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

In the time I have been involved in hybrid RA-4 printing from 2009, 3 RA-4 machines (Kodak) have been decommissioned from lab production because specific parts were not longer available, or ongoing maintenance and reliability impacted upon business in a financial sense, and were thus replaced by large-scale EPSON printers, which can be left to work through large print queues overnight, unlike RA-4 printers.

I envision a continual loss of RA-4 print machinery in the future.

I looked briefly at Fujifilm Frontier website. I see 2 RA4 Printers and 4 dry inkjet machines. NO Film processors. Does anyone still make a roller transport film processor?

DREW WILEY said:

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.

Click to expand...

My hint at the cancelling of production was not meant to make it look ancient but to show that there was no more interest since then. Either every large format printer in the world got one ..., or a number decided to go the ink-jet way.

mshchem said:

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.

Click to expand...

RA-4 printing is used for more than just snapshots. I recently left a lab that specialized in school sports photos, i.e., individual and team photos received from photographers all over the country. Our primary products were printed by RA-4 with a few specialized products printed on inkjet. As thousands of prints were produced a day during our busy seasons, with sizes of wallet, 3.5x5, 5x7, 8x10, 8x12, and poster sizes, the several fast Noritsu laser (RA-4) printers (much faster than our original Kodak printers) were able to produce the high volume output needed by the lab to meet our production schedules.

I don't know that much about the speed of inkjet printers used in a such a high volume environment, but that would certainly be an important consideration for high volume labs like ours switching totally to inkjet in addition to cost and other factors.

mshchem said:

I looked briefly at Fujifilm Frontier website. I see 2 RA4 Printers and 4 dry inkjet machines. NO Film processors. Does anyone still make a roller transport film processor?

Click to expand...

I think Noritsu was considering developing a new one.

By the way, Noritsu released in july 2018 their latest RA-4 printer: QSS 3904G. According to the manufacturer, it saves 18% of power consumption and it is 40% faster than the previous version. It can do 614 prints per hour in 8x10'' and 1304 prints per hour in 5x7''.

https://www.noritsu-precision.com/en/info/20180629/

RPC said:

RA-4 printing is used for more than just snapshots. I recently left a lab that specialized in school sports photos, i.e., individual and team photos received from photographers all over the country. Our primary products were printed by RA-4 with a few specialized products printed on inkjet. As thousands of prints were produced a day during our busy seasons, with sizes of wallet, 3.5x5, 5x7, 8x10, 8x12, and poster sizes, the several fast Noritsu laser (RA-4) printers (much faster than our original Kodak printers) were able to produce the high volume output needed by the lab to meet our production schedules.

I don't know that much about the speed of inkjet printers used in a such a high volume environment, but that would certainly be an important consideration for high volume labs like ours switching totally to inkjet in addition to cost and other factors.

Click to expand...

The Fuji Frontier dry labs are slow compared to their RA4 machines. A LOT slower at producing the kind of product you mention. I guess that high volume low cost definitely favors wet chemistry.

If color film photography were to be forever lost to the scourge of Silicon Valley like so many other crafts and professions, I'd be willing to trade it for the revival and resurgence of Colorvir. At this monent i'm watching The Fujitive in Color. When they started filming it in color in 1966, they just took the same photos on the opening credits from the black and white episodes and Colorvired them. Nice job. I'm hoping to see the one-armed man finally captured. Poor Richard Kimball has been through enough.I miss Colorvir.

KN4SMF said:

If color film photography were to be forever lost to the scourge of Silicon Valley like so many other crafts and professions, I'd be willing to trade it for the revival and resurgence of Colorvir. At this monent i'm watching The Fujitive in Color. When they started filming it in color in 1966, they just took the same photos on the opening credits from the black and white episodes and Colorvired them. Nice job. I'm hoping to see the one-armed man finally captured. Poor Richard Kimball has been through enough.I miss Colorvir.

Click to expand...

Blasphemy! Color ruined The Fugitive! Well it watered it down anyway. I much prefer the look of the earlier seasons.

Wayne said:

Blasphemy! Color ruined The Fugitive! Well it watered it down anyway. I much prefer the look of the earlier seasons.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I liked the black and whites too. Same for Gunsmoke, Andy Griffith... a lot of them really. Furtunately, unlike many series that were cancelled with no resolution, the one-armed man was exposed to Lt. Gerard's satisfaction. But for the discussion of photography, Colorvir was a great loss. Color film process keeps dying in agonizing increments. I get weary hearing about it. Colorvir was highly creative, and not always predictable, which is the essence of art. And was a great salvage tool for otherwise ruined and rejected black and white images.

David Lyga said:

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

Click to expand...

You are right David! RA4 will survife!
Those sorts came up many years ago. Ink jet printing is quite OK - but RA4 prints (even from digital) has bot some advantage. And everything concerning photography what is related to digital photography will not die - in the shorter term.
Bad future is to equipment exclusive for film photography - if it is with further avaiability it is getting
higher ....and ....higher...and......priced! Regarding paper sheeds to store film stripes for example.

It could not the problem to be that worldwide paper industries seams unable to produce such storage equipment. If there is demand it can be produced.
But it is like a market from Monopol structures - they offer the stuff but you have to pay !
At the end (from horrable pricing) the demand is indeed going to zero!

But no fear with RA4 David (laser systems are printing onto RA4) so billions of digital
Photographers with an aceptance of just 0,478 % to real "photo paper " enlargements
take care that the stuff you need are avaible for NORMAL pricing (also chems of course)!
But this would not mean your RA4 kits and paper for darkroom will be produced ans longer
(>10years?????) that would mean you can get your papers from rolls! That would mean you can get your chems from 20L kanisters a.s.o think about!

RA4 in 60x90 cm for darkroom will not die - but it will come expensive! But the alternate then is
90cm x 20Meter (for the big labs [Posters]) so manufacturers want to be payed royally that day
(in some years) David Lyga want to order 10sheeds of 40x60cm RA4.
That is the true danger. In addition you will also just get the 2 - 4 sorts of papers the big labs
have in use! Because darkroom is a smallest nicht market in 10years for sure.

But RA4 will survife from my point min.>15 years!

with greetings

GOOD, I am happy the the RA4 question has been settled, trendland, because, otherwise, I was going to sacrifice all my remaining RA4 and use it to take a long bath in the hopes that I would turn into a gay rainbow. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

in the hopes that I would turn into a gay rainbow. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

You do have a way with words David

Thermaphot roller transport machines are still made. I've got a 20 inch unit, but have never bothered to even plug it in. Was offered a very nice Kreonite 40 inch machine for free. Too much chemistry to keep on hand, so turned it down. I do even big prints in drums. I have no interest in large quantities, just the print quality. So why are so few new machine options still made? One, because a lot of the old commercial machines were so well made to begin with, and are still capable of maintenance; two, for us low-volume users, it's rather easy to rig up an even more dependable simple drum system. There's an old firehouse in this area that's had the front porch lightbulb continuously burning for over 115 years. Why could they build an almost indelible light bulb way back then, but now you're lucky to get a few months out of a bulb? Simple - heavy filament and heavy glass. Any bulb manufacturer could have done it. But that particular company went out of business not long after it made those wonderful bulbs; people bought a bulb once, and unless somebody hit it with a rock or ladder, there was no repeat business. Build junk and you get lots of repeat business. Better, design something around software that is going to go obsolete even faster, and expendable equipment is the name of the game. I wouldn't worry about basic RA4. Digital is here to stay, no argument about that - but what kind of digital? Stegosaurs? Ankylosaus? Plesiosaurs? Being big doesn't forego a premature extinction.

Apo Nikkors are abundant here on the W Coast of the US and quite affordable used. They were very popular in the printing industry.