Kodak Professional Endura Premier for Darkroom Use

mcgyvr116 · Nov 5, 2014

DREW WILEY said:
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.

I actually know someone who would classify this as a non professional product. Fujifilm themselves. Why don't you log onto their website and check the specs for yourself? I'm giving you all the information, all you have to do is verify it. I don't mind that you like using Fuji CAII. What bothers me is that you deny the fact that it is a non professional minilab grade paper.

pentaxuser · Nov 5, 2014

mcgyvr116 said:
I actually know someone who would classify this as a non professional product. Fujifilm themselves. Why don't you log onto their website and check the specs for yourself? I'm giving you all the information, all you have to do is verify it. I don't mind that you like using Fuji CAII. What bothers me is that you deny the fact that it is a non professional minilab grade paper.

Does that mean that all users of minilab prints have to suffer inferior prints and if this is the case then to cater for all consumers, including the more discerning, I wonder why minilabs don't offer the professional paper to those who want it? Alternatively why do the minilabs not insist on using professional paper only to avoid complaints from those customers like you who have seen inferior results and presumably there must be many who can see the same problems as you do with Fuji CAII?

An alternative explanation is that minilabs have a way of avoiding the print problems you highlight because of their printing process which isn't available to home printers and which only the "professional" paper can resolve for the analogue enlarger and home processor? Is this the case, do you believe?

Until quite recently Kodak didn't use the description "professional" for its paper. Has Kodak improved its paper or simply used the word professional as part of its marketing. In the recent past I don't think Fuji used the word "professional" either.

Maybe the word professional does mean something " better" for want of a better word in your opinion? Film makers, Fuji being a good example do use the word professional for some of their films but I am not sure this means that "ordinary" film such as Fuji Superia is inferior.

A local wedding photographer who also owns a minilab uses Fuji Superia, not the Fuji Pro film, stating that she has tried several Fuji films including the professional ones but found that Fuji Superia gave her prints as good as any.

Lots of thoughts and questions on my part but you may have information which will help answer my questions?

Thanks

pentaxuser

DREW WILEY · Nov 5, 2014

How many "mini-labs" in the world use RA4 paper up to five feet wide? How many use digital printing and processing setups that cost anywhere from half a million to two million bucks? How many have $75,000 Durst enlargers. That's a no-brainer. The answer is
ZERO. Once again, mcgyvr, you're shooting form the hip. Those of us who actually use the products know the difference. And there is a titanic difference between doing a bit of casual web surfing on a marketing site and doing actual homework. I have no problem producing world-class quality prints using CAII products. Yeah, I do know some tricks some people don't. But if people would spend 5% as much effort fine-tuning their color technique as they have traditionally done making "fine" black and white prints in the darkroom, all this nonsense would be settled once for all. Like I said, once you actually arrive at first base, you'll begin to get some credibility. Otherwise, strike three!

DREW WILEY · Nov 5, 2014

...Oh, I should add that there is a significant difference between a Fuji website and an actual product list. The latter are not in the public domain because they're intended for dealers, and contain dealer pricing, along with actual product numbers. In other words, there's a way bigger selection of products than on the website. This is not uncommon. Some mfgs feature only 5-10% of their products on conspicuous sites. I deal with all kinds of manufacturers because I am a professional buyer. Website design is often relegated to subsidiary employees. And in this case, volume users tend to be in contact with inside people, and alsoare more likely to already the product specification they're interested in. I've already been chided on this very forum for claiming certain products exist which somebody tethered to a high-fructose
corn syrup IV can't find on the website; yet there these papers are, right in my own darkroom! Guess you haven't been around many full
service pro labs lately.

gopher · Nov 5, 2014

Kodak Premier paper

I have been doing analog color printing in my home darkroom for many years. I have tested the previously available Kodak Endura cut sheet paper compared to the current Fuji Crystal Archive Type 11 and cannot see a difference. The Fuji paper yields superb results, no question about it. Because of this Fuji should be supported so they will continue to offer cut sheets.

Roger Cole · Nov 5, 2014

In film "professional" at one time did mean something about when in its aging cycle the film was released (amateur film a bit early, expected to be stored a while at room temperature and shot slowly) versus pro films released close to optimum color expecting pros to test each emulsion batch then cold store when it was right for them, and to shoot and process promptly once warmed. Even then it had NOTHING to do with quality but with intended use.

Now it means absolutely squat in any product I can think of. It's just marketing buzz. Maybe that's not true of paper - but I am not convinced, certainly not by marketing!

DREW WILEY · Nov 6, 2014

Sometimes close-to-outdated or discontinued roll remnants will be sold for private labeling to some distributor at a discount. But with respect
to RA4 paper, the overall amateur market to so tiny compared to commercial use, that there is no logical incentive for any mfg of such
products to even offer a lower tier line in this day and age. Fuji makes it perfectly apparent that they offer different paper thicknesses in
NARROW rolls for minilab-style machines. And I have no idea which products are packaged and distributed outside the US. My own current
batch of 20X24 CAII paper was mfg in Holland, while my big Fujiflex roll was mfg in Japan. As far as some dive off the cliff in quality, the
difference between the widely acclaimed Super C (which I still have remnants of two distinct batches on hand) and the vilified CAII is only
about 5cc of green balance (additive printing), with virtually identical printing speed and development, and actually a bit better hue rendition. The contrast is somewhat different, cause they obviously want one paper where the laser can be programmed to do what previously two different papers were required for (C and P). But is a minor issue, because in analog optical printing, contrast is relative
to degree of enlargement and the contrast of the original neg itself, which are not fixed variables. Since there's nothing equivalent to a
VC paper in color, you basically have the choice of doing significant contrast adjustments using curve correction in digital printing, or masking in analog, just like it's been done for decades. No big deal.

Roger Cole · Nov 8, 2014

Well now, yes. At one time Kodak at least offered three contrast "grades" in Portra, Supra and Ultra, though the differences between each (subjectively, I've never owned or used a desnitometer) were more like 1/2 grade in B&W. This still gave a useful selection though.

frotog · Nov 9, 2014

mcgyvr116 said:
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.

Rest assured that you'd get the same results if you increased exposure to 20", 30" or even 1'. The CAII's mottled, wimpy blacks are due to its low, low silver content - it is, after all, a minilab paper; more silver means more expense and more frequent chemistry changes. Of course, these results will not be news to anyone with printing experience or to anyone who's actually tried testing current RA4 papers. What a shame that there are so many here who are afraid to acknowledge this fact, too thick or blind to notice or (worse yet) most comfortable accepting the idiotic advice of a few, cranky analogue-only apologists on this forum. I can understand trying to bolster flagging sales of analogue photo products by promoting them here but deliberately lying about their virtues helps no one.

Roger Cole · Nov 9, 2014

"Rest assured...?" Why, because you say so? And very experienced printers like Drew disagree?

perkeleellinen · Nov 9, 2014

In the UK the Fuji paper is cut by a 3rd party (Ilford?), I wish the new Kodak was available cut here like it is in Germany. Happy to chip in if a few UK printers want to get together and buy a roll (some else will need to cut it though).

pentaxuser · Nov 9, 2014

frotog said:
. Of course, these results will not be news to anyone with printing experience or to anyone who's actually tried testing current RA4 papers. What a shame that there are so many here who are afraid to acknowledge this fact, too thick or blind to notice or (worse yet) most comfortable accepting the idiotic advice of a few, cranky analogue-only apologists on this forum. I can understand trying to bolster flagging sales of analogue photo products by promoting them here but deliberately lying about their virtues helps no one

Aren't we all cranky analogue-only apologists here on APUG? Doesn't APUG stand for Analogue Photography User Group? Aren't you a member of this group?

Should we abandon all analogue photo products, especially RA4 papers and if so where do we go?

I am confused as to what to do now. What should I do now if I want colour prints or indeed anything from these flagging analogue photo products? Is the end really nigh? It certainly sounds so

pentaxuser

eddie · Nov 9, 2014

frotog said:
Rest assured that you'd get the same results if you increased exposure to 20", 30" or even 1'.

I'd like to see the OP do just as you suggest. Until then, he's proven nothing. The test methodology was severely flawed, only meant to reinforce his bias against the paper. Does anyone really believe a paper which performs this poorly would ever have been developed, let alone marketed for years?

Roger Cole · Nov 9, 2014

eddie said:
I'd like to see the OP do just as you suggest. Until then, he's proven nothing. The test methodology was severely flawed, only meant to reinforce his bias against the paper. Does anyone really believe a paper which performs this poorly would ever have been developed, let alone marketed for years?

+1.

Drew may be a bit...cantankerous at times, but check out his web site and images. He knows what he's talking about. If he says he gets good results from it, he does. And if he does and others don't I tend to believe it's a matter of poor technique on their part more than anything.

Wayne · Nov 9, 2014

frotog said:
Rest assured that you'd get the same results if you increased exposure to 20", 30" or even 1'.

Oh, bullshit.

AgX · Nov 9, 2014

mcgyvr116 said:
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.

No paper of Fuji's european range bears the term "professional".

frotog · Nov 10, 2014

Roger Cole said:
"Rest assured...?" Why, because you say so? And very experienced printers like Drew disagree?

10" under the white light setting of the enlarger is plenty enough exposure to hit the dmax of any RA paper. I suppose you could experiment for yourself and discover the same thing and then you'd have something substantial to comment on, right? But then why pull your head out of Drew's ass when you're having such a fun time up there?

pentaxuser
Quote Originally Posted by frotog View Post
. Of course, these results will not be news to anyone with printing experience or to anyone who's actually tried testing current RA4 papers. What a shame that there are so many here who are afraid to acknowledge this fact, too thick or blind to notice or (worse yet) most comfortable accepting the idiotic advice of a few, cranky analogue-only apologists on this forum. I can understand trying to bolster flagging sales of analogue photo products by promoting them here but deliberately lying about their virtues helps no one
Aren't we all cranky analogue-only apologists here on APUG? Doesn't APUG stand for Analogue Photography User Group? Aren't you a member of this group?

Should we abandon all analogue photo products, especially RA4 papers and if so where do we go?

I am confused as to what to do now. What should I do now if I want colour prints or indeed anything from these flagging analogue photo products? Is the end really nigh? It certainly sounds so

pentaxuser

No one is telling you to abandon anything. The OP's post was simply a report of his observations with Fuji's CAii cut sheet product. They happen to mirror my own experience with this paper and everyone else who has used it and is capable of honestly assessing its qualities relative to other RA4 papers, namely that it absolutely sucks in every comparison. If you're still using RA4 under an enlarger than you're doing so because you enjoy the process, not because you're trying to get the most out of the print. It's been long reported here that you can get better results in analogue RA using Kodak pro papers or Fuji Pro papers. However, if image quality is your only goal then you'd be posting comments on printing threads in the hybrid forums, not lamenting the inevitable demise of papers and obsolete processes.

Roger Cole · Nov 10, 2014

frotog said:
10" under the white light setting of the enlarger is plenty enough exposure to hit the dmax of any RA paper. I suppose you could experiment for yourself and discover the same thing and then you'd have something substantial to comment on, right? But then why pull your head out of Drew's ass when you're having such a fun time up there?

He's hardly the only one who has reported that it works fine. PE has said the same, for one.

This is a degree of nastiness that I simply refuse to tolerate from anyone. Welcome to my ignore list.

DREW WILEY · Nov 10, 2014

The published DMax for both Endura and CAII glossy papers is about the same, around 2.75, though the Fuji appears to be more neutral at this depth. The exception is the reformulated Fujiflex (gloss polyester base) which is stated to have a distinctly higher, and certainly does visually, compared to its immediate predecessor as well as all RC papers. Matte papers will obviously have somewhat less DMax in either brand, topping out around 2.5. Since these numbers are logarithmic numbers, matte papers will inherently be noticeably less black. I have already pointed out the VERY small differences between Super C papers and CAII in terms of printing speed, color balance, handling, etc.
All of these papers are extremely easy to balance and print, and differ only incrementally from previous generations of Fuji and Kodak papers. There have always been minor options in terms of contrast and surface sheen. Transparent color media and plastic high-gloss media deserve their own categories, though other than the hassle of cutting down rolls, Fujiflex is easy enough to print analog too. Any competent practitioner should be able to get superb results in an analog-only darkroom. But today's RA4 papers are not only more fade
resistant than those of previous decades, but also improved in terms of hue accuracy. I have never gotten a mottled or washed out black
with any RA4 paper I have ever used over the decades, whether Kodak or Fuji. Things have only gotten better. If there is a significant problem in this respect, it might be worthwhile to question one's technique and stop blaming reputable manufacturers.

RPC · Nov 11, 2014

mcgyvr116 said:
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.

I am in the states and the lab I work at uses Super Type P and I don't see "Professional" anywhere on the box.

frotog · Nov 11, 2014

Published numbers regarding the dmax for fuji ra

Of all the ra papers in their catalogue, fuji type cn has the greatest published dmax at 2.4. Real world lab results with kodak ra chem might get you to dmax 2.3. If you want more, job it out to a lab running fuji's new digital ra chemistry.

Fuji caii has a published dmax of 2.1. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-190U2_PIB_TypeII_Paper.pdf

Fuji professional have themselves admitted that the actual figure is 1.8 to 1.9 - it is afterall their budget minilab paper.

Most likely drew has a "special" densitometer that rounds up fifty percent. Drew's got all kinds of special equipment to help him make his pictures.

DREW WILEY · Nov 11, 2014

Ignore function deployed, long overdo.

RPC · Nov 11, 2014

I recall measuring densities of at least 2.1 with the CAII glossy paper in my darkroom, and I don't know if that was even Dmax. So the 1.8-1.9 figures are unrealistic. Just because the densities of other papers may be higher doesn't mean they are better overall. And can anyone really see the difference between 2.1 and 2.3 or 2.4?

I have done A-B comparisons with Endura and CAII using the same negative, color balanced the same and it was hard to see any difference. CAII can be used with confidence.

DREW WILEY · Nov 11, 2014

Most neg images themselves don't necessarily favor full DMax. Otherwise you'd get a rather harsh contrasty print in those numerous cases where typical color neg films are employed for soft portrait work etc. Landscape and commercial subjects are a bit different, and fortunately we now have films like Ektar in a full range of formats which are well suited to bolder subjects. The reason pure digital printers benefit from a dedicated paper and souped-up developers is because lasers tend to produce weak blacks, so if upi want crisp lettering on signs with bold blacks and clean whites, the paper needs a steeper curve. This is a problem independent of DMax per se, but related to how to attain it given specific workflow issues. Enlarger colorheads do not have this problem, so actually have an advantage in this respect. Curve correction is done completely differently analog, however. Most darkroom workers don't need to worry about this, cause if they need to tweak the contrast of a given subject, they just pick a different color neg film more appropriate to the lighting ratio and color saturation requirements. But masking options supplemental to the basic orange mask can always be applied, for those inviting a minor challenge, or needing additional layers of printing refinement, especially regarding contrast ups or downs. It's a lot of fun if you gravitate toward hands-on darkroom technique, and the rewards in terms of print quality can be substantial. No, you're never going to get inside-a-cave deep blacks on any chromogenic paper like you would in something like classic dye-transfer printing. But how much do you really need? Certainly the blacks I am getting on Fuji Supergloss are visually equivalent to what I routinely obtained from Cibachrome, and only a side-by-side comparison by someone very experienced would detect any difference. And at least the blacks are consistent, and not uneven like inkjets. But whatever. Just do it. Medals never go to cowards.

DREW WILEY · Nov 11, 2014

There is a difference between "aim point" recommended for balancing digital laser rigs and DMax, which can be readily identified on an actual
film curve and is potentially greater. Otherwise, the sheen (or lack of sheen) on the paper dictates just how black something can look, just as with black and white papers. Otherwise, a non-issue in any practical sense.

Kodak Professional Endura Premier for Darkroom Use

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency