labeling might differ from
country to country. It's clearly intended for an international market. Once again Frotog is making ridiculous uniformed assertions about a product he has apparently never used, or perhaps never used competently. One of the tweaks inherent to "digitally optimized" was to actually INCREASE the blacks over previous papers, since weak black was a common complaint with laser exposure. Otherwise the product has been marketed as a direct replacement to Super C, which was popular for enlarging, with only minor differences. I have found this to be true. The speed and color balance are very similar. The base is a tiny bit whiter and the color a little cleaner, the paper a tad thinner but not flimsy. Just get out and try it. Despite the rumors, you won't fall off the
edge of the earth or get swallowed by sea monsters if you sail too far West.

Roger Cole · Oct 15, 2013

If it's too fast add some ND.

I printed all the color I printed in the past with filters in the filter drawer. A bit slower but the difference is trivial compared to the processing (and drying to evaluate) time, and it works fine. Via whatever method, just throw in equal parts of additional Y+M+C and you have ND. Normally you'd never have all three but you CAN if you NEED to slow things down.

MattKing · Oct 15, 2013

Roger Cole said:
If it's too fast add some ND.

I printed all the color I printed in the past with filters in the filter drawer. A bit slower but the difference is trivial compared to the processing (and drying to evaluate) time, and it works fine. Via whatever method, just throw in equal parts of additional Y+M+C and you have ND. Normally you'd never have all three but you CAN if you NEED to slow things down.

As long as this doesn't get you into problems with reciprocity - which are a bugger to deal with in colour (crossover!).

Roger Cole · Oct 15, 2013

From what I'm hearing it shouldn't, if the problem is that the stuff requires 5 second exposures or something. My exposures on old RA4 tended to run, best I recall, about 10-15 seconds, which doesn't leave much time for dodging and makes burning critical. I much prefer slightly longer exposures. I doubt 30 or 40 seconds is going to be a problem. Two minutes (old Cibachrome could run nearly that long!) might be different.

labyrinth photo · Oct 15, 2013

pentaxuser, we print optically with negatives and enlargers. we do have fantastic durst machines which allow us fine control, ND dials, reliabilty and options such as colour contolled pre-flashes and burn-ins.

DpII is the thicker based paper, the cut sheet is really thin and flimsy and weren't impressed with the blacks at all.
When we spoke to fuji rep about this a few years ago he was surprised that we were cutting off rolls and was even more surprised that all the pro labs in london were doing the same....check out michael dyer associates for an example of hand printing from 50" wide rolls for some highly respected art photographers. maybe this was something that fuji took note of!

regarding exposure times we are generally above 5 seconds, much nearer 10-15 seconds, you may have to adapt your printing style a little but really whatever some people on this thread are moaning about is not something that keeps me awake at night

Color Printing?

Bob Carnie

MattKing

Moderator

Bob Carnie

frotog

RPC

pentaxuser

bvy

frotog

Roger2000

DREW WILEY

anikin

DREW WILEY

labyrinth photo

pentaxuser

DREW WILEY

DREW WILEY

frotog

Truzi

Roger Cole

bvy

DREW WILEY

Roger Cole

MattKing

Moderator

Roger Cole

labyrinth photo

Color Printing?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency