In search of a direct comparison between Crystal Archive Type II and other pro papers

[CB_]

Hey everyone,

As anyone who prints RA4 (and especially anyone that is on this forum) knows, there are stark opinions out there on the differences between the few available papers for the process. I know Crystal Archive Type II typically gets a pretty bad rap, which I think comes mostly from the support being exceptionally flimsy - it feels like copy paper, the matte especially.

Opinions aside, I don't think I've seen a direct comparison between scanned prints from Crystal Archive Type II and some different pro papers - Type C, DPII, and Endura specifically. I've printed on all of these and I can say personally DPII/Type C are my favorites, but I'm curious how much better they are from a direct comparison standpoint than the Type II stuff. It's getting harder and harder to find anything else, and the prices for cut sheets of the pro stuff just keeps going up (at least at my darkroom), so I was curious how worth it it really is to pay the premium or if I should bite the bullet and invest in some Type II in bulk.

Thanks

 

[pentaxuser]

Are you looking specifically for an article that say compared RA4 prints made under an enlarger using the same neg but different RA4 papers ?

I'd be interested in such a comparison myself. Unless you make this clear what you will get is all of our opinions which have been expressed recently in another thread whose title escapes me. These opinions, as you say can vary widely and may not be what you want to hear in terms of helping you decide what to do

It's a bit like the " best film, paper, developer threads.

pentaxuser

 

[brbo]

Posted this before...

Fuji Crystal Archive Supreme (which I think is the same emulsion as CA II):



Fuji Maxima:

 

[koraks]

prices for cut sheets of the pro stuff just keeps going up (

Does Fuji even sell cut sheet of anything but CAII? Or do you get yours from a 3rd party that cuts up rolls and boxes them?

Anyway, the other day I did a print on CAII that I also did on Supreme. Identical exposure and filtration settings; color balance turned out just about the same, with the CAII print being lower in saturation with less pure hues. This was a Mediterranean street scene in diffuse afternoon light and partly shade, which split very beautifully on Supreme into opposite sides of the color wheel, while the CAII print remained more monotonous. There were no solid patches of black in the image to show the Achilles heel of CAII. It's not that the CAII print was necessarily worse; just more bland/muted.

 

[CB_]

Are you looking specifically for an article that say compared RA4 prints made under an enlarger using the same neg but different RA4 papers ?

Yes this is exactly what I'm looking for!

 

[CB_]

Does Fuji even sell cut sheet of anything but CAII? Or do you get yours from a 3rd party that cuts up rolls and boxes them?

Anyway, the other day I did a print on CAII that I also did on Supreme. Identical exposure and filtration settings; color balance turned out just about the same, with the CAII print being lower in saturation with less pure hues. This was a Mediterranean street scene in diffuse afternoon light and partly shade, which split very beautifully on Supreme into opposite sides of the color wheel, while the CAII print remained more monotonous. There were no solid patches of black in the image to show the Achilles heel of CAII. It's not that the CAII print was necessarily worse; just more bland/muted.

No - but luckily my darkroom cuts down sheets of Type CC and DPII.

It's interesting what you mention about Supreme, as I always assumed it was the same emulsion as Type II but on a thicker support. Really wishing someone could make a comprehensive guide comparing all available RA4 stocks right about now!

 

[CB_]

Posted this before...

Fuji Crystal Archive Supreme (which I think is the same emulsion as CA II):



Fuji Maxima:

This is interesting - I've honestly never even encountered/heard of Maxima. Looks like it has a lot more punch than the Type II. Thanks for sharing!

 

[DREW WILEY]

CAII cut sheet is on a relatively thin paper. It's a decent product if you want medium contrast and need cut sheet. I've used a lot of Super C, which is a thicker paper available even in large roll sizes. I'm currently working with Fujiflex Supergloss, not really a paper at all, but coated on heavy polyester stock. Besides the distinction in sheen from any RC paper product (it does resemble Cibachrome), it has higher contrast and a richer color gamut than any of the other papers. But it's a much higher priced product available only on heavy wide rolls. From the tech sheets, it appears that Maxima is a very similar premium coating, but on regular relatively thick RC paper instead. But so far, I've been unable to get ahold of any Maxima to test for myself. There are still serious pandemic-related shortage issues, as well as, apparently, sales distribution restrictions on certain products.

A lot also has to do with which specific film you're printing. You're going to get a lot more density punch and color saturation printing CAii from Ektar originals, for example, than Portra films. Depends on what you're doing. My guess is that Fuji was limiting their cut sheet offering to a single affordable product line in three sheens that was about halfway been the milder contrast often desired by portrait photographers and the somewhat richer look generallyu preferred by commercial and landscape photographers. Sometimes I make proof prints on CAii before scaling them up in size on more expensive paper. But in terms of faithful repro of the widest range of hues, their premium papers are a distinct improvement over CAii cut sheet.