Is RA-4 All There Is Now?

DREW WILEY · Mar 19, 2013

There were a number of reasons to use masking. First was obviously contrast control. Something which
required an intense mask like Velvia often required a supplementary highlight mask first to keep the
sparkle in specular highlights etc. The second reason was color correction. Ciba has a lot of idiosyncrasies in this respect. Then you could control grain reproduction and edge effect, esp by masking to produce printing dupes. But 99% of the printing I personally did was from large format
originals to begin with. I'm glad I learned these skills and acquired proficiency with the relevant equipment. Ciba might be gone (well, almost).. but now I'm transferring the same skill set over to
color neg printing. Many of the details are very different, but at least I'm not starting from scratch.

DREW WILEY · Mar 19, 2013

Slightly different comment: I was framing a CA print last nite from an 8x10 neg, printed several yrs ago,
well before starting masking tricks with this kind of material - but it looked so credible, even given the
limitations inherent to the film more than a decade back. ... None of that gooey hyper-saturated fake
Fauxtoshop look that people think they need nowadays. The subtle relationships between complex hues
were there ...No, not the mushy things that people typically associate with color neg film (I figured
out how to avoid that some time ago) ... Just made me feel good about sticking with the darkroom,
and to hell with the marketing trends with their pyschedelic saturation.

Poisson Du Jour · Mar 19, 2013

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Trannies means something quite different in 1991 compared to today.

True dinks! I had lunch with him/her yesterday in town. He/she is keeping well despite some personal dramas.

Rudeofus · Mar 20, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
but it looked so credible, even given the limitations inherent to the film more than a decade back. ... None of that gooey hyper-saturated fake Fauxtoshop look that people think they need nowadays.

I think that's an important point. Twenty years ago, if you wanted saturated colors, you had to go Velvia with all the difficulties it brought: perfect exposure, large effort in printing and so on. With today's nauseating daily spring flood of HDR kitsch I think high saturation lost a lot of its original appeal, and we could start showing prints made from Astia as a change.

DREW WILEY · Mar 20, 2013

Mind you, I have nothing against rich color where it's warranted. But color perception is a complex thing,
and too much sugar at once simply numbs your taste buds, so to speak. Any idiot can punch a PS slider
and get loud noise. What takes skill is preserving nuances. These might include relatively saturated
elements along with any number of things. I'm not advocating chromatic mush. Astia was certainly not
a perfect film (there never will be one), but it was a very high quality product. Most photographers
simply expected a vibrant look on a lightbox, just like a slideshow of old, without understanding what
happens when you actually print something. Now nodoby gives a damn because they figure they can
just dip the shot in sugar, honey, saccharine, and jam afterwards. Astia simply didn't sell well. What a
shame. Only E100G was remotely similar, and now its gone too. But Astia could be hypothetically resurrected if the demand was there.

bvy · Mar 22, 2013

Thanks for the responses. To recap, it sounds like RA-4 is all there is in terms of a "commercially supported" process. I didn't mean to strike any nerves with Ilfo/Ciba. With some further reading, I discovered that Kodak had a positive print paper at one time (Type 1993 or RD-14). I couldn't find any information on a Unicolor (Type B or RB) process.

The three-color gum and carbon processes interest me. I also discovered that two- and three-color cyanotypes are possible although you're limited to tones achievable by bleaching and toning. Unfortunately (for me) most of the tutorials I'm finding are hybrid in that they rely on Photoshop to produce the registration negatives. So more research and exploring are in order...

DREW WILEY · Mar 22, 2013

There are almost an unlimited number of options if you are thinking of handcoated assembly color processes. You can even invent your own. All of them require some sort of separation negatives, which
can be done either hybrid or pure darkroom. But yeah, in terms of off-the-shelf color printing, RA4 is it.
Type R prints pretty much died when Ciba took over the direct from positive niche. To do slides or chromes onto RA4 papers, you either need to learn how to make internegatives or have to scan and print digitally via inkjet, laser, or Chromira. I will be printing some 8x10 internegs in about a month,
but mainly have switched over to color neg film now that direct from chrome options are thinning out.
After I retire in a couple years I might (or might not) have time to do some serious dye transfer printing. That's still the cat's meow in terms of color reproduction, but not in terms of sharpness or
permanence anymore. Color neg papers and films have come a long ways in recent years, so will
accommodate a greater range of potential colors and subjects than they once did.

RPC · Mar 23, 2013

bvy said:
I couldn't find any information on a Unicolor (Type B or RB) process.

I could not find any info with Google and the only info I have on it is in a book published in 1979, Photographic Materials and Processes by David Brooks which describes available films, papers, and processes of the day and referring to it says, "Unicolor R-2 Chemistry is intended for processing Unicolor Resin-Base Color Paper Type RB. It may also be used to process other type B papers." It goes on to say it could be used between 70 and 120 degrees F with develop times between 5 and 12 minutes and used a developer, stop, bleach-fix and stabilizer. Probably not much different than Ektaprint-2.

Roger Cole · Mar 23, 2013

I'm pretty sure the Unicolor was compatible with Kodak Type R chemistry and was just a different paper. The Unicolor chemistry also worked with the Kodak, or at least Unicolor made chemistry that did because I used it a lot. The Type 1993 that someone mentioned was an earlier version. I used quite a bit of the next version (I read about 1993 when I was doing only B&W but by the time I got around to trying it the next version was out) which I believe was 2203 or 2223. A quick check of Google doesn't turn up the exact number but I'm sure one could find it. I believe there was a later version called Radiance which may have been the last Type R paper Kodak made.

RPC · Mar 23, 2013

The R-2 process was in the book section for processes intended for printing from color negatives. The description did not say it was compatible with any Kodak papers as it did with other manufacturers' products, so I believe it to be a different process.

MattKing · Mar 23, 2013

Somehow, whenever I see the title of this thread I think of Peggy Lee

DREW WILEY · Apr 1, 2013

I'm adding a little update after another round of weekend critical testing/calibration etc. The first bit of
infomation is that the current Arista-branded (Freestyle) RA kit performs exactly the same as the Kodak
RA/RT kit is claims to replace. I use it one-shot in drums, and it is a well-priced high-quality offering.
This is marketed for replenishable roller-transport processors, but is excellent in drums too. I dev 2 min
(incl drain) at 83F. The second tidbit regards the latest generation of Fujiflex polyester-based paper. It
is balanced admost identically to regular CAII paper, but as I suspected, has a tad more snap. It is
"digitally optimized" in the sense that they wanted a product with cleaner whites and blacks for titles
on commercial displays. Digital printing was often disappointing in this respect. For my kind of landscape subjects, this is an improvement over the previous Supergloss. But to dispel any notion that
this means the product is somehow disabled from ordinary enlargement capabability - nonsense! This
product is absolutely fantastic under an optical colorhead. But you do have to buy it in a big roll for
about a thousand bucks and cut it into sheets yourself.

J Drew · Apr 1, 2013

advanced masking operations

DREW WILEY said:
There was a large amt of dye transfer matrix film for sale just a couple weeks ago in Germany. Fresh
batches seem to be run every few years until ... ? It is being custom coated and is not dependent upon
Kodak as a sole supplier. It never was. I know where you can get dyes. You can produce and mordant your own printing paper. Registration gear comes up for sale every few months it seems, or if you have machine-shop skills you can make your own. I know how to make color separations and masks using films currently on the market. The prime ingredient, time (lots of time) is what is hard to come by.
RA4 printing per se if very easy, but doing high-quality advanced work is just like anything else - you
need to gradually learn the ropes. I'm one of the few people attempting advanced masking operations
with it. But it is the future (at least at this moment in the future!), if you like darkroom work per se.

Hi Drew
When U say " advanced masking", what is meant? I've sorta thought all masking was 'advanced'. Are there types that are more advances that others?
Also I have a side question; a decade or 2 ago or more, I read an article about using a thermally developed film for masking. I thought that was a rather neet idea. Save a huge amount of time processing & drying the masking film. I think it was in 'Darkroom Techniques' or some such publication. In ~'93 I had the experience of using a thermally developed X-Ray film. I wasn't wild about it's radiographic quality, but for masking, I could see huge potential. (I've been involved w/ photography & radiography much of my life) [photography = spending $ - Radiography = making $] If I remember correctly, it was produced by 3M.
Have U ever heard of such?
Looking forward to hearing your responses, Jay Drew

DREW WILEY · Apr 1, 2013

The advantage of traditional masking using pan film is that you can expose it selectively to given parts
of the spectrum, just like using pan film in a camera with colored filters to alter the values in the scene,
and then can develop it according to the contrast level you wish etc. Something called Minute Mask came along which used photochromic glass like in transition sunglasses, which was exposed by a flash
unit to achieve a generic mask, but the dyes in this product fade over time, and "generic" was about
what to expect from it. And now someone has an industrial product probably to act like a resist
for photochemical etching, but I don't really know much more than that. Masking can either be as simple
or complex as you wish. Once density builds up much, some kind of secondary lith mask is often required prior to the primary pan mask, but this all depends upon the specifics. Beyond that I guess someone could write a book or two about it. Masking color neg film is inherently fussy because it already has an orange contrast mask in place, and every little tweak is like power steering. Plus you have to somehow veer past that orange bias in the first place if you don't want a flat tire. Fortunately,
many images print just fine without supplemental masking. It's those that don't that can test your skill.

J Drew · Apr 1, 2013

BTW Drew
I was wondering if there is are any texts about masking? I guess U answered that above. I've read some about it by Ctein,, & perhaps by some others I can't remember. Would U be kind enough mention some good books that have been written giving good usable material about it as part of a more wide sweeping subject?
I occasionally see Condit & (the fellow up in Vancouver) masking equipment for sale on Ebay.
Thank you, Jay Drew

DREW WILEY · Apr 1, 2013

You can find some stuff about unsharp black and white masking, but anything related to color would be
basically obsolete because either the masking film or the output media itself are now gone. But it can
be worthwhile to study such things as a general background. I don't have time to publish anything, as
if that many people were still interested! I blame the web for having become the new standard of visual communication - in other words, the lowest common denominator of quality, and how most people simply have no concept of what a well done color print looks like. The other is the instant everything mentality of our culture (even though a simple mask might do things more efficiently than futzing around on a screen). Perhaps naively, I assume I'm in friendly surrounding on APUG, but without
going into a diatribe of pros and cons, I simply enjoy the tactile side of darkroom work, as well as the
relatively seamless look of true optical prints. For me at least, masking is fun.

DREW WILEY · Apr 1, 2013

Should add - while things like Pan Masking film (mentioned in all the old literature) are indeed obsolete, you can do an even better job with current films like FP4 or TMX if you know the right tricks.

DREW WILEY · Apr 2, 2013

Oh... and if you didn't appreciate my cowpie analogy, let me explain... Most color neg films in the past
were deliberately smudged to create the complex neutrals resulting in "pleasing skintones" under a wide
variety of lighting conditions. The engineers did a brilliant job of this, but then over time have tried to
figure out how to keep certain saturated color clean. But at this point in history, you still can't completely have your cake and eat it too. Chromes still rule for hue cleanliness, but not for exposure
range. Ektar is making roads into chrome territory in this respect. But it can become dirty ("cowpied")
through incorrect exposure or balancing. Once the dirt is in, it can be almost impossible to get out.
So much easier just to correctly filter to begin with.

DREW WILEY · Apr 2, 2013

Wrong thread... ooops, should have been per Ektar squabble, but heck, why not here too!

RPC · Apr 4, 2013

Here is a little info I found about the Type B papers mentioned earier. This is an excerpt written by Robert Chapman from an answer to a question about Type B papers and its process in Photographic Processes-The Chemistry of Photography Vol. II, from about 1987:

"Type B is the name given older papers based on Agfa technology. The color couplers in these papers are immobilized by adding long-chain chemical ballasts to the coupler molecules rather than by incorporating the couplers in oil droplets. Oil-droplet immobilization is used on all type A materials. To my knowledge, Kodak was the first to use this principle. Type A developers generally contain benzyl alcohol (but this has been changing in recent years) to assist developer permeation of the oil droplets."

He then goes on to give process formulas. The developing agents were CD-2 or CD-4.

DREW WILEY · Apr 4, 2013

Just to put another tweak on the original post, "Is this all there is?..." Maybe, but it's getting pretty
damn impressive if you know how to work the medium. Within this month I'm realistically expecting to
get better prints with color neg and RA4 paper than I did with Ciba. And I was a world-class Ciba printer. I hate the fumes of RA4 chem (hence I develop in drums outdoors), but the results are sooooo
encouraging. Couldn't have said that even a few years ago. It makes inkjet look like fingerpainting.

noacronym · Apr 4, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
Just to put another tweak on the original post, "Is this all there is?..." Maybe, but it's getting pretty
damn impressive if you know how to work the medium. Within this month I'm realistically expecting to
get better prints with color neg and RA4 paper than I did with Ciba. And I was a world-class Ciba printer. I hate the fumes of RA4 chem (hence I develop in drums outdoors), but the results are sooooo
encouraging. Couldn't have said that even a few years ago. It makes inkjet look like fingerpainting.

But the permanence of Cibachrome and Kodachrome is the reason that it SHOULD be the only color left today, instead of neg to positive, which can start fading from day 1.

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 4, 2013

noacronym said:
But the permanence of Cibachrome and Kodachrome is the reason that it SHOULD be the only color left today, instead of neg to positive, which can start fading from day 1.

Well it's not. And thank Christ for that.

Move on.

Roger Cole · Apr 4, 2013

Modern C41/RA4 is not that of yesterday. Most of the fading reputation actually comes, I think, from earlier EP2. My high school graduation photo from 1981, for example, is badly faded and looks like someone splattered it with light red/magenta dots. I scanned it and restored it tremendously with just a few clicks (far from a professional job but family is pleased) and printed an inkjet from it. My parents have the inkjet print hanging in the living room - basic consumer inkjet from an old Epson 640 at that. Modern materials certainly don't fade like that, though I don't know if they yet compare to Ciba.

I too am glad Koda/Cibachrome are not the only color left. I'd rather have what we have than that - but I'd love to have that combo again, or just Astia and Ciba. Ok, my moment for sighing has passed, I gladly move on from the wistful look back now.

DREW WILEY · Apr 5, 2013

Let's just be grateful that most of Aunt Maude's vacation pictures have faded into oblivion, and also let us hope that most of today's artsyfied inkjet abominations will also fade prompty. Ciba certainly fades if subjected to strong UV commercial lighting or direct sunlight. It seems to be very permanent in the dark. The current Crystal Archive II medium is allegedly a lot more display permanent than Ciba, but
will probably start to discolor within several decades due to residual couplers, regardless of conditions
(except perhaps hermetically frozen). It therefore represents a good value. We all "fade" too.

Is RA-4 All There Is Now?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency