Printing optically on Kodak Supra Endura Digital paper.

[newcan1]

I am gearing up to try my hand at making some large prints - up to 30" x 40" as I have a large drum for this. Right now, the only large paper I have is a 30" roll of Supra Endura digital. I have some questions:

1. Generally, what kind of results could I get with this if I print using a conventional (C,Y,M) enlarger?

2. Would I get better results closer to digital exposure if I use my Philips PCS 2000 enlarger? It has a tri-color additive head, mixing narrow band filtered RGB light.

3. What likely complications will result from attempting room temperature processing (it is hard to maintain elevated temperature in a 40" long drum).

4. I know this is contrasty, saturated paper; I might try it with ECN-2 negatives. Any comments?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I do 30X40 RA4 drum prints myself, but using Fuji CA papers, so cannot directly answer your Endura question. But I do know that a Phillips enlarger is an extremely weak light source and problematic at best for big prints. I use additive colorheads myself, but custom-built to be hundreds of times brighter than an old rheostatically controlled system like Phillips, which just selectively dims each lamp. So you'd be better off with any number of conventional subtractive colorheads. You didn't state what format your negatives are, so I don't know the anticipated degree of magnification. Nor did you describe what your drum is made of, or how well insulated it might be. In this respect, both internal temp retention and reasonable external ambient air temp are factors. But RA4 is a bit finicky in that respect, so you need reasonably tight bottle temp control to begin with. I personally standardize on 83F and 2 min Dev time. Anything hotter and faster makes it hard to fill and drain consistently, while anything cooler and longer makes temp drift more a risk.

 

[pentaxuser]

I thought I had read somewhere that digital paper is designed for very short (as in less than a second) exposure. If this is the case what problems might arise with an optical enlarger exposure of several seconds?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[newcan1]

I thought I had read somewhere that digital paper is designed for very short (as in less than a second) exposure. If this is the case what problems might arise with an optical enlarger exposure of several seconds?

Thanks

pentaxuser

If that is the case then my weak light output from my Philips enlarger should be an asset.

I appreciate Drew's comments, but I still await answers to my more specific questions if anyone is able to weigh in. Especially re: how digital paper would respond to a subtractive colorhead, or whether additive is best.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The media you are referring to is for short-pulse repetition exposure in digital (LED) RA-4 processing machines e.g. Kodak Pegasus, among a few others.
KEP (our shorthand term for specifying this media at the print-step -- we use the metallic finished version exclusively as that is what clients appreciate in spectral areas) has never been used in optical wet processing to my knowledge in the lab where such production was once parallel to digital as an alternative.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I transitioned from optical printing to digital printing (lasers) and I noticed quite a speed increase, I used both enlarger and Lambda for RA4 prints for a few years and this was my observation that the newer papers were fast.. I used Metallic paper optically for years.

 

[RPC]

If that is the case then my weak light output from my Philips enlarger should be an asset.

The exposure is very short, but also very bright. Much brighter than your Philips could provide for such a short duration.

 

[pentaxuser]

The exposure is very short, but also very bright. Much brighter than your Philips could provide for such a short duration.

If the paper is meant for very intense short duration exposure then unless such intense burst produce an effect that longer lower intensity cannot produce then it suggests that longer optical printing is fine or am I missing something?

pentaxuser

 

[RPC]

There is the possibility of common reciprocity effects occurring if the paper is designed for very bright, brief exposures but is exposed with very dim, long exposures. So the relative dimness would be a problem, not an asset. Sorry, I should have been clearer. In any case, at 30X40 inches the exposure with the Philips would be quite long. Not saying it won't work, but unexpected problems may occur.

 

[newcan1]

If the paper is meant for very intense short duration exposure then unless such intense burst produce an effect that longer lower intensity cannot produce then it suggests that longer optical printing is fine or am I missing something?

pentaxuser

My thoughts exactly! Well i guess there is only one way to find out. I do have brighter enlargers than the Philips, but I am guessing that an RGB light source would be better than a subtractive source.

 

[newcan1]

I think I will try a couple of 8X10s on this paper at 100F processing temperature, to minimize variables. I will do that with a regular CMY enlarger and the Philips RGB enlarger. I will report back here with results.
The additional variables introduced by large printing would be room temperature chemistry, and much longer exposure times.

 

[MattKing]

You could always set up the enlarger to achieve the necessary magnification and then print an 8"x10" part of it. Basically a 1/16 test strip.
My guess is that the main challenge (if any) will relate to reciprocity failure.

 

[RPC]

According to Bob Carnie these papers are very fast so that will certainly help.

 

[pentaxuser]

My thoughts exactly! Well i guess there is only one way to find out. I do have brighter enlargers than the Philips, but I am guessing that an RGB light source would be better than a subtractive source.

Yes the key question now is at what exposure does reciprocity failure begin and is there a formula/table which gives the compensation. I have been here long enough and read enough for my memory to misfire but I seem to recall the question of RA4 digital paper exposed under an optical enlarger arising in the past. If exposing such paper under an optical enlarger had resulted in total failure I think it might have stuck in my mind and I can't recall that being the case

pentaxuser

 

[halfaman]

I have the experience of Fuji Crystal Archive DPII, which is also intented exclusively for digital printing, and it works beatifully with my Durst CLS 501 dicroic head. Times are very short, around 7 seconds at f/13 in 8x10'' enlargements, and saturation and contrast are higher (not much) than standard CA. This is better for my taste as I find normal CA a bit dull sometimes. It is my favourite paper right now.

So I will give Supra Endura a try if I could...

 

[BMbikerider]

I find quite number of contributors pose questions about problems that do not exactly exist. I use a LPL 7700 enlarger to print onto Kodak paper and this is under a Duka safe light. The exposure for a normal 12x16 print is quite short usually between 25 and 30 seconds (depending what stop the lens is set at) and and I have no problems whatsoever.

All this talk about reciprocal problems are to be quite blunt - rubbish. I do not use any sort of meter or colour balance adjuster apart from a test strip and a cool 6750 degree kelvin LED bulb used to assess the balance before printing the main image. If all the negatives are consistent, then upping or lowering the enlarger head to make differing sizes of prints, the exposure can be assessed quite simply using the most basic of maths. However, as the colour balance can drift slightly I always make a trial test strip print beforehand.

The secret is in my experience to standardise everything. Same film, same negative developer, same print developer, same paper. You have to get consistency to ensure you do not waste time and materials.

I have never been able to obtain the same standard of print using Fuji paper so remain with Kodak. It has a heavier base and a touch more contrast and saturation.

 

[RPC]

All this talk about reciprocal problems are to be quite blunt - rubbish.

Cut us some slack. It was simply pointed out there was the possibility of reciprocity effect.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have the experience of Fuji Crystal Archive DPII, which is also intented exclusively for digital printing, and it works beatifully with my Durst CLS 501 dicroic head. Times are very short, around 7 seconds at f/13 in 8x10'' enlargements, and saturation and contrast are higher (not much) than standard CA. This is better for my taste as I find normal CA a bit dull sometimes. It is my favourite paper right now.

So I will give Supra Endura a try if I could...

This makes a lot of sense to me... I have not used my Lambda for C prints for about 4 years now and I have not optically printed C prints for a longer period.

What I do know is that the trick with the papers for digital is all about the manufacturers matching a sensitivity of the lasers (Lambda) or LED's (Chromira) so that the paper can be dialed in with a 21 step wedge.. The same is true in Black and White, for some reason
Agfa Classic circa 2002 was easily picked up by the Lambda , but Ilford Warmtone was not able to be picked up... I made murals from Agfa first in Black and White fibre... Ilford introduced their paper and basically FWI Gather the paper is Galerie Grade 4 with an extra red sensitivity layer so that the lasers can see and profile. The grade 4 emulsion is easily tamed in PS and these prints exhibit a very nice black.

I have been able to step wedge out Ilford Ortho film and am making large neg's via the Lambda for a few years now. These neg's are primarily for those without darkrooms, space or skills with an enlarger.

I made Cibachromes digitally and optically, and remember the three grades of paper for optical printing, but for the Lambda we went straight to the highest contrast and saturation paper as the lasers did see this paper and we could control the contrast with Photoshop. I suggest this would be the same for RA4 paper, very fast and high contrast, and I see no reason for this RA4 paper not working on an enlarger .

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd be more concerned at this point about the fickleness of "room temp" chemistry. If that is off, everything else will be miserable to calibrate.

 

[DREW WILEY]

As per comparisons with Ciba ... ALL chromogenic papers are way way way faster to print. But the problem with underpowered additive exposure in this case is not only the possibility of color shifts or crossovers due to reciprocity failure where it's not ordinarily anticipated, but also due to the fact that basic narrow-band filters shift in spectral sensitivity as they overheat from prolonged illumination.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'd be more concerned at this point about the fickleness of "room temp" chemistry. If that is off, everything else will be miserable to calibrate.

Drew, are you referring to RA4 chemistry or to the problems said to occur with "room temperature" C41 chemistry in which colour crossover may occur and then no amount of filtration will correct?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was referring to RA4 kits marketed as "Room Temperature", implying one can be a bit careless using such products. Besides being distinctly overpriced for the volume required with big prints, I found them to be undependable too. Now I only use Kodak RA/RT or one of the exactly equivalent formulas. The published Kodak time/temp chart seems to still be valid. Since I am using drums, I use everything one-shot, and freshly mix it per session. RA4 chem is relatively affordable, just like most of the necessary paper. I only need 1 oz of chem fluid in my 8X10 test drum, and 20 oz for a 30X40, but use larger volumes of water for preconditioning and intermediate rinses.

 

[afriman]

According to several users, including PE, Kodak's RT chemistry can be used very successfully at room temperature. The usual recommendation is two minutes development at 20 degrees C. You only use the developer replenisher, without any starter. I am not sure to what extent this applies to RT chemicals from other manufacturers.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Drew. Afriman has made what would have been my point now I know you are referring to RA4 which is that Kodak RA4 chemicals work perfectly over a range of temperatures, the lower end being about 20C or room temperature. It may not advertise this as a plus point for whatever reason but those that do are not necessarily undependable or encouraging carelessness. Whether they are overpriced I cannot say but of course market price varies a lot.

Certainly using RA4 in a Nova slot processor with a replenishment regime must be about the cheapest way to go.

pentaxuser

 

[BMbikerider]

Cut us some slack. It was simply pointed out there was the possibility of reciprocity effect.

I cannot see how it will affect printing. I agree reciprocity occurs with slower speeds with film when using a fixed film speed with long exposures and to correct this is largely a degree of guesswork and any published tables by the manufacturer. However any reciprocity effect when printing will be nullified when you do test strips with the paper and form your own opinion of what exposure will be best. That 'judged'; exposure will not change even if the exposure is minutes long and that is what the test strip suggests..

If the test strip suggest 25 seconds at F8 or 12.5 seconds at F5.6, or 50 seconds at F11, whatever you decide is best, that exposure will not be affected by reciprocity.

If you use an analyser then this may happen, but there again, I do not use an analyser/exposure meter and never have done. Automation is the 1st step to not being in control. You might as well hand the film into a lab!

It is simply a case of, in this situation man is better than machine.