Everything you want to know about FUJIFILM color RA4 papers

koraks said:

Yeah, you got it. When using the analyser for determining exposure, keep in mind that you want the flash exposure to be a few stops underexposed. Otherwise you'll just end up with a big muddy mass of muted grey stuff. Well, you'll make that mistake sooner or later anyway, so you'll find out anyway No harm done it if happens; it makes it very visible what's actually happening, so it's even useful in a way.

Masking is of course far more selective and powerful, but it's also orders of magnitude more complicated and a much slower process. This pre/post flash thing is something you can try on a whim at little to no expense of materials and only a tiny time investment.

Click to expand...

Yeah plexiglass under the lens is really straightforward and I have been doing it for the timer. I did a bunch of tests with diffuser for paper pre flashing so that will get me closeish to how much I want to pull back highlights.

Yeah, it's the same 'technology' basically. The same diffuser you've been using for the timer will likely work just fine for pre/post flashing color paper. It helps if the diffuser is (sort of) neutrally color balanced.

koraks said:

Yeah, it's the same 'technology' basically. The same diffuser you've been using for the timer will likely work just fine for pre/post flashing color paper. It helps if the diffuser is (sort of) neutrally color balanced.

Click to expand...

The diffuser I use is from a 4x5 spare ilford 500H mixing chamber so it’s perfect. It was actually quite hard to find one so I pulled it out. Next year I will get a roll of fujiflex as I’m really keen to try it. I’d have to order from Europe/US. BTW what’s the best source of roll paper in Europe you’ve found?

Joakes said:

BTW what’s the best source of roll paper in Europe you’ve found?

Click to expand...

That's something I'm still working on. Up to recently I used a German supplier, but I haven't been in touch with them recently and I don't know if they still find this niche sufficiently attractive to deal with tiny purchases of one/two rolls. Companies like Nordfoto also work OK, but with slightly less friendly prices than the supplier I referred to. But I have some hopes of setting up a retail channel (i.e. convincing an existing retailer) to handle custom orders from people like you and me for specific Fuji materials.

koraks said:

That's something I'm still working on. Up to recently I used a German supplier, but I haven't been in touch with them recently and I don't know if they still find this niche sufficiently attractive to deal with tiny purchases of one/two rolls. Companies like Nordfoto also work OK, but with slightly less friendly prices than the supplier I referred to. But I have some hopes of setting up a retail channel (i.e. convincing an existing retailer) to handle custom orders from people like you and me for specific Fuji materials.

Click to expand...

That would be great as us individuals have a rough time getting paper. I will talk to Fuji again here in Aus now that I know so much more about paper. 12 months ago I spoke to them and it was in regards to getting DPII. They were willing to do it but it comes with a “batch” every 3 months. While that is not ideal it’s doable. I wonder about B&H in NY. They have a bunch of paper that is all “special order” but don’t really know what that means in terms of time. If AUD strengthens against USD then it’s viable.

I did have one question. A few photoshops in UK/GER/BEL are selling cut sheets from rolls
Is this the same as the pre cut sheets in boxes? They also say “Crystal archive” but I have no idea if it’s the same?

Joakes said:

Is this the same as the pre cut sheets in boxes? They also say “Crystal archive” but I have no idea if it’s the same?

Click to expand...

Yea, so the cut-sheet situation is as follows. In the past, Fuji used to confection cut-sheet, but they have stopped doing so. Not sure when; somewhere over the past few years this happened. If you search the forum, you'll find some conjecture/educated guesses that it was actually Harman Technology (of Ilford fame) that did this operation, and it sure seems possible to me.

In any case, today, Fuji does not cut sheets anymore. They only produce rolls. This means that any fresh cut sheet material that's being sold, is being processed from rolls into sheets by 3rd parties. These might be attic-room home operations in some cases, some of it may be manual labor, and some of it may be done by companies who do this for a living - for instance, I assume/suspect that Adox simply cut 'their' (Fuji) color paper on the paper confectioning lines they use(d) for their own papers.

In terms of what you get, it's basically what each 3rd party chooses to process. For the most part, this appears to be entry-level CA paper - the kind that we've been discussing in terms of the mottling issue. The only retailer I know of who deviates from this is Nordfoto.de, who also (in addition to plain CA) offer DPII in cut sheet boxes. Personally I think that's a smart move and my opinion is that all cut-sheet suppliers should just quit the whole CA silliness and switch over to DPII. The cost differential is manageable and I bet that 99.95% of the darkroom printers will gladly pay a few percent more for a significantly better product.

koraks said:

Yea, so the cut-sheet situation is as follows. In the past, Fuji used to confection cut-sheet, but they have stopped doing so. Not sure when; somewhere over the past few years this happened. If you search the forum, you'll find some conjecture/educated guesses that it was actually Harman Technology (of Ilford fame) that did this operation, and it sure seems possible to me.

In any case, today, Fuji does not cut sheets anymore. They only produce rolls. This means that any fresh cut sheet material that's being sold, is being processed from rolls into sheets by 3rd parties. These might be attic-room home operations in some cases, some of it may be manual labor, and some of it may be done by companies who do this for a living - for instance, I assume/suspect that Adox simply cut 'their' (Fuji) color paper on the paper confectioning lines they use(d) for their own papers.

In terms of what you get, it's basically what each 3rd party chooses to process. For the most part, this appears to be entry-level CA paper - the kind that we've been discussing in terms of the mottling issue. The only retailer I know of who deviates from this is Nordfoto.de, who also (in addition to plain CA) offer DPII in cut sheet boxes. Personally I think that's a smart move and my opinion is that all cut-sheet suppliers should just quit the whole CA silliness and switch over to DPII. The cost differential is manageable and I bet that 99.95% of the darkroom printers will gladly pay a few percent more for a significantly better product.

Click to expand...

Yeah right. Agree, most people would happily pay the extra but I think allot of people getting into it don’t know anywhere close the details we’ve been discussing. They simply don’t know there is a difference. Much to my shock a large supplier, when I asked him if he could get some pro paper, said he didn’t even know about it as no one had ever asked and wouldn’t bother.

These guys in UK cut DPII as they have explicitly stated https://rapideye.uk.com/collections/accessories/products/fuji-col-12x16-g

Oh great, so more retailers have woken up to the better papers! This is good news.

I agree many people won't realize the difference, but sooner or later, they end up posting on a forum somewhere because they're running into problems. In my mind it would make sense to prevent this from happening. Leave the entry level papers to the volume labs who have to shave off every penny and the few pros who know exactly within what limitations they'll be working and how to deal with those. But give the amateur darkroom printers the best chance at a trouble-free printing experience. That would be my philosophy.

Agree. I think those doing darkroom work even if they are starting out, would get a thrill from using pro paper. Personally, when I discovered the difference between the consumer grade paper and Endura I was fairly excited as the image opened right up, particularly with the blacks. If DPII has similar qualities to CAII with thicker aper and richer colors and blacks this is exciting for anyone getting into it

I found this on reddit. Some guy cutting sheets of velvet, maxima and fujiflex. He is on the ra4 group on Facebook. Not sure where he is, somewhere in Europe

Joakes said:

Some guy cutting sheets of velvet, maxima and fujiflex. He is on the ra4 group on Facebook. Not sure where he is, somewhere in Europe

Click to expand...

He's on Photrio as well, but not a very frequent poster - @MToma
Given the .ro domain extension, I'd assume he works from Romania. His Photrio account says he's from Timisoara, so that aligns well I've tagged him above; perhaps he'll chime in on his next visit.
It's great that someone is offering materials like Flex and Velvet to darkroom printers!

Joakes said:

These guys in UK cut DPII as they have explicitly stated https://rapideye.uk.com/collections/accessories/products/fuji-col-12x16-g

Click to expand...

Thanks Worth making a note of this source Looks good value. You can get a 50 box of 12x16 for £60 which if cutting into 6x8 works out at £30 per box of 100

pentaxuser

"Crystal Archive" applies to the entire lineup of Fuji's RA4 papers for quite awhile now, implying improved permanence. And if you look at the actual printed spectral dye sensitivity diagrams on their own specs sheets you'll see that both the older optical printing ones and the new "digital only" ones are largely identical. I have no idea {************{deleted by moderator ********} why people are having problems not only with mottled blacks, but even mottled skies. I don't experience any of that. And I've worked with all the way from a consumer paper (CAii) to the very top end product (Fujiflex). Incidentally, I never flash printing paper. If contrast needs to be altered, I use supplementary unsharp film masking. One more distinction in workflow you might want to take note of.

But DPii having been mentioned as a possibly superior option to CAii apparently implies a lower-contrast Portrait paper ("P") in distinction from their general purpose slightly higher contrast commercial papers ("C" suffix etc, but apparently labeled differently in the EU than the US - formerly, Super C).

Handling qualities with thicker paper is important once the prints get big, or you risk kink or crease marks. That's why CAii cut sheet is limited to 20X24 inch max size.

One improvement in the premium newer papers is that they've been made a little more resistant to pre-exposure yellowing due to aging before use. Old paper of any kind is a risk in that respect. The yellowing can go from mild to intolerable, depending on how outdated or poorly stored the paper has been. But don't confuse that with long-term yellowing due to residual color couplers after processing, which has also been steadily improved in their premium papers.

DREW WILEY said:

But DPii having been mentioned as a possibly superior option to CAii apparently implies a lower-contrast Portrait paper ("P") in distinction from their general purpose slightly higher contrast commercial papers ("C" suffix

Click to expand...

The Crystal Archive paper family has no variation in terms of contrast. There is variation in terms of maximum chroma/saturation, but this is entirely a cost-based consideration, with the lower grade papers having thinner image-forming and intermediate layers, which reduces the maximum attainable chroma and thus gamut and optical density of mixed colors, including black. If you want to call that a contrast variation, then so be it, but it would be misleading, the difference between products is marginal, and it has nothing to do with applications along the lines of image content ('portrait papers').

Since these papers are all made for digital exposure, chroma and maximum density on each color layer are relevant; image-wise choices like contrast and saturation are set in software and are not embedded into the paper. As a result, all papers on today's market are inherently 'high contrast' and 'high saturation', because this is what digital exposure requires. There's no benefit in offering lower contrast and lower saturation options for digital exposure, and hence, it doesn't happen.

DREW WILEY said:

That's why CAii cut sheet is limited to 20X24 inch max size.

Click to expand...

Fuji does not cut sheets to begin with, so the point is moot. Besides, they don't give one hoot how big you print.

Plain CA is available in rolls up to 50". If any 3d party chooses to cut let's say 50x60" sheets, then so be it. I don't think there's much demand for it, but there's nothing to stop them from doing it.
I bet that virtually all 50" entry-level CA ends up as 4x6 or 5x7 prints, though, fitted up to a dozen side by side and cut & sorted automatically at the end of the printing line.

Thanks for all your ongoing help; but sometimes a second opinion is in order. Having dealt with a lot of manufacturing chemists and engineers over a long career, it sometimes requires speaking to more than one to get the full picture. This can be difficult in the case of Fuji, which is headquartered in Japan where most of the actual R&D phase probably transpires, and where marketing decisions are likely made too. I once had a dozen engineers from a large Japanese mfg corp in my office all the same time (well, a dozen if you include two translators plus the corporate VP, so 9 engineers per se), discussing prototype projects. They differed according to specific background, responsibility, and degree of experience. But's that's how it works.

Now for your remark that CAii factory-cut sheet product does not exist, you might want to rethink that one. Because that's EXACTLY how every darn box of it is labeled! And it's been cut and boxed by Fuji in the Netherlands. That too is plainly on the label. So it's NOT third party. And "CAii" doesn't identify just one product, but the second-generation of several distinct branches of the Crystal Archive lineup, only one of which they now offer cut-sheet in three different sheens.

And what exactly do you mean by "Plain CA"? - Here in this country, what Fuji means by C is a high quality commercial second-generation equivalent to Super-C, a THICK paper starting to show up in a wide range of sizes and at least two different sheens, different from DP. But I don't see "Plain" CA anywhere in their own vocabulary. Do you mean the thin stuff, same as cut-sheet, but in big rolls instead? Yeah, there's that too; but whether any of it exists in this country, or ever will, remains to be seen. The market for it in big rolls probably just doesn't exist, since there are various other choice with better handling qualities. So something is getting lost in translation. At least you refer to it as "entry level" CA, so I understand the point you are making.

But it would help if Fuji on their sites and official spec sheets gave actual products numbers like in their price lists, and not so many similar-sounding product names which potentially differ in different markets. It would also help if you stopped making blanket claims you might not be entirely correct about, and that's a polite understatement.

As far as your aversion to the term, "contrast", that's the very first thing that came to the tip of the tongue of every lab owner I ever knew, whether they printed optically or digitally, or both. Different things factor into that, whether the coatings, or the curve adjustment options, or even the specific sheen versus flatness of any given paper. But the net visual effect is still "contrast'. Hue saturation and gamut are related, but necessarily distinct terms in themselves. Not all saturated combined dye or ink curves lead to a neutral black. And if you don 't want mottled blacks, stay away from color inkjet printing!

DREW WILEY said:

why people are having problems not only with mottled blacks, but even mottled skies. I don't experience any of that

Click to expand...

Do you have a scan of a print from the past? Something with large block color? If you don’t get it as you say then further investigation is needed….

DREW WILEY said:

And it's been cut and boxed by Fuji in the Netherlands

Click to expand...

Is it not packaged in the UK as the label indicates?

koraks said:

The Crystal Archive paper family has no variation in terms of contrast. There is variation in terms of maximum chroma/saturation, but this is entirely a cost-based consideration, with the lower grade papers having thinner image-forming and intermediate layers

Click to expand...

Just to be clear. CAII in the boxes we all buy is the new generation "digital" paper? A paper and chem supplier in Aus said of Endura it had higher silver content that gives it that pop. He was referencing Endura Vs kodak consumer paper. So what you are saying is the image forming layers in CAII gives it a "flatter" profile which reduces contrast because the image forming layers are "thinner" thereby compressing the image?

No. Netherlands mentioned only, though the label details might subsequently changed, based on the distinction between "Made in" and where packaged. I'll have to see if I have any of the more recent empty boxes laying around. Probably not. But it's a silly dispute anyway. Fuji now has their Acros II film spooled by Harman; but that doesn't make it a Harman or Brit product. But maybe EU pkg rules are slightly different from here. I'd hope so. Here a lot of big companies falsely label source of origin of their products. It's illegal, but the fines are so comparatively small they keep doing it.

And Joakes - I never scan prints. Later this year I might or might not have my digital copy-stand in use to start cataloging my print collection. Many of these are big. And I never printed cut sheet CAii smaller than 20X24, and quite a few of those do have very subtle big skies. Others have significant portions of deep black - not one issue ever. And for some images, the slightly understated gamut is the shoe that actually fits. And let me repeat, I have never had mottling with any Fuji paper ever. Period. And I'm quite sure I'm a more fussy color printer than just about any major lab you could possibly think of.

Whenever ever mottling is mentioned, the first thing I think about is condensation - either on the film or somehow on the paper at some point of time. And I'm a little weary of all the all to predictable "Photrioitis" around here, symptomized by "always blame the manufacturer first". Well, once in awhile it is their fault. But there are plenty of more likely suspects.

Another thing I'm curious about is whether a stabilizer solution is involved in these roller transport processor cases or not. I never use it, or need to, with drums, so that's just one more thing to potentially investigate.

DREW WILEY said:

Whenever ever mottling is mentioned, the first thing I think about is condensation - either on the film or somehow on the paper at some point of time

Click to expand...

I’ve had mottling on paper that was expired and on film from humidity for sure but this has a different look. The recent tests everything were fresh. The mottling I’m looking at recently is consistent across the image and appears “structural” across the paper. It looks like the structure of the paper density that is why I found your comment about easel intriguing. I will investigate further as you seem emphatic about this.

BTW when you print these large images on CAII are you using cut roles? I think the max size for the cut sheet “off the rack” is 20x24. This is why I am curious as to the question of if the rolls are the same as the cut sheets. It is logical that they are but the confusion across markets and diff papers is WILD! The reason I ask about this is working on this paper bigger than 16x20 is near impossible because you crease it just by breathing! I’d imagine a 30inch roll maybe they use thicker paper purely because of the size. I don’t know….

Perhaps this mottling issue is more recent and the prints you have done it’s wasn’t an issue.

Well, if it is paper/backing related, that would be interesting. I've still never seen it myself. Like I said earlier, CAii designation applies to more than one product. Even second-generation Fujiflex is now labeled CAii, even though the actual generational change occurred about 15 yrs ago, and was noted via the batch number first involved. But all of the CAii RC paper I have used so far has been cut sheet, not off a roll. There are other RC roll papers which Fuji makes on a thicker substrate. But the last of those I used was Super-C from a 40-inch wide roll. That now carries a different name (Super type CN), and is distinct from DPii.

I suspect quite a bit of the "digital only" market labeling in these newer products like Super CN has nothing to do with any spectral sensitivity change, but is based on the increased contrast necessary to get optimal performance with digital printing devices. And they're probably assuming optical printers want something softer. But I always wanted something bolder when Super C was around, and sometime had to make contrast-INCREASE masks, which are twice as much work as contrast reduction masks. So what Fuji might regard as a disadvantage to sterotypical optical printers with respect to these product tweaks, might actually become an advantage in my case. But that postulate would obviously need to be tested.

I really doubt I'll try more of the cut sheet product. I've already done what I wanted to do with it. And I've been concentrating on Fujiflex these last two years, a really superb optical printing product. But when the Fuji US inventory rounds out a little more, there are certain other kinds of rolls I might experiment with next year. Fujiflex is made in Japan, and I had to wait five months to get it under pandemic circumstances. Prior to that, it was quick to get. I went through B&H. But the US distributor which seems to have the largest selection of Fuji RA4 paper on hand is Pakor.
I don't know if they sell to the general public or not, or are willing to ship overseas. I have a business license.

DREW WILEY said:

Well, if it is paper/backing related, that would be interesting. I've still never seen it myself. Like I said earlier, CAii designation applies to more than one product. Even second-generation Fujiflex is now labeled CAii, even though the actual generational change occurred about 15 yrs ago, and was noted via the batch number first involved. But all of the CAii RC paper I have used so far has been cut sheet, not off a roll. There are other RC roll papers which Fuji makes on a thicker substrate. But the last of those I used was Super-C from a 40-inch wide roll. That now carries a different name, but is distinct from DPii.

I really doubt I'll try more of the cut sheet product. I've already done what I wanted to do with it. And I've been concentrating on Fujiflex these last two years, a really superb optical printing product. But when the Fuji US inventory rounds out a little more, there are certain other kinds of rolls I might experiment with next year. Fujiflex is made in Japan, and I had to wait five months to get it under pandemic circumstances. Prior to that, it was quick to get. I went through B&H. But the US distributor which seems to have the largest selection of Fuji RA4 paper on hand is Pakor.
I don't know if they sell to the general public or not, or are willing to ship overseas. I have a business license.

Click to expand...

I’m guessing at this but the largest cut sheet box is 20x24. If you wanted to print 30x40 right now you’d have to buy a roll. These CAII rolls are actually available even down under. The pro stuff no. I just wonder if the larger rolls have a slightly thicker base because of the size and handling? Image forming is the same for all but backing is slightly thicker? Who knows….If I asked this of Fuji here I think there heads would explode lol!

RE: B&H what is your experience with them for roll paper. They have a number of papers that are “special order”. I’d imagine once they consolidate the individual orders they make a run. What times are we looking at? weeks/months. Ive shopped at B&H exclusively for almost 20 yrs as Aus is very expensive and many things hard to get. Shipping times from B&H are almost the same as shipping across Aus. I ordered a bunch of stuff last night and it has already shipped….

Joakes said:

CAII in the boxes we all buy is the new generation "digital" paper?

Click to expand...

Yes.

To clarify a few things from my end:
"CAii" or "CAII" as such does not exist as a product identifier at Fuji. If you Google this, you'll only find posts of Drew Wiley on LFPF and Photrio using that identifier. It's not a FUJIFILM product name. When I speak of 'plain' Crystal Archive, I'm referring to "FUJIFILM Crystal Archive Paper" - note the lack of further specifiers etc.

Where the "II" version has come from that somehow keeps floating around the net, I don't know. I have always assumed there was a distinct generation change within the entry-level Crystal Archive paper. For instance, I still have some very old (10+ years?) paper labeled "Crystal Archive" that's coated on a heavier paper base than today's paper, it has a matte finish nearly as matte as today's Velvet, it's free of any mottling, it offers a higher dmax (blacker blacks) than today's papers sold under the same name and it also takes far longer before it expires (e.g. whites becoming yellow). This paper must be from before a couple of changes were made.

However, I now understand, based on what the Fuji people told me, that the changes to their papers don't necessarily come as big generation changes. They change things quite regularly, and there's nothing in the official product nomenclature to reflect those changes. Some changes are relatively minor and will never be noticeable to any of us. Some changes are more apparent, such as the change from the internally produced paper base to the currently used Schoeller paper base. So there really is no "CAII". There is a "DPII" paper, but it's unclear if that somehow relates to an earlier "DP" paper and if so, if it's just a marketing choice (a paper aimed at the same segment, but technologically different) or a technology-oriented choice (actually sharing essential traits with a previous version). I suspect the former, since DPII is technically not all that different from e.g. Maxima, save for thinner emulsion layers.

You can find a (mostly) accurate list of currently manufactured papers by FUJIFILM The Netherlands on this page: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/en/products/photographic-papers/
It excludes FujiFlex and FujiTrans because they're manufactured in Japan.

As to the 'digital' aspect: all papers manufactured today at least by FUJIFILM in The Netherlands are "for digital". The emulsions coated onto the papers are technically similar and the variation in papers is mostly in (1) paper base, (2) emulsion layer thickness (image-forming, inter-layer and top coat) and (3) surface finish. To the best of my knowledge, no papers are produced anymore by FUJIFILM in The Netherlands that are still compatible with optical printing.

Some of the paper datasheets still mention optical enlargement compatibility. Why this is the case and how accurate it is, I have yet to find out. My suspicion is that they still mention an optical compatibility because you sure can get an image when printing this paper under an enlarger. For instance, reciprocity failure doesn't set in until around 10 seconds (according to the Fuji engineers I spoke to; it was a rough estimate since this parameter isn't very relevant for their main markets, which all expose digitally which means microseconds per pixel) and that technically makes the paper 'compatible' with optical enlargement, which typically takes between a couple of hundred milliseconds and several seconds. Another possible reason why they mention 'optical enlargement' as a possibility is that they define it slightly differently than we do, and refer to digital enlargers such as the De Vere 504DS. While these machines form the image digitally, they otherwise function as any old enlarger. It's possible Fuji refer to this (tiny) niche. A final possibility is that the 'optical' reference is simply not accurate, but has remained in current datasheets due to carryover from old versions - it might simply have been missed by the technical writers who write these documents and overlooked by any reviewers.

In any case, I have been very sure to verify with the people at the Fuji plant that their papers are indeed 'digital only', and the answer is very firmly "yes". Optical enlargement in the sense of projecting a film image onto the paper is an application that they have stopped optimizing products for years ago because the market they supply is predominantly using digital exposure. There are no major labs using optical enlargement, at least no labs that these Fuji people are aware of and are in contact with. It's very well possible that especially in recent years, some minor operations have started dusting off old equipment from the late 1990s to optically enlarge color prints. For instance, Blue Moon Camera in Portland, OR came up earlier this week in another thread and I verified that they indeed use two optical minilabs to make prints. However, the total volume of such operations is so infinitesimally small in terms of total paper volumes compared to the users Fujifilm sell most of their paper to, that they don't even appear as a blip on the radar, let alone that old products are being kept alive and being manufactured to serve that market. It would be nice if Fuji somehow decided to sell a dedicated "optical enlargement paper", but don't hold your breath. They're pretty happy if they can stay afloat doing what they're doing now, let alone adding more (costly) products to their lineup and investing in the R&D and production engineering to do so.

Koraks - What do I have to do: ship you a box or multiple boxes with that exact CAii description posted right on it !! Even the fresh roll of Fujiflex Supergloss I'm using right now has CAii right on the box label. So it obviously doesn't apply just to their retailed thin cut-sheet RC paper version, but conspicuously to their most deluxe and expensive product as well, apparently implying just
"new and improved", which has been the case for the past 15 yrs, but now finally implies such on the box label itself. And "Crystal Archive" has been the generic blanket terminology for all of Fuji's RA4 papers for a long time now. FACT, FACT, FACT. But I'll at least give you credit for dialing back your comments by now specifying Fuji papers "made in the Netherlands".

Google anything technically specific concerning Fuji papers other than their own tech sheets per se, and you'll probably end up right back here anyway, in this very debate. It's ridiculous to use Google as "negative evidence" for anything related to this. It's hard enough even to get a sneak peek at an actual Fujifilm USA price list spelling out what the exact selection and labeling really is. I've had to resort to now-defunct EU sites just to come up with a few of the specific product numbers.

Fuji tech sheet references to optical printing options are not somehow residual errors. If anything, they deliberately err the opposite direction. All you have to do it look at the relevant dates. Yeah, Fuji always tends to be a bit cryptic, and one might need to read between the lines. But you are taking this like a lawyer being paid to argue just one side.

But where does all that CA Supreme paper come from, which is RC base, and distinctly identified in their official tech sheets recommended for BOTH laser and optical printers? Previously, you stated that only Supergloss and trans material were being made in Japan. So where is all the Supreme RC being made, which is being used in high volume commercially around here, and all across the country? And they're getting it fresh. Nobody is getting Kodak paper anymore. And no way Fuji is going to let Kodak Radiance back in, even if it does reappear, now that the vacuum is being filled with a suitable Fuji substitute.

You make all these blanket statement as if you, on the opposite side of the planet, knew everything going on. You obviously don't. And I'm not referring to "minilabs". I know lab owners who could buy out "Blue Moon Camera" with pocket change, who still own lab spaces with more cumulative area than a football field, even if they don't actually use all of that space actively anymore. Do you have any idea of what that kind of real estate is worth in this part of the world?

Yeah, the minilab or comparable low-cost "machine prints" need extremely fast exposure characteristics involving small width rolls. But nothing intended for really big size is going to be quite like that, even now. And it wasn't more than a few years ago that full-service labs were still in operation which used exactly the same papers for both their big traditional enlarger usage and their wide format laser printers. And given the sheer cost and training issues of the latter, no way Fuji is going to make those laser printers themselves obsolete in relation to their latest paper selection. You simply can't run wide rolls of paper through those faster than the XY cutter can feed it in, and the big 40 or 50 inch wide RA4 processors and dryers feed it out the other end! - whole different ballgame than little snapshot or minilab printers. Plus drum scanning is generally involved, and custom profiling per image, requisite to higher expectations at much higher custom per print pricing.

And once for all, it would help if you better recognized that these products aren't necessarily being marketed or website linked in the same manner in different regions. Some designations might be in common, others not, and potentially confusing. Yet you assume your own EU labeling, and what you personally recognize, is universal. It isn't.

As far as "digital enlargers" like the Devere version, those were about as practical and successful as the last Dodo bird on earth thrown into a Pit Bulldog fighting pen. Why even bother mentioning them? I've personally been in local labs that had many millions of dollars of both top-end commercial optical enlargers and the latest digital printing devices in operation at the same time. I knew the owners well, and discussed the respective technologies in person many times, and heard their constant complaints about the poor contrast rendering of the digital printers. Finally, a paper manufacturer has responded from their own end and filled the DMax gap where laser and software tweaks couldn't. That's a good thing for commercial printing services, and has allowed the digital end of production to progressively assume the upper hand, and now become conspicuously dominant. Yet that fact OBVIOUSLY doesn't exterminate cross-application of current CA products - I'm doing it, even you are doing it - optically! So why all the doom and gloom pessimism? I'm getting numerous prints which are better than ever; and I've been color printing for decades at a high level.

So can we at least agree about our mutual intent to HELP people interested in doing their own RA4 darkroom printing, while at the same time recognizing that the best product options for doing this might differ a little on opposite sides of the Atlantic?

DREW WILEY said:

What do I have to do: ship you a box or multiple boxes with that exact CAii description posted right on it !!

Click to expand...

Good idea. Just take a photo of a box with your phone and post it. No need to ship the box. Let's nail this down once and for all. It is just too important to leave it hanging.

Joakes - again, let me clarify that B&H is not really a Fuji distributor, but does order certain products directly from them. In the past, they have stocked a representative selection of Fuji roll goods, as well as a cut sheet selection (back then clear up to 30X40 inch boxed cut-sheet even in old-style Fujiflex, Super-C, etc), applicable to their specific clientele. All that kind of cut sheet selection ended 15 or 20 yrs ago, and more recently, the pandemic nuked all kinds of availability and distribution variables, and now it's catch-up time. Probably the only reason they still list Fujiflex is due to my personal orders. If it hypothetically catches on, they might actually keep a roll or two in stock again. But it's better to have something relatively fresh via special order than something in stock which sells slowly and risks becoming outdated.

B&H told me they cannot acquire Maxima. That might have to do with the special tweak of RA4 chem allegedly necessary to attain full DMax on Maxima, as well as the rumor that both that particular paper and its necessary developer are being sold direct to dedicated labs via Fuji's own traveling sales Reps (or Rep), and who knows what pandemic circumstances did to those? Ironically, Pako (a broad line Fuji lab distributor) lists all kinds of Fuji/Hunt RA4 chemicals, but apparently can't get Maxima either. There was also a really big Kodak paper distributor right around here, in the SF Bay Area, which had a Fuji account too, which couldn't get it either. But between the collapse of Kodak paper coinciding with the covid pandemic itself, it appears they went out of business.

So, other than Maxima, a big enough selection of other Fuji CA options has already come into the US to allow some interesting experimentation. If I had time for it, I could now order almost any roll size (clear up to 50 inch wide) of CA Super type II, for example, which is a nice thick paper. But I need to take a break from color printing, and begin some house painting, once our infamous early summer coastal cold winds die down somewhat. We call it, "natural air conditioning". Sure beats the terrible summer heat inland.

But in Australia, wouldn't it be easier to acquire Fuji papers from Japan? - or is there some kind of difficult pricing/shipping issue involved?