Going forward, what is the story about continued production of RA4?

[David Lyga]

My real (technologically challenged) question is this: Since RA4 paper can be 'written' with lasers, does that virtually guarantee its continued existence? In other words will RA4 (at least for this formulation) be continued, thus also guaranteeing the ongoing ability to darkroom print onto this paper as well?

If 'yes', then that must also say 'yes' to the RA4 chemistry as well, true or not? - David Lyga

 

[faberryman]

II don't think anything is guaranteed. I just read that Costco is shutting down the photo centers in its stores due to a lack of demand for prints. They closed down film processing years ago.

 

[RPC]

Its future of cut sheets for home use may be in question, but I think rolls for lab use will continue for quite a while, since many large labs do still use RA-4 extensively.

 

[foc]

RA-4 (wet lab) as a commercial process will continue as long as there is demand from large labs (Photobox is one example) as they have the equipment and RA-4 is still the cheapest and quickest way mass product prints.
Having said that, the dry lab is catching up very quickly.
A few years ago I spoke to a Fuji lab engineer and he said there was no more R&D in the wet process.
A few weeks ago I was at a demo of a Fuji dry mini lab in Fujifilm Ireland office and there were no wet lab machines on premises (usually there was always 2 or 3 being refurbished or tested). What impressed me was the small footprint and low power consumption and most importantly the low cost per print.
The recent price increase announcement by Fuji Global suggested an increase in paper prices (different increases in different markets)
So for the moment, it will continue like film, we can only guess for how long (hopefully a very long time).

 

[MattKing]

I just read that Costco is shutting down the photo centers in its stores due to a lack of demand for prints.

I doubt that this applies to Canada, because the volumes here are still apparently quite high.
And even in the USA, the closures seem to apply to some locations, but not others.

 

[prado333]

I live in Spain and my lab is in Paris (France) due the fact in my country nobody uses handprint by enlarger at sizes like 20x24 in endura premier paper. USA is a completely different market with a lot options , analogue , hibrid or digital speaking.

 

[faberryman]

I doubt that this applies to Canada, because the volumes here are still apparently quite high.
And even in the USA, the closures seem to apply to some locations, but not others.

They closed down the photo center in my local Costco last year. It used to be pretty inexpensive and the quality was good, though larger sizes and canvas were handled offsite.

 

[AgX]

The european leader amongst industrial labs (picture factories) uses both, ink-jet printing on ink-jet paper and laser printing on RA-4 paper.
However there is for instance a major newcomer (founded 15years ago) who started with ink-jet only, and kept it this way.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Large laser printers are a big investment if you add up everything necessary; so it's important to kept them fed. Same goes for big RA4 automated processors. The look is different from inkjet, and the final output in term of RA4 paper vs blank paper & ink more cost-effective. So RA4 should be a healthy market for quite awhile. I miss 30X40 inch cut sheets, but do have a nice system for cutting off a big 40" roll. The loss of amateur photofinishing (like Costco and drugstore minilabs) is a no big deal. They tend to use somewhat different paper anyway. The serious labs can do snapshot sizes too. I'm in no hurry, so personally use various sizes of processing drums.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Large laser printers are a big investment if you add up everything necessary; so it's important to kept them fed. Same goes for big RA4 automated processors. The look is different from inkjet, and the final output in term of RA4 paper vs blank paper & ink more cost-effective. So RA4 should be a healthy market for quite awhile. I miss 30X40 inch cut sheets, but do have a nice system for cutting off a big 40" roll. The loss of amateur photofinishing (like Costco and drugstore minilabs) is a no big deal. They tend to use somewhat different paper anyway. The serious labs can do snapshot sizes too. I'm in no hurry, so personally use various sizes of processing drums.

I would be interested in knowing more about your cutting system?

In answer to the original question, are laser printers still being produced? It was my understanding that no, the technology stopped around the year 2000 and runs on legacy computers. How long will these machines remain in service? Also, we have only two suppliers of RA-4 material - Fuji and Kodak. Kodak is still chugging along but for how long? Fuji may continue as long as there are decent margins, but with declining sales of ra-4 material, when do we hit the breaking point?

I hope to be printing for a very long time.

 

[halfaman]

I have seen a standard Frontier paper processing unit up to 30x40 cm and it didn't seem big to me. Professional RA-4 chemistry and paper is very economic and processing is highly automated. I don't think that inkjet printing is cheaper for high and medium volumes in standard paper sizes

But from maintenance point of view I think inkjet is more simple.

 

[AgX]

As I said there is a major industrial lab who find it more economic to run only ink-jet printing.

 

[jim10219]

Where not far off from inkjet going by the wayside. As you know, it's expensive and slow. There's a new kid in the market called digital press. They're basically giant copiers. Some run on toner. Some run on ink. But they all can print small runs extremely quickly. You see them all of the time in the printing industry (where I work). Their quality is coming close to rivaling offset presses. They're already starting to take over for consumer level photo production. They don't have the quality of the inkjet, but they're a mere fraction of the price, and for your average consumers wanting family photos, they're good enough for what they want. At my job years ago we would on rare occasions make inkjet prints for photographers and artists. They were slow and expensive. These days, we almost always do that work on digital presses, where we can make 20 for the price of one.

If anything kills RA4, it'll be those machines which are improving in quality every year. Plus, they serve double duty as a machine capable of producing flyers, mailers, small posters, and business cards as well as photos.

 

[kb3lms]

I, too, would be concerned about the "digital press" type processes. I worked in this industry for a little bit in the mid-1990's and the quality was good then for traditional printing work, although it was much more expensive. It certainly wasn't photo quality at that time but in the intervening years I would imagine they should be almost there. For B/W, even in the 1990's the quality could match traditional press, but the cost could not.

Hopefully, in the future when these devices have gone mainstream, units will be available for the serious consumer. Maybe not cheap, but something we could buy. However, I would still prefer to print in the darkroom because I am tired of being digitized with everything.

I think RA-4 paper will be around for quite some time. However, the stuff will eventually go away. Kodak will probably be the last producer, or maybe Film Ferrania if they ever get their act together. Ferrania made decent paper back in the day.

Personally, I am much more concerned about the continued availability of darkroom quantities of CD-3 and CD-4.

 

[koraks]

The graphic arts industry is extremely likely to move on to inkjet in the following years in my opinion. It's a matter of improving costs and throughput of inkjet, which are things that have been receiving much attention in the industry in the form of R&D and frequent new product introductions. Inkjet has the benefit of allowing for a much greater variety of surfaces being printed on and there is no clear rationale why RA4 would have a lower cost and higher throughput limit than inkjet. Hence, it's only a matter of time before inkjet eats up the RA4 photofinishing market. How many years it'll take is something I couldn't guess, but my feeling is that it's not all that far away. In terms of throughput, think of waterfall print heads that print dozens of meters per minute at a width of 3ft or so - this would be very much in the ballpark required for fairly high-volume photo production. In terms of costs, inkjet inks tend to have low production costs, with market prices being mostly dominated by the margins desired by the manufacturers and retailers. Especially water-based inks are essentially low-cost consumables. A little less so for UV curing inks, which also currently have a disadvantage due to the curing step and the UV output required for this, but it seems that this is only a marginal hurdle in the mid-term.

Let's enjoy our insanely cheap RA4 stuff while it lasts. It won't be like this forever, that's for sure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's another aspect to this. A ton of money has already been spent on inkjet R&D, so things are beginning to plateau quality-wise. Yeah, the machines are getting capable of finer detail. But lots of ink patents are lying fallow. What is already out there drives obscene profit margins in terms of ink, just like office printers; and isn't that what it's all about? Why would they want to try anything but modest tweaks to what they've already got, if it's allowing them to recoup their big investment? I just don't like the opaque rendering of ink per se.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

RA-4 has at minimum another decade or more. As much as I enjoyed making C prints in the darkroom, I make better pigment prints now with less effort, at larger sizes. Plus the papers are superior in every way. I ride or die for silver gelatin B&W, color film capture, even chrome films like the new Ektachrome. But I looooooooove our new P6000. The prints are stunning.

 

[halfaman]

I will probably drop color when RA-4 is gone. Photography is a hobby for me and I enjoy the chemical/analogue process as much as shooting. I find the digital process uninteresting....

 

[StepheKoontz]

I will probably drop color when RA-4 is gone. Photography is a hobby for me and I enjoy the chemical/analogue process as much as shooting. I find the digital process uninteresting....

I agree. I think it's the process as much as the end result that I enjoy the most. From loading the film, to pulling the film out of the tanks to dry, to watching the B&W image appear on the paper... All of it is still magical to me.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I would be interested in knowing more about your cutting system?

In answer to the original question, are laser printers still being produced? It was my understanding that no, the technology stopped around the year 2000 and runs on legacy computers. How long will these machines remain in service? Also, we have only two suppliers of RA-4 material - Fuji and Kodak. Kodak is still chugging along but for how long? Fuji may continue as long as there are decent margins, but with declining sales of ra-4 material, when do we hit the breaking point?

I hope to be printing for a very long time.

I own a laser printer and from what Durst tells me there are still over 200 machines in NA under maitenence contract

 

[AgX]

And Durst cancelled production of the Lambda printer in 2010.

 

[Wayne]

I agree. I think it's the process as much as the end result that I enjoy the most. From loading the film, to pulling the film out of the tanks to dry, to watching the B&W image appear on the paper... All of it is still magical to me.

Oh you obsolete Stegasaurans. Haven't you learned yet that process doesn't matter, that its the destination not the journey that's important?

 

[koraks]

Since I never really seem to get anywhere, I have to stick with the journey I guess

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lets see... I bought my last truck around 1990. It's still running fine. A Lamdba setup probably cost ten times as much, and it's ancient history because no more have been made since 2010? That's just yesterday.

 

[mshchem]

I suspect that as long as there's a mass market for snapshots there will be RA4. It's the stunning number of 4 inch, 5 inch, and to a lesser extent 8 and 10 inch rolls that keep things going. The United States and Europe is a small percentage of the world population, it would interest me how the rest of the world prints pictures. Hard to imagine anything being less expensive than RA4 4X6 inch prints. MHO