Everything you want to know about FUJIFILM color RA4 papers

[koraks]

Let's hear it - what is it you'd like to know? There's a good chance we can get the answers.

Don't be afraid to ask the questions you think are already answered. There are a lot of 'answers' online that turn out to be wrong or partly inaccurate. Yes, that includes things I thought I knew as well!

Some things I may be able to answer directly, other questions may have to wait until we can get the most accurate information possible.

Disclaimer: the European FUJIFILM paper plant happens to be just around the corner from where I live, and they turn out to be very friendly people who love to share stories & insights. Some of them are also quite interested in getting in touch with all of us (although we have yet to figure out how we can do this conveniently). While they realize perfectly well that the amateur market represents an insignificant part of their revenues, they do value us for sharing the same passion: making images. It's not just marketing talk - it's genuine interest and enthusiasm on their part. These are people passionate about what they do, and I think that's an interesting bit of common ground between them and us as a photography enthusiasts.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just inform them that some of us "amateurs" have even higher quality expectations than the commercial labs, and are willing to put in the extra effort to prove that. So instead of consigning us to "nuisance business" (just give em "something" cut sheet, whatever, to keep em quiet) - they should view it, instead, as an opportunity to showcase what can really be done optically too. Of course, that might be a hard sell to the big wig corporate bosses themselves, with their big egos; but it has always worked in the past. And now more traditional methodology, like real film, is on the rise again on the scale of being "cool". Not everyone likes being a button-punching nerd.

 

[halfaman]

I am very happy with Fuji papers but, like Drew, I would like to feel some love for us the darkroom printers. Something simple like selling individual rolls of half the actual length would be a big step foward. They have a broad and very interesting selection of papers but I can use only a couple of them from the retailers that makes the effort to cut into sheets.

 

[koraks]

The concern of availability of tiny volumes (in cut sheet, short rolls, single rolls) is something I've already brought up with them, but we haven't truly discussed the matter yet. I've highlighted it not just for paper, but also chemistry. In terms of managing expectations, don't hold your breath, especially on the short-roll idea or boxing single (narrow) rolls. Changes to the existing production process, which includes confectioning rolls and packaging, are very unlikely to occur for our market segment (to put it mildly). Keep in mind that these processes are fully automated. There's no guy standing at the control panel of a machine who can say "let's cut this single roll to 30m instead of 120m and I'll set it apart in a smaller box for the home users". It's all manufactured, cut, packaged and stored automatically in a batch-wise fashion with batches adjusted to the demands of the global paper market.
We can always ask, though, and I will take your suggestions to them.

they should view it, instead, as an opportunity to showcase what can really be done optically too.

I think that idea is certainly interesting, but as you know from our exchange on LFPF, we disagree on what can be done with these papers, optically. Fact of the matter is that they're engineered for digital and this means the 'fit' between RA4 paper and optical printing just no longer exists: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...a4-paper-is-digital-and-why-this-matters-not/
However, several people are still doing fascinating stuff with RA4 paper that goes entirely off the beaten path, and even within the limitations of optical printing, pleasing 'straight' optical prints can be made. The people I've talked to so far are certainly enthusiastic about the fact that we use their papers for things they can no longer afford to optimize them for.

Just inform them that some of us "amateurs" have even higher quality expectations than the commercial labs

But, we represent a vanishingly small revenue pocket that doesn't even show up on the charts. Hence the remark above on managing expectations. The interest of the Fuji people in what we do is mostly of a non-commercial nature. Simply put: they're passionate about the product in similar ways we are. That's the common ground we're latching on to.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In some countries, optical enlargements are by far still the more cost-effective method to make big prints, especially in multiples. Inkjet paper and ink ain't cheap. And integrated drum-scanner to huge laser printer to dedicated RA4 workflow begins in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - more likely, a million or more realistically. But commercial labs are on tight schedules, and people just won't wait anymore like they once did. Advanced techniques like masking would drive the price wild and slow down everything. So the high-end optical route is more for a very select clientele willing to pay the extra, or for we "amateurs" who are our own clients.

Digital printing options of all sorts are available around here. And yes, they can custom set their expensive XY cutting machines to any size print they need, right off some master roll up to 40 or 50 inches wide, with full through-put all the way to big automated RA4 roll processors. This is the world epicenter of tech anyway. I've had friends with multimillion dollar investments in printing equipment; and that was just a drop in the bucket compared to their lab facility expense and employee overhead. But everyone serious know the limitations of even the most sophisticated modes of digital printing; and numerous times, digital engineers, illustrators, and even CEO's have expressed to me that they wished they themselves had a real darkroom or the available extra time for one. It seems to be harder to learn how to slow down than speed up.

 

[pentaxuser]

koraks, what isn't clear to me is what position(s) do the people you have met, hold at Fuji? Are they simply fellow enthusiasts/skilled RA4 engineers wanting to discuss with us and help us with "home darkroom" insights, problems etc that we may have or are they in a position to actually change matters/policy? It doesn't sound from what you are saying that they are in positions to make changes based on a "shopping list" from Photrio members

Clearly fellow skilled enthusiasts are very welcome as knowledge resources but presumably they are not in a position to make changes in the way the thread's expectations seems to be moving towards

Just a thought

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

No single individual in a corporation like Fuji is capable of changing much. At the same time, anyone with a solid business case can initiate change.

We in fact discussed organizational culture and decision making briefly. It's similar to what I saw in other corporations - a mixture of top-down and bottom-up forces.

The answer to your question wouldn't be so much what's on these peoples business cards, but would depend on questions like which changes we're talking about and what the business sense behind those changes would be.

Keep in mind that the amateur color printing market is an infinitesimally small niche of no financial relevance whatsoever. People's positions in the company don't have much to do with this. Regardless of the position, nobody is going to stick their neck out for something that doesn't make sense. Conversely, if something does make sense, it's generally possible to win people for it.

Finally, please also note the title of this thread and what I wrote in the OP. So far people seem to interpret this as "post your wishlist for Fuji here". That's not the direction I intended to take this in. I really meant what I said: ask questions about the product that you haven't answered yet. Wishlists are nice to dream about, but generally lack a sense of realism.

Given the (lack of) significance amateur darkroom color printers represent in financial terms (something that isn't going to change, ever), it's obvious that requests about product modifications, introductions etc. are only interestsing in armchair terms. At best, they can help understand what "we" want and then perhaps we can start to figure out which realistic opportunities there may be to get people a little bit closer to what they'd like.

 

[MattKing]

What might be interesting is if they put their energy behind someone willing to design, manufacture and sell a low volume light tight roll paper dispenser, priced in a way that an enthusiast could consider it.

 

[Jimskelton]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

Finally, please also note the title of this thread and what I wrote in the OP. So far people seem to interpret this as "post your wishlist for Fuji here". That's not the direction I intended to take this in. it's obvious that requests about product modifications, introductions etc. are only interestsing in armchair terms. At best, they can help understand what "we" want and then perhaps we can start to figure out which realistic opportunities there may be to get people a little bit closer to what they'd like.

I agree. All I was trying to say is that you may have to keep reminding members that this is not a "post your wishlist here thread. Hopefully my post and your reply to my post has had an effect

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

What might be interesting is if they put their energy behind someone willing to design, manufacture and sell a low volume light tight roll paper dispenser, priced in a way that an enthusiast could consider it.

That's an interesting idea - it fits in the broader category of 'making paper more easily available to home users' and it's one of the ways of doing this. I'll bring it up with them.

What is the colour/hue of the dye they put on the paper and does it primarily compensate for the orange negative mask?

I've included your question in my list! To the best of my knowledge, they are not directly related to the orange mask. Note that FUJIFILM's papers have a blue color when you take them fresh off the roll, while Kodak's are pink. This is the current situation and this may change, which already suggests that the color of these dyes themselves are not necessarily critical. They seem more like a fairly random side-effect of their primary purpose, but that's conjecture on my end.

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

Again, I'll ask, but I think we're never going to get a straight answer to this one. Mainly because the paper in factory-original state already doesn't have a color temperature it's balanced to. It's designed for RGB laser exposure, which is the most discontinuous spectrum conceivable, and I really doubt that anyone in the paper business at Fuji thinks in terms of color temperature. So there's probably no fitting answer to this for the unmodified paper, let alone after it has been modified by rinsing off stuff from some of the layers.

I'll also include the question what actually rinses out of the different layers. The focus of your question is on 'the dye', but I think it's probably more accurate to treat this as a collection of compounds that are designed to wash out during processing, some of which are dyes, and some may be of a different nature.

I sort of know the answers

Yeah...well, I thought I knew a couple of things, but I can tell you that only a brief visit to the plant and a discussion with a production engineer already substantially tilted my worldview concerning these papers. Hence this thread; it makes sense to ask the things we take for granted, because they may not be as accurate as we always assumed them to be.

 

[koraks]

All I was trying to say is that you may have to keep reminding members that this is not a "post your wishlist here thread.

Well, it's OK if people provide their wishlists. I just wanted to manage expectations a bit. We've got to keep in mind that the RA4 paper business is of a significant size, but it's also subject to consolidation and fierce economic pressure. It's also a commercial operation, evidently, so the main object is to make money from it. As a result, changes to products and production lines are generally only made if they (1) help expand sales or (2) reduce costs. My expectation with wishes / proposals from the amateur domain w.r.t. RA4 papers is that they (1) won't result in any significant increase in sales, given the tiny market niche this is, and (2) tend to press in the direction of increasing variety, complexity and ultimately costs.

So by all means, share your dreams - but recognize them for what they are. If those dreams somehow result in real-world changes/improvement, well, consider it a small miracle. And miracles do happen - albeit very, very rarely

 

[DREW WILEY]

It should be added that commercial rolls of paper are in fact quite precisely and predictably coated in such a manner these days that specific laser parameters can be given as reliable starting points. BUT these differ from one laser exposure system to another. Therefore four different settings are prescribed realtive to four different predominant models of big commercial laser printers. Small roll only products, apt to be used in high-volume snapshot style printers, have their own different settings, for those kind of machines. But none of this is written in stone, because some of the above machines are no longer in production, and at some point will be incapable of being serviced.

So in that respect, and given the huge investment expense in replacing comercial laser printers, optical enlargement is far more dependable in the long run. Replacing a quality light bulb costs about fifteen dollars; replacing a high-end laser printer can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And those require expensive periodic servicing too.

But colorhead models also differ from one another, and even with respect to what the CC increments on their dials or readout monitors exactly mean. But for someone starting out, in most cases you can simply begin with the old generic advice of trying
30 cc Y, 30cc M, and 00 C, and simply go from there. These newer papers are very close to the older ones in that respect. Of course, you still have to fine tune all that not only with respect to your own colorhead, but you own chemistry time/temp factor, and even each specific color negative. But all this is pretty damn simple with a bit of experience. It will, however, be interesting to see how some of these new LED light sources correspond to that.

As far as miracles go, all it takes is one pair or a particular style of sports shoe to be worn by a famous athlete for million of pairs of the same to be purchased by teenage wannabees. I don't know of any cut-sheet color printing superstars a big corporation is going to take note of. But still the analogy itself applies. If some major artist did their own darkroom printing and started promoting it, the value to overall paper sales might be enough for at least a token discussion at some higher level. But in brass tacks terms, rigging up a decent roll paper cutter isn't all that difficult. I can handle up to 40-inch wide rolls in my own setting.
So don't hold your breath. Just do what you need to do with existing options.

 

[mshchem]

I would like to see a suggested "starting filter pack" Kodak used to put this on boxes of paper. These days don't always need to put this on every box because the paper is so amazingly consistent. Just publish a figure that already exists.

The EU technical info online is easier for me to access, I think most of the paper and kit color chemistry is from Your plant.

The last time I bought bulk E6 Fuji color chemistry from Unique I bought the US manufactured stuff, still not harmonized to global standard (there's still formalin in final rinse, different pre-bleach) this was 2 years ago. JUST CHECKED LOOKS LIKE UNIQUE PHOTO DOESN’T SELL FUJI E6 CHEMISTRY AS OF TODAY.

Do your neighbors know who makes chemistry kits?

I need to check out calling Fuji directly in the US, I suspect that if it can go on a pallet and in their standard packaging, LTL, trucking, even UPS ground. This is regarding chemistry. I refuse to use Cinestill stuff.

OK, there's a couple questions in there.

I help processing my friends films, I'm trying (sometimes desperately) to retain my access to C-41, RA-4, E-6. I don't want simplified chemistry, I want the "real stuff" even though I have had great results from Tetenal 3 bath E6.

 

[1kgcoffee]

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?

 

[Jimskelton]

I'll also include the question what actually rinses out of the different layers. The focus of your question is on 'the dye', but I think it's probably more accurate to treat this as a collection of compounds that are designed to wash out during processing, some of which are dyes, and some may be of a different nature.

This will be great! All I know is that when you rinse the dye layer off, you can do away with something like an 85a filter...

 

[koraks]

So in that respect, and given the huge investment expense in replacing comercial laser printers, optical enlargement is far more dependable in the long run.

Well, for sake of the argument, I'd be happy to offer this line of thought to the Fuji people, but I think we can already guess the answer.
Also, keep in mind that maintaining compatibility with optical printing requires a more complex (and more expensive) paper than what is currently being produced.
When the whole digital RA4 system collapses, it'll be gone forever, like many technologies have disappeared. I don't see any chance of it going back to an optical system - apart, perhaps, for the odd enthusiast who manages to coat an emulsion like this in their home lab. A bit like the late Ron Mowrey. Note that an RA4 paper can in principle be hand-coated. This in fact happens in the R&D lab at FUJIFILM for tiny test batches. I don't know if they ever coat a fully functional 'product' by hand, but at least individual layers apparently can be done. If that's the case, I suppose a multi-layer stack might also be possible.

I would like to see a suggested "starting filter pack" Kodak used to put this on boxes of paper.

Well, the first question I'll ask them is who is actually doing the confectioning of those boxes. It's not FUJIFILM in their Europe plant. They used to ship rolls to a UK Fuji subsidiary where cut sheets would be confectioned. Apparently, this is no longer the case. This suggests that all cut-sheet business is now being prepared by 3rd parties who simply purchase rolls from Fuji and have a go at it. It certainly seems to be what Nordfoto has been doing for years. So the question about the filter pack would logically go to those parties, not Fuji.

I think it's also unlikely that Fuji will say much about filter pack settings; they don't engineer their papers for optical enlarging and they evidently don't do any official testing like this. I'd be extremely surprised if there's an optical enlarger or analog printer system anywhere in the FUJIFILM plant. If there is, it's collecting dust in a cupboard somewhere. Furthermore, I wonder how useful it is since about half of the RA4 printers I communicate these days don't use dichroic enlargers anymore. They've moved to LED, or they use the paper in entirely different ways. Filter settings are either radically different, or don't even apply.

I think most of the paper and kit color chemistry is from Your plant.

No, the chemistry is from a Belgian plant. It's made by Fuji Hunt in Sint Niklaas (BE). This is a different one from the paper plant.
Also, to clarify: I'm not much more associated with Fuji than any of us. I' m just a photo nut who happens to live close to the plant and literally stumbled across some people who work there and who thought if fun/interesting/relevant to have a cup of coffee and a nice talk or two.

Do your neighbors know who makes chemistry kits?

In general terms, the question about availability of chemistry (and paper as well), especially in quantities that make sense for amateur users, is already on my list, as we all run into it in one way or another. I've seen the supply situation in Europe change for the worse over the past year or so. However, since it's a different part of the gigantic Fuji enterprise, I'm not sure if it'll be possible to get answers to chemisty-related questions.

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

I'm not familiar with LIFX, but I can tell you the wavelengths for Fuji Frontier systems. The older systems used:
680nm red - 540nm green - 477nm blue
The later systems like the 540 use 660nm red - 540nm green - 440nm blue.
I have not yet integrated this / added it to the blog I wrote some time ago about my experiences with LEDs for RA4 printing, which can be found here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/why-rgb-leds-suck-for-a-color-ra4-enlarger/
Be sure to check the comments; there's a comment there by an attentive person who dug up some Noritsu data
If you google a bit, you may be able to find some more wavelength data.
Since these wavelengths are essentially all over the place (sort of), my conclusion is that (1) wavelengths are a little less critical than I used to think and (2) all color balancing is simply done with LUTs. In other words - it doesn't matter that much in a digital domain if the wavelength doesn't fit some kind of theoretical optimum. Color accuracy can still be achieved through calibration - as long as the RGB wavelengths aren't too far off, particularly the blue one. See also Drew's remark on how the Fuji datasheets list some parameters for a couple of commonly used exposure systems.

What effect would having shorter wavelength red for longer exposures have on the color balance?

I'll add this to the list But if you look at my blog where I plotted a 625m wavelength on top of a Crystal Archive spectral sensitivity chart, you see that you're mostly dealing with reduced efficiency. My personal experience/hunch has always been that a red wavelength of 625nm somehow doesn't produce the same colors as 660nm, with the latter producing better chroma and 'purer' colors. However, that's a bit of a haphazard conclusion based on the informal testing I've done. Again, see my blog for details; I've written a couple of articles on this issue.

What wavelength red do the printers that they have designed the paper for output at?

They seem to be in the 660nm - 690nm range, with exception of an old Oce Lightjet 430 system, which used a 633nm HeNe laser. This suggests that shorter wavelengths should indeed work - but I don't know if this system has the same performance in terms of gamut as the newer systems from other manufacturers.

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 had already formulated a question on reciprocity failure; I think this should cover it
Personally, I've never observed much of a difference between somewhat shorter exposures (1 ~3 seconds) and somewhat longer ones (10 ~ 20 seconds). I never tested (much) below 1 second.

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?

The main weakness is that these papers are no longer formulated to work with optical enlargement, regardless of the light source one uses. See here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...a4-paper-is-digital-and-why-this-matters-not/
But, more importantly:

I've been getting decent results by eye

In the end, that's what matters

I'd suggest doing a video if you're up for it?

I considered it, but I'm an awful videographer But who knows. This contact is still very young and we'll have to see how it goes. There are no obligations in any direction, and that also means that if they feel it's all a bit much, or if resistance somehow emerges within the organization, they can easily pull the plug from the nascent dialogue. I diligently work all your responses into questions that I'd like to ask, and it's already growing into a list that will likely require input from several business domains. That means just getting answers will already cost them quite some time (=money), and since I'm totally reliant on their benevolence and enthusiasm, it's a thin wire we're holding on to at present. But - let's be optimistic

When I was at the plant, they mentioned the Kodak videos we are all aware of (the ones about their film production). One of the guys said that what you see in those videos is pretty similar to how RA4 paper is being made at the Fuji plant. I got a brief virtual walkthrough of their production process and although there are certainly some differences that are kind of interesting/amusing, the basic concepts are very, very similar. With the exception that manufacturing paper is a slightly easier process than for color film, since the latter has a more complex layer stack. The RA4 paper plant used to manufacture film as well (so they're very aware of what it takes!), but sadly that operation ceased around 20 years ago and most of that part of the plant has since been torn down.

On videos: you have to realize that the more interesting parts of the Kodak videos actually required being there when they were starting up production. Evidently, everything happens in the dark - even lots of steps that don't really require it, as it turns out. Simply because it's convenient to have them under the same roof, I suppose. This means that any meaningful video would have to closely align with their manufacturing schedule, and this in turn would make things more challenging for them to coordinate. Besides, if we could do a video, in all honesty, at best it would be more or less a replica of the Kodak videos. Those are very nicely done IMO, and pretty hard to beat!

This will be great! All I know is that when you rinse the dye layer off, you can do away with something like an 85a filter...

Yes, you mentioned it in the other thread! I did discuss the blue dye with the technical guy, but only for a few seconds, so didn't go into it very deeply. Hopefully I can get some more quality time with him again.

Btw, our follow up is currently scheduled for early April, so we'll have to be patient. Fingers crossed!

 

[mshchem]

Starting Color Pack for Crystal Archive C

I just got some Fuji Crystal Archive "C" to try my hand at color printing. Everything I have read says the box should contain a sheet with a recommended starting filter pack. The box has no such sheet and I can't find anything on the outside. Any ideas on what I should use as a starting...

www.photrio.com

PE has some good info

 

[mshchem]

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

 

[DREW WILEY]

If everything you surmise is true, Koraks, how come I'm getting better RA prints than ever pure optical workflow, including with fresh second generation "digital" product? And most of the time, no supplementary masking needed. Yes, one has to somehow or another of the parameters of where paper dyes might cross over; but it's far more likely to happen on film itself first. That's why I'm constantly harping on "optimizing" workflow, including correct color temp balancing of film at the time of the shot if such correction is warranted. Manufacturers mainly take into account allegedly typical or average usage instead, so there's often going to be plenty of wiggle room in the paper gamut itself if one is more careful to begin with.

You also have to keep in mind that in any number of places in the world, laser printers simply aren't available, and even maintaining old scanners becomes an issue. Yet large color prints are still needed. Don't take the EU as representative of the whole.

It's still an open question if anything current LED has serious enough punch for anything other than small color prints. As far as laser nm tolerances go, that kind of thing can be fine-tuned with supplementary filtration. That's always been the case with the green lasers - they're not actual green, but the residual amount of green light filtered out of red. Don't laugh, just kinda the reverse of what happens to leaves in autumn, when the chlorophyll is gone and you see the red and yellow pigments there all along.

But laser technology itself has seemingly progressed "light years" just since the time many of these printing devices were sold.
The photographic application market per se is tiny overall, as far as laser R&D is concerned, so don't ridicule optical printing as being tiny. It's all relative.

 

[koraks]

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

I did discuss Kodak / Sink Promise with them. Of course they're interested in the performance of their competitors' products, so from time to time, they order some Kodak paper and test it. They said that they occasionally manage to obtain some and for that reason they presume it must still be manufactured to some extent. I'll remember to check again.

Drew, I don't know why your prints are good, and/or how good they are exactly. If you like them, be happy. That's all that matters.

 

[MattKing]

Even though the current papers may be optimized for non-optical printing, there is still a world out there with at least some optical printers still in use - the old lab machines. So I would doubt that they would make the papers incompatible, even if they aren't perfectly suited to them.

 

[pentaxuser]

. But for someone starting out, in most cases you can simply begin with the old generic advice of trying
30 cc Y, 30cc M, and 00 C, and simply go from there. These newer papers are very close to the older ones in that respect.

For clarification, Drew, is this a starting point for Fuji paper or generic advice that covers Kodak as well and are your figures based on your experience or was this something that you have seen in/on a Fuji box?

In general terms it would certainly be useful if Fuji were able to suggest a set of starting Y,M figures

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

I understand why Fujifilm would promote LED printing. I don't know if Fujifilm still is making minilab RA4 printers? But they made "a whole bunch" up until the demise of 1 hour drop of your 35mm film and get double prints.

I would be surprised if Fujifilm has updated technical information on color negative paper in years. Marketing has been updated.

I'm with Drew in terms of optical printing with the current papers works just fine.

I think most minilab prints leave me wanting. When you see the scan lines.

I'm not sure how much more I am going to fool with color negative film and paper. The dig***l stink jet is easier.

 

[mshchem]

Even though the current papers may be optimized for non-optical printing, there is still a world out there with at least some optical printers still in use - the old lab machines. So I would doubt that they would make the papers incompatible, even if they aren't perfectly suited to them.

Matt, you know what is going on with KA, do they know if Sino is going to make paper??