Does The Brand of Paper Still Make a Difference?

[Ten301]

I now have to send my C41 film out to be processed and printed through the mail, as my local labs have pretty much vanished. Years ago, when negatives were printed optically, the general wisdom was to match the brand of film with the brand of paper, ie Kodak film with a lab using Kodak paper, Fuji with a lab using Fuji paper, etc. I assume that was because manufacturers optimized their papers to the dyes and orange mask of their films. Now that almost all labs have changed to printing digitally, does that 'wisdom' still hold true, or should it no longer be a consideration?

 

[zsas]

I tend to think the process by which a non-analog-printing-image compares/contrasts to a pure analog technique is out of scope for APUG. DPUG.org would be more suitable.

Resolution, dpi, file types are all great things, but are not in scope here....plain 'n simple. Sorry to sound brash but its gotta be said...

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure that the "general wisdom" of a few years ago was really all that wise.

IMHO, the preference for one lab printed colour paper over another made sense because the good quality labs themselves tuned their processes to the materials they used and the preferences that they and their customers shared.

It may very well be true that the labs that worked well with Kodak materials produced work that appealed most to those who preferred the colour palette of Kodak films.

If you like that Kodak palette in preference to Fuji, you may find that a current, high quality lab that uses Kodak materials would meet your preferences better.

I would bet, however, that it is the quality of the lab and the people there that matters the most.

The intervening digital steps used by most labs are important, but the preferences and colour standards of the people operating the lab are more important.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Don't be an ass, Andy. He didn't ask about resolution, dpi, file types, or any other evil thing you're imagination conjured up. He wanted to know if it mattered what color paper a minilab uses for a given film type. A perfectly legitimate question.

This is a forum of film users, and I understand having no tolerance for trolls who come in and try to start film vs digital flame wars and such, but this forum has gotten to the point of spitting on film users, the kind of people we need here, for even thinking the "D-word". The OP is a film user. He shoots film and gets it printed on silver-based paper, and he is pretty new here. Only 20 posts. You've not given him a good impression of the people here by attacking him for asking a question that is important to color print film users today, given that virtually all labs now use the digital lab systems instead of optical printing systems to print our negs. Thanks.

 

[pentaxuser]

My local lab uses Fuji paper( I think that most labs in the U.K. do these days) and while using a digital method of printing does so on RA4 paper.

Frankly the quality of the print is superb and I have seen no evidence that the make of the neg makes any difference to the print's quality. Plenty of APUGers use optical enlargers and use Kodak/Fuji negs with Kodak/ Fuji paper in all the permutations. My reading of their experience is that Fuji paper is fine with Kodak negs and vice versa. Certainly I have used both kinds of negs with Fuji paper and only once hit a problem that I think was related to the batch of paper rather than the make of paper.

As long as the lab knows what it is doing and has good diligent operators I wouldn't worry

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

I now have to send my C41 film out to be processed and printed through the mail, as my local labs have pretty much vanished. Years ago, when negatives were printed optically, the general wisdom was to match the brand of film with the brand of paper, ie Kodak film with a lab using Kodak paper, Fuji with a lab using Fuji paper, etc. I assume that was because manufacturers optimized their papers to the dyes and orange mask of their films. Now that almost all labs have changed to printing digitally, does that 'wisdom' still hold true, or should it no longer be a consideration?

hi there

i use a pro lab in the midwest to do my color work and they switched from fuji to kodak a handful of years ago
and to be honest i can't tell the difference between the papers.

john

 

[Truzi]

Short response: I don't think it matters with a good pro-lab.

Not sure if this helps, especially since I'm commenting on drug stores, but it seems to matter in my experience.
Our local Walgreen's is Kodak-oriented (though now sell Fuji film instead), while our local CVS sells Kodak, but I believe their minilab setup is Fuji-oriented (I could be wrong).
Walgreen's seems better to my eyes for Kodak (and Fuji), while the CVS seems to do better with Fuji, and the Kodak film does not come out as good.

Of course, these are drug-stores, so the level of skill and maintenance is not well controlled. We do have a pro-lab out here I use for important things, and with time am now also using for test rolls, since the prices is only a few dollars more than the drug stores, with far superior results. I've not asked what they standardize on, but everything turns out great.

All three labs I mention scan the negatives to print RA-4. While you'd think scanning the negatives would allow some control in compensating for color pallets, it doesn't always work that way in practice; and the papers themselves will have responses that are not easily altered.

 

[zsas]

Fair enough Chris. I print all my color film scans and my wife all her digi stuff at Walgreens fwiw, I guess I see the question as on the other line in the sand though because the impact on the color pallet is so integral to the process (ie digi equip the lab uses) than the paper (my belief). Fwiw, Walgreens uses Fuji (I think) and CVS uses Kodak. My prints from CVS don't look hardly as good as my prints from Walgreens. Therefore (I believe) the paper stock is off the table and the variance between stores is therefore technological, since we all know Fuji and Kodak papers are class act products. So that's why I felt the way to reply as such. I am a computer programmer fwiw...I love digital, just not a whole lot when it comes to my photography hobby

 

[AgX]

I think it is too conservative to regard Fuji and Kodak the only suppliers. There still are more manufacturers involved.

 

[Ten301]

I think it is too conservative to regard Fuji and Kodak the only suppliers. There still are more manufacturers involved.

More manufacturers of color paper? I thought Fuji and Kodak were the only ones remaining?

 

[AgX]

Agfa and Lucky are still on board.

Lucky even did the latest innovation (2010).

 

[Ten301]

Agfa and Lucky are still on board.

Lucky even did the latest innovation (2010).

I stand corrected. I was aware that Agfa was still making some films for others, but didn't know they were still manufacturing color paper. As for Lucky, I wasn't aware they made paper. In any event, neither is used here in the U.S. by commercial labs, AFAIK. Agfa used to be, with the now-defunct Mystic Photo Lab being a major customer.

 

[AgX]

Agfa decided years ago not to engage in the consumer market anymore. That would not restrict a intermediate company to buy current Agfa paper cutting it and selling it under their own brand to finishers/minilabs.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I think that at this point it seems to just be a matter of preference. I prefer the look and feel of Kodak paper. I find that in terms of the looks, Kodak seems to be warmer than Fuji. Isn't Ilford (the Ilford in Switzerland) still making color paper. I know that they axed Ilfochrome but I thought that they still had an RA-4 paper....I had always wanted to try out a lab printing on the current Agfa or Ilford paper. Is there anyone in the US printing on Lucky?

 

[Ten301]

Thanks, everyone, for your input. I guess what I've gleaned from the replies is that the skill of the operator/technician really has more to do with a good result than the film/paper combination. I had more or less taken a hiatus from photography for some time due to illness and other matters, but want to get back into it. What made me ask was that I was going through some old threads, and PE (whom I believe worked for Kodak at one time) remarked in one that Kodak paper was designed to give good results with all color negative film, regardless of manufacturer, whereas Fuji paper, as far as he knew, was not (my apologies, PE, if I misunderstood and have misquoted you!) That got me wondering if that was still an issue, as most labs now print negatives digitally.

 

[RPC]

What PE said was referring to optical printing. If scanning then printing I don't think it is meaningful as the scanning step would remove any film vs. paper issues. But it is definitely an issue with optical printing. I operated a mini-lab machine once and we used Konica and Mitsubishi paper and whereas they would print well with their own films they sometimes printed terribly with Kodak films. Fortunately those papers aren't around anymore.

 

[AgX]

Isn't Ilford (the Ilford in Switzerland) still making color paper. I know that they axed Ilfochrome but I thought that they still had an RA-4 paper.

Yes they do. But with the current financial situation most probably any production will have stopped until a major change to happen.

 

[foc]

I own a minilab and over the years have used Agfa, Kodak and Fuji RA4 paper. Yes when printing opticaly there was a small differance between papers. By this I mean I would have a preferance for the finished print. As far as printing negs on the different brands of paper, once I had the densitometer calibrations set for the paper type, it printed ok.

The paper and film brand match was I think an advertising ploy. Then in the 1990's I remember Kodak introducing a budget RA4 paper for minilabs. If my memory is correct they had I think a premimum, normal and budget paper. I tried the budget paper once and didn't like it at all. It appeared to have a thinner base which caused problems on our Fuji printer processor with jams. Fuji then claimed this was because Kodak paper was not suitable to use in a Fuji machine. (again a sales ploy).

With the advent of digital RA4 printing, I think the brand is even less inportant, PROVIDED the operator does good housekeeping, like morning denditometer set up and re calibrate at rollend change. Recently Fuji showed me their new digital paper (I have been using Fuji Crystal Archive for years now). The sales prints looked impressive, but I asked for a sample to print myself. The test prints I made (from Fuji & Ilford test files) looked the same to me as the normal Fuji paper. The price per roll however was different. The digital optimised paper was 5% more expensive.

Were they trying a sale ploy here?, (IEdigital paper for digital printer = Fuji paper for Fuji film.

I think so.