Kodak Royal Digital Paper-----Crap?

[Bobby Ironsights]

Hi, I've shot a few rolls of colour film from time to time, and got an enlargement recently of a frame of a 35mm roll I shot three or four months ago. Not a big enlargement, just a 5x7.

The print was made by a local lab with an excellent reputation, one of the few labs that still develops and prints medium format film.

The print sucks. It really sucks bag. It's lacking in contrast and colour saturation.

Why? Is it the paper? Is it dirty chemicals? Is it operator error?

Is this place not using an optical enlarger?

What's up?

 

[Ray Heath]

why don't you take it back and ask them?

 

[Moopheus]

Is this place not using an optical enlarger?

Probably not. And the automated machine prints in my experience tend to be junk.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Bring it back and ask them. Where I worked, we'd always have a newbie on the machine and they'd inevitably blow something out or calibrate the machine half-assed. It happens.
As for the enlarger being optical, probably not. It's unfortunate too. Noritsu has it's MLVA and led or laser technology which IMHO is jagged, pixelated and crummy looking.

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

why don't you take it back and ask them?

Oh, absutively Ray!

I just thought that when I go back, I'd go back forewarned and know whether or not I'm wasting my time, whether I need to pay for better paper....

I did some research before posting this on the web, but all I could find was the copy put out by Kodak themselves that promises spectacular results under every concievable condition. Good copy writers Kodak has!:rolleyes:

 

[Ray Heath]

my experience of modern colour printing is that the quality does vary greatly

from really crap to really good

from really natural to grossly over sharpened

my local Kodak store uses a system that will print either negs or digital files straight onto wet processed photographic paper, the results from either source are excellent and comparable to what was possible in pre-digital times

 

[jd callow]

Bobby,
I doubt it is the paper. Saturation and contrast is overwhelmingly controlled by the device when printed digitally. The least contrasty Kodak paper (Portra) and the most contrasty (ultra or maybe one of their consumer papers like edge) cover a contrast range of maybe 1 grade or 1.5 grades in B&W terms. Not to be an apologist for Kodak, but the information they offer on their products is infinitely more in-depth than any other photographic manufacturer.

If the neg was done optically there is very little control over contrast and saturation -- you cannot invent what is not there nor hide what is. If the chems where bad the blacks would be blue, the whites may be yellow and in either instance the print would look very wrong.

You need to ask questions and jump to conclusions later if at all. I suspect that the printer (as in the machine used to create the print) was not calibrated to your tastes. When you handed over the neg did you give them an example (a prior print from the same frame) of what it was you wanted or did you give instructions as to how you wanted the print to look? If you did either and the print came back wrong your beef is with the lab. If you did not you may wish to talk to the guy in the mirror. In any event I would be very surprised if the paper is the culprit.

 

[Neal]

Dear Bobby Ironsights,

"The print was made by a local lab with an excellent reputation, one of the few labs that still develops and prints medium format film."

You should have no problem discussing the print at such a lab. They are probably used to it. Did you like the original 4x6? If you did, bring it with you.

Neal Wydra

 

[Snapshot]

This will sound like a silly question but...

What's digital about Kodak Royal Digital paper? Is it marketing blarney for digital camera/file users that want prints?

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is designed for both white light printing and digital printer use. The digital printer exposes differently than white light, and so the reciprocity and spectral sensitivities are slightly different.

PE

 

[jd callow]

I've used some of Kodak's paper that has been labeled digital and found it to be very similar if not exactly the same as their reg RA4 paper. PE I think said that the paper labeled digital had a slight speed adjustment (or something) and I believe that all the paper is now homogenized. The stuff I used was called Digital II and I was told it was based upon supra II -- this was back a few years prior to the endura paper line. I suspect it is marketing drivel or a standardized back printing option for consumer roll paper as most if not all roll paper is used in digital printers.

<oops PE beat me to it>

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ok, to be more specific, to get unlined images from muliple pass exposures in a digital printer, the exposures have to overlap slightly and then also give very short exposures. Therefore the latent image keeping is adjusted for the multiple exposures and the reciprocity is adjusted for the very short exposures. Since the LED or Laser light in the printer is not continuous, but is discontinuous, the sensitivity is matched to that of the LEDs in the printer. Fuji and Kodak papers use different LEDs for exposure.

There are more details, but I have forgotten a lot of them. Jim Browning is the expert on this, and has patents on the equipment. Perhaps he would care to chime in.

PE

 

[Snapshot]

It is designed for both white light printing and digital printer use. The digital printer exposes differently than white light, and so the reciprocity and spectral sensitivities are slightly different.

PE

I see. Well, that makes some sense to me.

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

Thanks for all your info guys.

To be clear, I guess I should mention that

1. A prior print from a fuji lab in 4x6 was quite nice, which is why I assumed it must be the printing paper from the lab using kodak.
2. I'm sort of splitting hairs, it's not that it's a "horrible" print, it's just that it looks more like a snapshot, than the original proof would indicate.
3. I'm sure that I may be responsible, at least to some degree. I need to be clear when I give instructions to the lab.
4. The whites DO look a bit yellowy, perhaps the chemicals are a little past thier prime.

I also really appreciate the information on the paper, I'm glad that it is not as bad as I suspected. When I felt it, the paper was quite thin, and I when I read digital on the back, I thought it might have been "inkjetted" and that's where the bulk of my ire came from.

 

[spotulate]

I worked for a lab that used Fuji digital stuff for some time. I saw quite a few times people bringing back/not buying fuji prints coz they did not look like the ones on the Kodak paper they had origiinally been printed. Why this is, I can only imagine it has to do with the scanning/image processing. IMO the Kodak paper has vastly brighter color. Also, "digital" paper is just a marketing term. It's the same old RA-4 stuff (or close enough) that you know and love. Personally I'd just find someone running Noritsu/kodak stuff and take your printing there from now on to keep your results consistent.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dear "Spot";

It isn't the same paper, I assure you. Also, Kodak paper has been designed to work with all negative films, but AFAIK, Fuji paper has not. I have seen and heard of failures. That said, I have seen excellent prints on both papers. It takes a good operator and process.

PE