Kodak Professional Endura Premier for Darkroom Use

[mcgyvr116]

Hi All,

I've seen on other threads here that people are interested in knowing the results of optical exposure of Kodak Endura Premier. I spent a good portion of my day cutting down a 20"x288' roll of this stuff in various sizes (8x10, 16x20, 20x24) for use in the darkroom.

I did a couple of tests and would just like to say that this paper is AMAZING! The D-Max is remarkable compared to the Fuji Crystal Archive Type II cut sheets. The blacks on Endura Premier make the blacks on Fuji CAII look washed out with a light tint of magenta.

It is definitely worth the time to buy a roll of this stuff and cut it down into sheets instead of bothering with the God awful Fuji Crystal Archive Type II for enlarging.

It has a slightly thicker base than Fuji's and also has a "Do Not Copy" and "Professional Images are Copyrighted" watermark on the back of the paper which is nice. Renders skin tones very naturally also.

I used the Type N (Matte) finish and ordered my roll from B&H for $298.95 free 3 day shipping. It comes out to about 864 sheets of 8x10

 

[Roger Cole]

The back printing isn't so nice for using it in a camera for paper negatives and printing again for a positive through the base. I also kind of resent Kodak claiming a copyright for me I may or may not want to claim.

Sorry, back printing just bugs me.

Never the less, someone could make a lucrative little business out of cutting this down and re-selling it in cut sheets for those of us too lazy or too busy to cut it down ourselves.

But most people seem to report good results with Fuji CAII.

 

[mnemosyne]

This reflects my own findings (especially in regard to the stunning quality of the blacks). To be fair the Fuji CA paper does have the brighter whites IMO, but the Fuji whites show a bit of an "artificial" or cold tone in direct comparison. In Europe, phototec.de is selling custom cut sheets of Kodak EP paper in sizes up to 12"x16" and I can really recommend to at least give it a try. In my experience the paper is also quite robust which makes it less susceptible to scratches and creases and thus easier to cut and handle than the thinner based Fuji CA standard (European market version). For those who hate back prints, there are variations of the paper without backprint, at least the F and N surfaces sold here in Europe are.

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't really "hate" the back printing. For most of my stuff it wouldn't matter. I wouldn't avoid a paper because of it.

Last I looked there were cut sheet packages being sold on eBay but I haven't checked in a while.

 

[mcgyvr116]

I've always wanted to try this paper, but buying it in cut sheets from ebay always seemed a bit sketchy to me. Cutting it myself, I can make sure that I am cutting in a completely blacked out room with white gloves on to avoid fingerprints. Plus, nobody is cutting down to 20x24 which is what I need since I do murals.

Also, Buying a roll and doing it yourself averages out to a savings of $5 per 100sheets of 8x10 vs buying a pre-cut box of Fuji CAII. I'm all about quality, but when I can save money and get better quality, then thats a super bonus! If companies that cut this stuff down didn't charge so much I'd probably buy from them, but until then, looks like I'm cutting my own.

 

[frotog]

Kodak Premiere vs. Fuji CAII = unfair comparison. Ca ii is a lowly, silver-starved minilab paper that fuji has cynically marketed to student photographers, diy amateurs and analogue-only fiends. Shame that so few people can figure this out, or even worse, can't tell the difference between the two.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I see that the same ole BS nonsense has resurfaced. Some people should have learned by now.

 

[mcgyvr116]

Kodak Premiere vs. Fuji CAII = unfair comparison. Ca ii is a lowly, silver-starved minilab paper that fuji has cynically marketed to student photographers, diy amateurs and analogue-only fiends. Shame that so few people can figure this out, or even worse, can't tell the difference between the two.

I don't appreciate the condescending tone. I am on your side. It just takes some people longer to figure out than others...

I do agree that it is an unfair comparison, and the only reason I compare it to Fuji CAII is because it is what the majority of people are using for cut sheet C-Printing.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've always wanted to try this paper, but buying it in cut sheets from ebay always seemed a bit sketchy to me. Cutting it myself, I can make sure that I am cutting in a completely blacked out room with white gloves on to avoid fingerprints. Plus, nobody is cutting down to 20x24 which is what I need since I do murals.

Also, Buying a roll and doing it yourself averages out to a savings of $5 per 100sheets of 8x10 vs buying a pre-cut box of Fuji CAII. I'm all about quality, but when I can save money and get better quality, then thats a super bonus! If companies that cut this stuff down didn't charge so much I'd probably buy from them, but until then, looks like I'm cutting my own.

Handling a big roll and cutting it down precisely under complete darkness or RA4-safe safelight always seemed such an iffy proposition to me I didn't want to take it on and $5 per 100 seems a small price to pay for someone else to do the honors - to me anyway. Of course if there are fingerprints, safelight fogging or other problems, it's not a bargain at any price.

$5 per 100 is five cents a sheet. Seems like a bargain to me IF it's done well.

The older I get the more willing I am to pay for someone else to do the tedious, time consuming and mindless work and free up my time and energy.

 

[Roger Cole]

I see that the same ole BS nonsense has resurfaced. Some people should have learned by now.

I trust your opinion but when I get back into RA4 I would like to verify how the two work for me, if the Kodak is available (I'm not hauling a big assed roll down to the darkroom and trying to cut it down into sheets under my Duka 50 on lowest setting or, worse, complete darkness though - for ME and my klutziness and frustration factor, that's an invitation to waste the cost of the roll, a lot of time, and get frustrated and angry into the bargain.)

I trust that CAII works fine for optical printing because the most knowledgeable people I know report that it does. But there may be something that makes good results easier to get with the Kodak, or something. I'd like to try both.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So how do you evaluate your results? With a white cane?

 

[DREW WILEY]

(Last remark not aimed at you, Roger). I recently mixed a batch of CAII Fujiflex prints in a portfolio with Cibachromes. I had to tell people
which was which. Otherwise they couldn't tell the difference. They were that good. (Of course, a black border versus a white border would
be a dead giveaway; but rich blacks, very saturated hues where needed, you name it. Contrast control in either case is via masking.) But
even the paper CAII is pretty remarkable stuff, and is routinely used not only for direct enlargement, but also in laser printers for printing
chomes via scans. EXACTLY the same paper options.

 

[mcgyvr116]

I trust your opinion but when I get back into RA4 I would like to verify how the two work for me, if the Kodak is available (I'm not hauling a big assed roll down to the darkroom and trying to cut it down into sheets under my Duka 50 on lowest setting or, worse, complete darkness though - for ME and my klutziness and frustration factor, that's an invitation to waste the cost of the roll, a lot of time, and get frustrated and angry into the bargain.)

I trust that CAII works fine for optical printing because the most knowledgeable people I know report that it does. But there may be something that makes good results easier to get with the Kodak, or something. I'd like to try both.

Since you don't mind paying to have sheets cut down for you, if you're interested I'm willing to offer that service to you at a price if you're interested.

 

[Roger Cole]

I may be once I get my darkroom build out finished. Right now I'm doing B&W using holding baths with running water upstairs. I've been waiting to get the plumbing done begone getting back into color. I'm aiming for spring for that.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

 

[mcgyvr116]

The Paper on the right is the D-Max of Fuji CAII and on the left is the D-Max of Kodak PROFESSIONAL Endura Premier.

Both were exposed under white light for 10 seconds under the same enlarger with the same settings. The paper was then put through a temperature controlled RT paper processor. The results are clear...

**Please exuse the crude image, it was taken on my iphone. The paper is dirty because it fell out of the processor onto the floor, oops.

 

[pentaxuser]

When I click onto Attachment 97259 it says it is invalid. Anyone else have the same result?

pentaxuser

 

[mcgyvr116]

When I click onto Attachment 97259 it says it is invalid. Anyone else have the same result?

pentaxuser

I fixed it, please let me know if it works now.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Test and choose your preference. The more choices the better, and maybe with more renewed interest, a better selection of cut sheet will
become available from both major manufacturers. What I object to is the notion that one major mfg is totally incompetent and only makes cheap "Photofinishing" paper. While a full service lab might offer an inexpensive "machine print" option for shapshooters, I do not know of
any "Minilab" that invests huge sums of time and money into fifty or sixty-inch wide RA4 processors, automated XY roll film cutters of equal capacity, big Chromira or Lambda printers, drum scanners, trained personnel, and substantial leases and permits - in order to output on exactly the same kind of Fuji CAII papers that I use under an enlarger. And I have no doubt I can do at least as well as any of them, probably better, but not necessarily faster. On forums like these it seems someone is always calling Fuji stupid for this n' that, Kodak stupid for something else, and never blaming themselves for not learning to properly use films and papers, which in fact are better than ever in their respect categories. We should be encouraging people to try home color darkroom printing, not discouraging them. Inkjet doesn't appeal to everyone. And the end result can be just as high quality as someone is willing to aim. I'm proud to be an "analog amateur"...
always learning something new.

 

[Wayne]

View attachment 97262
The Paper on the right is the D-Max of Fuji CAII and on the left is the D-Max of Kodak PROFESSIONAL Endura Premier.

Both were exposed under white light for 10 seconds under the same enlarger with the same settings. The paper was then put through a temperature controlled RT paper processor. The results are clear...

**Please exuse the crude image, it was taken on my iphone. The paper is dirty because it fell out of the processor onto the floor, oops.

Hmmm...That is such a large difference as to be difficult to believe. Not that I doubt you, but I can't help but wonder if some other variable came into play

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm indeed!.. Look at the off-color. I've never seen anything like that with Fuji paper. Never. Or maybe it's just the cell phone and web
playing tricks.

 

[eddie]

View attachment 97262
The Paper on the right is the D-Max of Fuji CAII and on the left is the D-Max of Kodak PROFESSIONAL Endura Premier.

Both were exposed under white light for 10 seconds under the same enlarger with the same settings. The paper was then put through a temperature controlled RT paper processor. The results are clear...

I haven't printed color in many years but, based on experience with different B&W papers, I think your testing procedure is flawed. The different B&W papers I use require different exposure/developing time to reach D-Max. All you've shown is that, at 10 seconds, you think Endura reaches D-Max, while the Fuji does not. It doesn't show that the Fuji wouldn't hit it (and perhaps match/surpass the Endura) at 20, or 25, or 30 seconds.
I'll leave it to those that have extensive use of both to tell me if I'm wrong, but I can't imagine a paper which displays as you've shown to have lasted more than a week on the market.

 

[Roger Cole]

What Eddie said. That test really doesn't prove anything, except perhaps that CAII produces a color cast with your enlarger set for white, which can no doubt be filtered to neutral.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gotta get to first base before you can argue with the umpire about sliding into home plate.

 

[mcgyvr116]

Test and choose your preference. The more choices the better, and maybe with more renewed interest, a better selection of cut sheet will
become available from both major manufacturers. What I object to is the notion that one major mfg is totally incompetent and only makes cheap "Photofinishing" paper. While a full service lab might offer an inexpensive "machine print" option for shapshooters, I do not know of
any "Minilab" that invests huge sums of time and money into fifty or sixty-inch wide RA4 processors, automated XY roll film cutters of equal capacity, big Chromira or Lambda printers, drum scanners, trained personnel, and substantial leases and permits - in order to output on exactly the same kind of Fuji CAII papers that I use under an enlarger. And I have no doubt I can do at least as well as any of them, probably better, but not necessarily faster. On forums like these it seems someone is always calling Fuji stupid for this n' that, Kodak stupid for something else, and never blaming themselves for not learning to properly use films and papers, which in fact are better than ever in their respect categories. We should be encouraging people to try home color darkroom printing, not discouraging them. Inkjet doesn't appeal to everyone. And the end result can be just as high quality as someone is willing to aim. I'm proud to be an "analog amateur"...
always learning something new.

I'm not saying Fuji as a company sucks, nor am I discouraging home C-printing. I really like Fuji professional transparency and negative film. I'm saying that Fuji Crystal Archive Type II Color Enlarging Paper SUCKS as a product itself. It is a minilab paper whether you want to believe it or not (the characteristic curve on the tech sheet says it all). Pro labs don't use Fuji CAII, they use Fuji PROFESSIONAL Enlarging Paper which is Fuji Crystal Archive Professional Super Type P, Fuji Crystal Archive Professional Super Type PDN, Fuji Crystal Archive Professional Super Type CN, Fuji Crystal Archive Professional Super Type PDII. Notice that all these papers have the word PROFESSIONAL in their title. Thats because they are professional papers. Nowhere will you ever find documentation that says Fuji Crystal Archive Type II is a professional paper because it is NOT. If you claim to achieve great results with this paper, then great! But I personally find this paper inferior to any other professional paper out there. I do not like it, so I will not advocate for it. I will advocate for Professional papers such as Kodak Professional Endura Premier or Fuji Crystal Archive Professional Super Type CN.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It sucks just because, either you haven't gotten to first base yet (i.e., you don't actually know how to use it properly), or perhaps you've gotten ahold of the wrong type of paper altogether. I'm sorry, mcgyvr, but your information is complete nonsense on all counts, and frankly, I suspect your methodology is flawed. CAII is a broad product category in various surfaces, sizes, and even different substrates entirely, and implies certain improvements in image stability and printing characteristics over the old Super C and P. But the processing variables and even color balance are only a tiny bit different. If you prefer Kodak paper that's fine ... glad it works for you, and by all means get the word out what you like about it. But in terms of wisecracking about the incompetence of Fuji paper, two or three people on a web forum aren't going to sway the opinion of the many labs worldwide which routinely use CAII with proficiency, nor people like me who know from experience that it's a very fine product directly descended from Super C, and damn easy to print. In fact, the Fuji Supergloss
forty inch stock I have on hand is the CAII style emulsion. I've printed on the former C version too, so know the distinction. And at a thousand bucks a roll, I don't think anyone would classify this as a "non-professional" product! But I have cut sheet 20X24 CAII RC paper on
hand too, and it is very similar to Super C, but with brighter white base and somewhat cleaner hues. The blacks are not muddy at all.