Everything you want to know about FUJIFILM color RA4 papers

MattKing said:

Are you, by chance, using them to make in-camera negatives?
That is a whole different enterprise than printing from film negatives.

Click to expand...

Yes-- in camera negatives going through a reversal process--something this paper was never designed to do, but it's fun to mess with.

Jimskelton said:

I always get confused when thinking about the colour process, but I'm thinking that from the above spectral sensitivity curves, the reason the cyan forming (red sensitive) layer is less sensitive is because of the cyan/bluish coloured dye on the paper. Maybe that's another question you could ask--where that cyan forming (red sensitive) curve would be without that dye layer. I presume it would move up a bunch without it, maybe be near the same level as the others.

Click to expand...

I doubt that the colour of the surface of the paper has much to do with the sensitivity of the image forming layers. If it did, it would probably be the reverse of what you are suggesting - the sensitivity of the layers mandating what is on the surface of the paper.

MattKing said:

I doubt that the colour of the surface of the paper has much to do with the sensitivity of the image forming layers. If it did, it would probably be the reverse of what you are suggesting - the sensitivity of the layers mandating what is on the surface of the paper

Click to expand...

Ok, I'm trying to wrap my mind around this...

I assume the RGB sensitivity curves are for the paper with the dye on it and not for the actual layers themselves (maybe all the layers have a similar sensitivity--that's the question that would be interesting to have an answer to). Let's assume that instead of cyan dye, it was covered yellow dye. Wouldn't RGB sensitivity curves change because blue is being filtered down? In this case, presumably, the yellow forming layer (blue sensitive) would be less sensitive and the graph would likely show the yellow forming layer (blue sensitive) move down.

I assume the reason for the different levels of sensitivity is because originally, RA-4 paper was made to print directly from colour negatives, which have an orange mask to them. It would make sense to make the paper less sensitive to red (a lot) and a little bit less sensitive to green (combine those and it probably makes orange) to compensate for the negative mask. By reducing sensitivity to red a lot and green a little, that alleviates the need for lots of cyan filtering.

This means that the lower red sensitivity shown in the graph is by design, and that the way they may have done this is by just applying a cyan dye layer which would effectively make the paper as a whole less sensitive to red.

All I know experimentally is that when the cyan dye is washed off before exposing, you don't need much yellow/magenta filtration for colour balance (away from cyan) to be correct in around 3200K light. Washing the dye off seems to make the paper more sensitive to red.

It gets more confusing because I'm doing reversals. So, because the paper with dye is less sensitive to red, that means less red sensitive silver halide gets exposed and developed in the first developer, leaving lots of unexposed red sensitive silver halide (coupled to cyan dyes) to develop in the colour development step, making the print have a cyan cast. SO...

By washing off the dye layer, making the paper more sensitive to red, more red sensitive silver halide is getting exposed/developed with b&w developer and less is developing into the cyan colour after being fogged.

Ok, but rather than speculating endlessly, maybe we can have someone who knows answer this: what would the spectral sensitivity graph look like without the dye layer on it.

Jimskelton said:

Ok, but rather than speculating endlessly, maybe we can have someone who knows answer this: what would the spectral sensitivity graph look like without the dye layer on it.

Click to expand...

I doubt that the stuff that washes off is there for any purpose like a colour filter related specifically to spectral sensitization - even if you see a big change in the colour response when you wash that paper, and a whole bunch of water soluble stuff comes off it.
Water alone is a really powerful and consequential chemical that tends to make substantial changes when you put it on to film and paper emulsions.

Jimskelton said:

the reason the cyan forming (red sensitive) layer is less sensitive is because of the cyan/bluish coloured dye on the paper.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. It probably has to do with how silver halides are sensitized to a certain spectrum. This comes at a loss of efficiency. I.e., it gets slower. Keep in mind that as wavelength increases, photons have less energy. I think this probably has something to do with it as well. There's also the legacy of tungsten bulbs being rich in red, poorer in green and poorest in blue light. Since these emulsions were originally intended to work with tungsten light sources, it made sense to have this kind of response. Of course, the latter is now not necessary anymore. In any case, there's a number of reasons why the spectral sensitivity curves are the way they are.

I asked about the blue mask and specifically said that I thought it had to do with color filtering, but the guy said something like "a little, but that's not really the main reason why it's there". I'll ask though; I had already included the question about the blue dye on my list.

Btw, keep in mind that on Kodak paper, it's a pink dye, and Fuji's current blue dye may also not remain blue forever. Yet, Kodak's curves look roughly similar to Fuji's. Pink dye, though. That alone is enough to suggest that the blue dye doesn't play the role you think it does.

Jimskelton said:

All I know experimentally is that when the cyan dye is washed off before exposing, you don't need much yellow/magenta filtration for colour balance (away from cyan) to be correct in around 3200K light. Washing the dye off seems to make the paper more sensitive to red.

Click to expand...

Apart from washing out the dye, you may be washing out some other things as well. The dye is what you see, but what else happens when you wash this paper and expose it - perhaps even while still wet? Again, I had already added this question to my list the first time you brought it up, so I'll try to ask.

Jimskelton said:

Ok, here's a question. What is the colour/hue of the dye they put on the paper and does it primarily compensate for the orange negative mask?

What colour temperature is the paper balanced to without the dye?

I sort of know the answers, but it would be nice to get the real answers.

Click to expand...

I verified the first question - the function of the blue (cyan) dye on the Fuji paper is antihalation. Its color isn't particularly relevant.

The second question regarding color temperature, is moot. All these papers are designed for digital exposure with discontinuous light sources, i.e. RGB lasers.

Optical enlargement plays no role whatsoever in the mass market that these papers are consumed by. I was told an anecdote in relation to this: the paper plant decided to drop compatibility with optical enlargement at some point, about 20 years ago. The Japan HQ complained, arguing that their customers relying on optical enlargement would get into trouble with this. Knowing the market, the people at the paper plant asked HQ to come up with the name of one single, commercial lab of any significant volume that still did optical enlargements. No name was ever offered. Compatibility with optical enlargement was consequently dropped in favor of digital-only optimization.

In the end, they did manage to find one optical printer, though. Turned out it was in Hong Kong, but the guy operating it wasn't aware that he was actually printing optically. His minilab was one from the transition period that formed the image on an LCD which was then backlit/exposed with a halogen light source and dichroic filters. Hence, it printed digital files, but exposed using an enlarger-like light source. The Fuji people only found this out by accident, as they visited this lab and asked to have a look inside the machine.

koraks said:

This is certainly possible, and of course, Fuji also uses several base thicknesses. Having said that, DPII is on the higher end of the base thickness gamma, so it's about as good as it gets. I recognize your comments about wobble though. Framing big prints ideally involves mounting them to a stiff carrier.

Coincidentally, the RC paper base of the Fuji paper comes from the exact same source as Harman/Ilford's, as far as I can tell. Virtually the only manufacturer of photographic paper bases currently is Schoeller. This doesn't mean all papers are the same - far from it, and I suppose Schoeller may even manufacture specials for individual clients provided they buy sufficient quantities.
Mind you, the base comes from Schoeller, but Fuji does still laminate the PE layers on both sides if my memory serves, and everything on top of that (evidently).

Click to expand...

When Ilford brought out MG5 there were comments about it being thinner than the previous MG4. I was not sure, so took 2 measurements on glossy paper using an engineers micrometer with an electronic readout and the two papers were identical to 3 decimal places. I would do the same with Fuji but don't have any Kodak paper to compare it with so that would be a bit pointless. However for what it is worth the Fuji paper when handling it does feel a little flimsy in comparison. It does 'kink' a lot easier too.

1kgcoffee said:

Ive tried, and been trying to squeeze information from LIFX about what particular red LEDs they use. They are so far unwilling to share.

Not sure how to formulate the question exactly, but we know that red on the crystal archive paper peaks around 660nm. What effect would having shorter wavelength red for longer exposures have on the color balance? What wavelength red do the printers that they have designed the paper for output at? I just want to know as much as possible about printing from modern LED lights vs the high tech machines that the paper is designed for.

My typical exposures are close to 10 seconds. I know that these papers are designed for much shorter exposures. The results seem to be OK, but what is the effect? Is it better to have shorter exposures?

I've been getting decent results by eye but going by an amateur understanding trying to guess and hope if it will all work. I came from the assumption that modern papers give a blueish tint on dichroic heads because of the skewed sensitivity, and it would actually be better to use LED lights like those in the lightjet printers. I guess another way of asking the question is, what is the weakness if any using halogen dichroic light when the paper is designed for lightjet?

Whatever information you are able to get, this would be a valuable resource for amateurs. I'd suggest doing a video if you're up for it?

Click to expand...

Since you posted these questions, I've learned a couple of things.

Re:LED colors: interestingly, the wavelengths that commercial equipment has used over the years is pretty much all over the place, especially when it comes to red. However, most seem to tend towards longer wavelengths (660-680nm) with only one older machine I know of (I think an Océ LightJet from the late 1990s) using a ~620nm or so red laser. This doesn't hold much relevance to us darkroom printers, however. In digital exposure, all color balancing is done through calibration and profiling. Hence, it's possible to compensate for differences between light sources, as long as there's no crossover between the colors. The rest is done by printing some patches and constructing an ICC profile from measurements.

For darkroom work, LEDs specifically came up in my meeting with Fuji this week, with one of the Fuji people actually suggesting LEDs for optimal results with the paper, as this more closely matches what these papers are now made for than a dichroic filtered halogen light source. The weakness of a continuous light source is that depending on the quality of the filters used, there will be crossover between the color layers. You can tell this from the areas in the spectral sensitivity of the paper where the colors overlap, most notably between green/magenta and blue/yellow, but apparently, red is challenging as well (more so than the curves suggest, I suspect).

However, they also agreed that merely the use of LEDs will NOT fix the inherent green/magenta crossover problem that results as an artefact from digital and cost optimizations of the paper. This might be worked around a bit with pre/post flashing, and the only proper fix is supplemental masking.

As to the video: this idea has come up a number of times, and the Fuji people agree that the really nice videos done last year at Kodak for the most part apply to color paper manufacturing as well It's in principle the same process and much of the equipment looks somewhat similar. There are some differences, obviously. Maybe I can share some photos at a later date, but I suspect that even today, this may be too sensitive.

BMbikerider said:

I would do the same with Fuji but don't have any Kodak paper to compare it with so that would be a bit pointless. However for what it is worth the Fuji paper when handling it does feel a little flimsy in comparison. It does 'kink' a lot easier too.

Click to expand...

There's a pretty broad range of Fuji papers. What you say might apply to one or two of them, but no to others. I've got a sample pack of their papers here on my desk and I can tell you they're all over the place in terms of flexibility/stiffness.

Also note that Kodak paper exists no more. It's Sinopromise, and their papers are apparently a far cry from what Kodak Endura once was, especially in terms of longevity. We shouldn't expect today's Endura paper to last very long on display.

mshchem said:

Ask the Fujifilm paper fellows if anyone else in the world currently makes color negative paper? I don't think that Sino Promise is?

Click to expand...

Sinopromise is making paper, but supply seems scarce.
I discussed this specifically with the Fuji people. To put it simply: they don't consider today's papers from China a realistic alternative to their own product, for two reasons:
1: Supply seems spotty and unreliable. It's very hard (impossible) to purchase these papers in significant quantities in the West. Note that Fuji caters for big labs that consume massive amounts of paper, so solid supply is important to them.
2: Quality-wise, the Sinopromise papers aren't Kodak's. Apparently a lot of compromises have been made lately. The Fuji people didn't go into details apart from the longevity issue, and just kept it at a firm "we don't waste energy on bashing our competitors, but we just don't regard them as a realistic alternative".

Sure, it's one manufacturer arguing their product is better than the alternative. Yet, I think there's more to what they say than just competitive dismissiveness.

adamlugi said:

Can You ask what the minimum production batch is. Maybe we could order and buy such an optimized paper once a year.

Click to expand...

Coincidentally, this was brought up with me asking for it, and I actually forgot about it.
You have to think of figures around 10 million square meters. I'm sure that with a little nudging, putting some cash onto the table etc. this could be brought down some, but it's still a lot.

I personally go through two small rolls, i.e. 8-12" wide. That works out as roughly 100m2 per year or thereabouts. It would take 100,000 amateur printers like me to justify a dedicated annual production batch. I think we can safely agree that on planet Earth, this number simply does not exist.

A custom-made paper for the analog world is not an economic reality.

MattKing said:

I doubt that the colour of the surface of the paper has much to do with the sensitivity of the image forming layers. If it did, it would probably be the reverse of what you are suggesting - the sensitivity of the layers mandating what is on the surface of the paper.

Click to expand...

This is correct. Sensitivity adjustments are done in the silver halide emulsion, since it's a whole lot easier/more effective to tailor the curves in that place.

koraks said:

His minilab was one from the transition period that formed the image on an LCD which was then backlit/exposed with a halogen light source and dichroic filters. Hence, it printed digital files, but exposed using an enlarger-like light source. The Fuji people only found this out by accident, as they visited this lab and asked to have a look inside the machine.

Click to expand...

Fantastic.

BTW, thank you for your very informative posts, much appreciated.

You're welcome, I'm glad someone finds all this stuff useful.

Btw, most/all of this information is out there in publicly accessible publications if you know where to look. This is the main reason the Fuji people have been so free in sharing insights. In their words: "it's not like you're asking about any state secrets here". They also realize very well that even some of the more interesting details they sometimes divulge, it wouldn't make economic sense for anyone to try and break in on their market share. The barriers to entry are really huge.

koraks said:

You're welcome, I'm glad someone finds all this stuff useful.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting all this, and a good point about huge barriers to entry being an effective stop on making use of Fuji intellectual property.

koraks said:

There's a pretty broad range of Fuji papers. What you say might apply to one or two of them, but no to others. I've got a sample pack of their papers here on my desk and I can tell you they're all over the place in terms of flexibility/stiffness.

Also note that Kodak paper exists no more. It's Sinopromise, and their papers are apparently a far cry from what Kodak Endura once was, especially in terms of longevity. We shouldn't expect today's Endura paper to last very long on display.

Click to expand...

I think for most of us we use the cut sheets. With Kodak I used to use the 12" X 94m roll fed from a home made dispenser. The problem with that with Fuji is the suppliers will not sell less than 2 rolls at a time. I have found an unmounted Kodak RA4 print on glossy paper to compare with Fuji equivalent, but now I have to find my Micrometer to see what the difference is.

I can agree that color paper is optimized for digital laser etc. No doubt. But I don't have any trouble printing with dichroic color heads, I don't think I would have any trouble printing with good old acetate filters.

My concern is that people won't give color printing a try. You don't need anything fancy to print color.

BMbikerider said:

I think for most of us we use the cut sheets

Click to expand...

At least one mainland EU supplier is offering both CA and DPII. The latter is the better and also heavier paper of the two. I hope more retailers will see the light and decide to cut a decent paper stock instead of the cheapest bastard child of the lineup.

mshchem said:

My concern is that people won't give color printing a try. You don't need anything fancy to print color.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! Anyone who's into color film photography should give color printing a try. At this point, it's neither very difficult, nor very expensive to make nice prints.

Here again is the issue of a little misunderstanding, or perhaps stereotypes. Papers were "digitally" tweaked in one respect for sake of deeper DMax and steeper shadow curve contrast in relation to relatively anemic digital printing devices. Hence Fuji might consider this a disadvantage with respect to traditional optical enlarging expectations, i.e., too much contrast for the portrait studio trade, for example, if optically enlarged. But I reagrd things just the opposite, with previous papers lacking enough contrast for my liking. And a contrast reduction mask, if necessary, is a simpler task than generating a contrast-increase masks requiring two steps, with two sheets of black and white film. And indeed, I did have to make contrast increase masks more often than decrease masks in former years, when it came to RA4 printing. So to me, a paper contrast boost is welcome news.

Color neg films themselves have changed and opened up new opportunities. Now you've got a higher saturation more contrasty CN film, Ektar, available in all common standard sizes, clear up to 8x10 sheets, and capable of handling applications once mainly consigned to chrome film, like landscape photography. That fact itself partially sets aside what prior expectations from an RA4 enlargement paper should be in the eyes of the paper manufacturer. One shoe does not fit all. And what might be hypothetically dedicated to one kind of market will inevitably find a following somewhere else too. And if push comes to shove, film curve reconstruction, even differentially, can be done in the darkroom just as precisely as via scanning and digital editing, just like it was done for decades before. Yeah, that option might not appeal to some; but I personally find it fun and rewarding. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the old adage goes.

Some of us might have had commercial photofinishing backgrounds; but what applies to that business model per se in terms of current equipment and rushed automated workflow need not intimidate the color darkroom candidate. Most of us aren't "on the clock" in the same manner, so have the luxury of "real home cookin'", which is often the best anyway. Don't let anyone scare you away from trying an optical colorhead, expecting poor results. It's still going to be easier achieving the kind of color results you expect using these newer RA4 papers than back in the Cibachrome days, which some people wistfully think of as the Golden Age of home darkroom color printing. And I was a darn good Ciba printer. It's easier now. Perfect? - nothing is that, or ever will be. Just get started. Life is short. And RA4 paper and chem tends to be more economical than black and white FB printing. And hopefully, more inventory and selection of Fuji papers will be arriving in this country, as the post-pandemic mfg and distribution crunch continues to ease up.

As far as these papers being optimized for discontinuous RGB laser sources rather than full-spectrum halogen bulbs : first of all, the different major brands of laser printers differ between themselves in this respect; so a certain amount of spectral latitude has to be built into the paper dyes curves themselves relative to that fact. Second, the results between my conventional CMY pro colorhead based on subtraction from white light are nearly equal to what I get with my true narrow-band RGB additive colorheads. Yeah, there's a nuance of difference in optimal color saturation and contrast, but nothing exceptional anyone but an expert would likely notice.

I wouldn't even classify cut-sheet CAii a "bastard product". It is thin, but overall, a better performer than many earlier renditions of Crystal Archive. It's more a middle of the road product rather than a specialty one, and perfectly suitable for learning purposes. It is even capable of stunning prints in relation to the right negative. But still broader gamut nuances are obviously not equal to their Rolls Royce printing media, Fujiflex Supergloss, which deservedly costs far more. It takes some experimentation to decide on which paper is best for yourself. I tended to proof on CAii cut sheet before scaling up to the more expensive product, if the image itself proved worthy of that. The distinction mainly involves how subtle neutrals are handled better on a premium medium than on CAii, and is not simply a matter of greater sheen and color punch. If you can't get saturated colors on CAii, you should probably try a more saturated film itself before decrying the product. At least it's generally available to amateurs in this country.

DREW WILEY said:

Papers were "digitally" tweaked in one respect for sake of deeper DMax and steeper shadow curve contrast in relation to relatively anemic digital printing devices.

Click to expand...

The changes to papers prompted by digital are more varied than just a contrast change. Some of those changes were to necessary to cater for the short exposures a digital system needs to make in order to maintain economically attractive productivity levels. Some of those changes were cost and complexity reductions that were allowed by digital, since direct matching between the paper and a negative was no longer necessary.

As to 'anemic digital printing devices': the exposure per pixel of a Fujifilm paper is around 10-6 seconds. As a printer yourself, you are aware of the kind of light the paper needs to be exposed. Digital exposure systems have no problem (and never had) to beam the required number of photons in a microsecond onto the paper.

Apart from the productivity requirements, another big reason to keep exposures short is to reduce problems with halation, which were present in non-digital papers when exposed with high-intensity spot sources such as lasers. Paper got faster mainly to combat this effect, not because of a lack of exposure power.

DREW WILEY said:

As far as these papers being optimized for discontinuous RGB laser sources rather than full-spectrum halogen bulbs

Click to expand...

Sort of, but not quite. It's rather the other way around. The spectral sensitivity of the paper hasn't changed much, because the spectral sensitization of the silver halide apparently hasn't changed either. There simply was no need for this. However, given the potentially available wavelengths of RGB sources, some wavelength choices are less fortunate than others. Evidently, manufacturers avoid these wavelengths. The other part of the story is that the sensitivity of the paper of course varies according to wavelength. In other words, the paper has a different sensitivity to e.g. 680nm red than to 650nm red, etc. This is accounted for in the ICC profiles, which therefore are constructed for a specific paper, and a specific printer. So there are profiles for e.g. CA Supreme HD paper exposed with a LED-equipped Chromira device and this will be different from the profile for the same paper exposed in a Polielettronica laser-equipped printer. (Laser is just one option for digital exposure; LED is used as well, in a number of conceptually distinct ways).

DREW WILEY said:

I wouldn't even classify cut-sheet CAii a "bastard product". It is thin, but overall, a better performer than many earlier renditions of Crystal Archive.

Click to expand...

If today's CA is a better or worse than earlier CA papers (i.e. the ones from 20+ years ago), depends on how you look at it. For optical printing from negatives, it's far worse, because it's not compatible with that anymore, but as you and many others have noted (or rather, didn't notice), most people don't experience this as a problem. Compared to its current siblings in the Fuji paper lineup, it's the entry-level product with lower dmax, lower gamut and lower life expectancy.

DREW WILEY said:

If you can't get saturated colors on CAii

Click to expand...

It's a verifiable fact that CA produces a narrower gamut and somewhat shorter-lived prints than its higher-end alternatives. For the same exposure, filter settings etc, you'll get slightly less saturated hues on plain CA than on e.g. DPII, or even CA Supreme. The difference is subtle, but clearly visible. Before I learned where the difference between these papers stems from, I actually tried it and my results match what you'd expect based on the difference in emulsion and interlayer thickness between papers. Sure, you can get saturated colors with plain CA. But there are hues towards the edges of the color circle that will print fine on e.g. DPII, but that simply won't materialize on CA. That's not quite the same as "you can't get saturated colors on CAii", which is actually a claim I can't remember anyone having made.

Moreover, there's the mottling issue that CA is particularly prone to due to its thinner emulsion layers. The same problem is also present on higher-end papers, but largely or entirely masked by the thicker emulsion layers that build more optical density. The problem is due to fluctuations of the thickness of the paper base. This was confirmed to me by Fuji upon demonstrating the effect to them, which they immediately recognized and explained to me.

There are more points I could go into, but maybe that'll be for another day. Let me explain why I'm hesitant to proceed in picking apart your posts and try to nuance or set straight a number of things.

What I've come to notice over the years, Drew, is that in your posts, there are often formulations that create problems that you're perhaps not even aware of, but that arise wherever you go and post. These make it somewhat exasperating to attempt to exchange insights with you, mostly because the term 'exchange' cannot cover the process that ensues when someone decides to respond to the things you say.

Take for instance that remark of not getting saturated colors on CAII. Nobody every said that, but it's something you state as an apparent fact, probably based on remarks from me and perhaps others along the lines of this paper not giving as saturated hues as some others (note the difference!) Misconstruing someone else's words this way creates dissent where there is none to begin with, and it's somewhat exasperating if that happens systematically, and in such a subtle way that it's easily overlooked.

Another issue is that your posts contain numerous statements that are presented in a matter-of-fact way, while on checking with in this case the manufacturer, appear to be incomplete or even inaccurate. This is likely unintentional on your end and perhaps something you're not even aware of, but it makes it somewhat frustrating to respond to your posts. This is not helped by the fact that if someone attempts to nuance what you said, they're generally welcomed by another barrage along similar lines, usually with a few added jabs to subtly discredit the responder (in your post above, the "issue of misunderstanding" remark at the start). Especially the latter only succeeds in putting the exchange on edge and adding a dimension to it that's uncalled for and very counterproductive.

I've learned (after a long time, admittedly) to take your posts with a hefty grain of salt. To add insult to injury, it's usually impossible based on the formulation of your posts to determine which statements are accurate and reliable and which ones aren't. The net effect is that your posts add a great deal of noise in addition to useful information, and due to the formulation, it's impossible to separate the two without a lot of additional fact-checking. The latter is of course a labor-intensive process and something I'm not quite willing to consistently do, not even in the scope of this subject matter that I've been putting a lot of effort into out of personal interest/fascination.

For the reasons outlined above, I will respond more sparingly to your posts than I did in the past, and will probably leave most of them to stand uncorrected and uncontested, notwithstanding the myriad subtle (but significant) inaccuracies, misconceptions and misunderstandings on your part.

My main problem with normal CAII is not saturation itself but the lack of blacks, I think it is also an issue with digital printing. I only use this paper with very high contrast negatives because I know that it is difficult to block shadows. Not such problem with CA Supreme or DPII.

halfaman said:

My main problem with normal CAII is not saturation itself but the lack of blacks, I think it is also an issue with digital printing.

Click to expand...

Entry-level CA has the lowest dmax of the lineup of papers. The net effect is that when viewed under decent light (a room well-lit with daylight or a fairly bright viewing light), large areas of solid black render as a mottled very deep brown that is not quite black. Under low light, the effect is virtually invisible. It also doesn't show up in images where smaller patches of black/dark hues are juxtaposed with much higher values; the contrast impression renders the lack of a deep, solid black imperceptible.

The issue is indeed inherent to the paper in my experience and also shows up on digital prints on the same paper.

halfaman said:

Not such problem with CA Supreme or DPII.

Click to expand...

On Supreme, the problem is much reduced, but it's still there. Give it a try and print a scene with a large area of a solid black, and view the print under good illumination. It's still not quite solid, although dmax is better than with plain CA.


Both Fuji paper samplers I have on hand here have example images that avoid large patches of dark tones for most papers except DPII and Maxima. The Maxima samples both do show large patches of dark hues or even solid black, where it renders very well indeed. I think this choice of subject matter for their official sample packs is not a coincidence.

I really do wish they would cut Maxima into 8" or 12" rolls, but it's unlikely this is ever going to happen. Its thicker layer structure requires extended processing, and Fuji's reasoning is apparently that small rolls will end up in minilabs with default chemistry and processing parameters, yielding sub-standard results.

koraks said:

I really do wish they would cut Maxima into 8" or 12" rolls, but it's unlikely this is ever going to happen. Its thicker layer structure requires extended processing, and Fuji's reasoning is apparently that small rolls will end up in minilabs with default chemistry and processing parameters, yielding sub-standard results.

Click to expand...

Does this paper require Fuji Hunt CPRA Digital chemistry?

halfaman said:

Does this paper require Fuji Hunt CPRA Digital chemistry?

Click to expand...

It should process just fine in any RA4 developer and blix.