RA-4 Developer with Hydrogen Peroxide

[Joakes]

I only looked briefly but it seems he mostly/only made digital prints onto a variety of mediums, some of which are definitely not even RA4. So I'm kind of wary about trying to translate all that to a darkroom workflow.

I spoke to Matt at AG photographic. He basically said although CAii blacks are not as good they should not look like this

I only looked briefly but it seems he mostly/only made digital prints onto a variety of mediums, some of which are definitely not even RA4. So I'm kind of wary about trying to translate all that to a darkroom workflow.

Sorry forgot the rest of sentence. He said supreme is the same as CAII and that this image (top one being CAII bottom endura) the problem is almost certainly chemical issue. Seems many have this mottled black issue. I wonder what could be wrong with chemistry?? What’s your experience??

 

[DREW WILEY]

No paper should have mottled blacks. That could be due to either a processing issue or perhaps old poorly stored paper. Even with CAii I can get quite a deep black IF the neg itself is contrasty enough. It's certainly not a rich deep black like I get using Fujiflex. But even then, some negatives might need a contrast-increase mask to get the richest results. That's why I prefer Ektar film over Portra for most my own prints; it has more punch, or native contrast and saturation.

 

[Joakes]

The image I posted is the same chemicals a day apart. Kodak chems that were fresh and recently purchased so I’m scratching my head on this one. Paper brand new box from B+H Many others have pointed to this. The two photos side by side you can see it. I always get this with CAII, look closely and you can see it. Don’t think it’s processing I think the paper is just thin and it’s not a quality professional paper. It’s not noticeable to allot of people but I can see it and so do others

 

[koraks]

He said supreme is the same as CAII

It isn't.
CA, current version is II: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/en/product/photographic-paper/ca/
Supreme: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/en/product/photographic-paper/supreme/
Supreme HD: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/en/product/photographic-paper/supreme-hd/
Datasheet to be downloaded from each product page. They're different products. Anyone who has ever physically handled CAII and Supreme would know as they're coated onto a different base to begin with, and they're different emulsions as well.

the problem is almost certainly chemical issue

It looks to me like a rather exaggerated digital representation of what you get in chemistry that works OK for other papers, including Fuji papers. The nature of the blacks really depend a lot on how you digitize something and particularly what kind of corrections are applied. To put it differently: the dmax of RA4 paper is always less than the densities that modern scanners easily resolve detail in, which means you can make any RA4 black look mottled if you scan into the shadows deeply enough. My comment of recognition pertained to the hue of the CAii blacks (which leans towards purple/brown) and their uneven nature (mottled); particularly the former is apparent in your digital example.

What’s your experience??

That all papers I have used so far easily create a deeper black than CAii and that CAii's blacks are unacceptable to me even in moderately bright indoor lighting (let alone outdoor/natural light) in the ways described above. Furthermore all RA4 papers I've printed on so far are not capable of achieving the kind of density that silver-based B&W paper does, but that this isn't a practical problem as it only translates into poor but irrelevant transmissive dmax which of course for a printing paper is barely noteworthy; reflective dmax is usually good enough, perhaps with the exception of Kodak Royal which also has somewhat weak blacks, but still better than CAii. Finally I note that prints from a high-volume commercial photofinishing lab on the same paper that I got my hands on were even worse in this respect than my own prints. If chemistry is the problem, then this commercial operation which processes more RA4 paper per day than I will likely do in my lifetime apparently is even less capable of keeping their developer functional than I am.

I think the paper is just thin

Well, yeah, but not in a literal sense. The weight of the base has nothing to do with it per se; it's really the emulsion. An interesting factoid is that Fuji's RA4 paper datasheets usually do not give absolute numbers on reflective dmax. At the same time, many of their datasheets say things like "improved blacks" - which is kind of sour because if you compare CAii to the original Crystal Archive, both the base of the old product was heavier and more importantly the dmax was miles better than what CAii does today.

Trust me, I've tried just about everything to eliminate what I for months believed must have been user error on my behalf, but all I found was evidence that the culprit was really the paper itself.

Btw, CAii is fine as long as you don't print low-key images on it. Anything high-key, most of your holiday snapshots, etc. will look pretty much fine on it. But the kind of image you posted, that's where CAii really shows its shortcomings.

IF the neg itself is contrasty enough

This problem has absolutely nothing to do with the negative used. Sure, low-contrast negatives necessitate reduced exposure to the point where dmax is reduced visibly. Of course I eliminated that scenario on day 1. Try it out; take a sheet of CAii, expose it to sufficient light to hit dmax and add another stop of light to that just to make sure. Process it, and then compare it to an identically processed print of any other paper. View under bright daylight conditions and observe the nature of the blacks. You'll see the problem, sure enough.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I do this all the time, Koraks, and at least some of your comments are full of holes. For one thing, I have never, ever gotten a "purplish brown" black with CAii. The blacks are neutral. And it is a simple fact that to get sufficient contrast in the print you need an equally contrasty negative to begin with. Or else you need a supplemental contrast-increase mask registered onto it. And that DOES affect the depth of the blacks if you want the rest of the image scale also cooperative. As for my evaluation system, I have multiple light banks, including the highest quality color matching lights obtainable at my retouching station, as well as overhead. I once trained pro color matchers, and did color consultation. I have an excellent color temp meter nearby. I have true additive high-output color enlargers, including one of the very few 8x10 ones in the world. So I have reason to think I know what I'm doing in that respect. In other words, in terms of color accuracy, I'm better equipped than pro commercial labs (but certainly not geared to their high production speeds).

I've worked with a variety of Fuji papers, have numerous Kodak samples at least, and did lots of Cibachrome too. But I already indicated that if you want deep luxurious black you either need Fujiflex or allegedly Maxima in their special RA4 tweak (which I haven't tried), or some more complex printing method like dye transfer. Inkjet gives the worst blacks in a discontinuous sense - uneven sheen especially.

With thinner papers like CAii, you might need to be more conscious of the color of the mounting background. But almost no RA4 color print support is totally opaque.

 

[koraks]

to get sufficient contrast

This is not about contrast. The negatives has nothing to do with it.

I admire your range of equipment, but it does not make this paper perform better in my hands, while other papers do give a decent black.

I'll happily stand corrected on the quality of CAii's blacks the instant I lay eyes on a physical example that exhibits them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, there is no substitute for seeing actual samples in person. I did settle that question once when a big lab owner called it in question. But let's just hope that Fuji comes around to offering something else in cut sheet down the line. My main point is simply that CAii is a decent usable product better than some of the past options. There was a time when you could get Super C and even earlier-version Fujiflex in cut sheet, among other numerous choices. It doesn't look like that will ever happen again, but it might be hypothetically possible something else will eventually replace CAii as their one cut sheet offering.

 

[koraks]

I agree that it would be nice to have a wider cut-sheet offering - at reasonable cost and quality. I don't see the logic behind CAii being the default cut-sheet offering; after all, if cut-sheet is a premium (it requires and additional operation after all), they might have picked one of the more premium papers.

 

[DREW WILEY]

They probably just had a lot of CAii on hand, and the thinner sheets make packaging easier, and probably makes runs of this product less expensive for the amateur market, so it was likely a logical default decision. And we shouldn't expect any alternative in cut sheet till all of that runs out, when, if we're lucky, it might be replaced with CN, aka DPii. But everything is in such short supply now that we should be happy with anything. I'll just defer my own ordinary RA4 paper needs till next year when inventories should be better, and for now stick with images which work well on Fujiflex Supergloss instead. The local labs which formerly relied on Kodak are now using rolls of CA Supreme for their small processors and snapshot-sized needs.

I don't know if CN is even readily available in this country yet or not. It's hard to even get correct answers. Places like Unique show various products in stock in their website sales link, but which, upon call to their actual warehouse, they don't have left in stock at all, and can't even say when they can get it. Disappointing. Fortunately for me, I waited until B&H was completely out of almost everything except CAii when I ordered my roll of Fujiflex from them, so that when it was finally shipped, it was entirely new stock, freshly manufactured. Some clown at Unique told me RA4 chromogenic paper never goes bad, which of course is completely incorrect.

 

[Joakes]

It isn't.
CA, current version is II: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/en/product/photographic-paper/ca/
Supreme: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/en/product/photographic-paper/supreme/
Supreme HD: https://www.originalphotopaper.com/en/product/photographic-paper/supreme-hd/
Datasheet to be downloaded from each product page. They're different products. Anyone who has ever physically handled CAII and Supreme would know as they're coated onto a different base to begin with, and they're different emulsions as well.



It looks to me like a rather exaggerated digital representation of what you get in chemistry that works OK for other papers, including Fuji papers. The nature of the blacks really depend a lot on how you digitize something and particularly what kind of corrections are applied. To put it differently: the dmax of RA4 paper is always less than the densities that modern scanners easily resolve detail in, which means you can make any RA4 black look mottled if you scan into the shadows deeply enough. My comment of recognition pertained to the hue of the CAii blacks (which leans towards purple/brown) and their uneven nature (mottled); particularly the former is apparent in your digital example.



That all papers I have used so far easily create a deeper black than CAii and that CAii's blacks are unacceptable to me even in moderately bright indoor lighting (let alone outdoor/natural light) in the ways described above. Furthermore all RA4 papers I've printed on so far are not capable of achieving the kind of density that silver-based B&W paper does, but that this isn't a practical problem as it only translates into poor but irrelevant transmissive dmax which of course for a printing paper is barely noteworthy; reflective dmax is usually good enough, perhaps with the exception of Kodak Royal which also has somewhat weak blacks, but still better than CAii. Finally I note that prints from a high-volume commercial photofinishing lab on the same paper that I got my hands on were even worse in this respect than my own prints. If chemistry is the problem, then this commercial operation which processes more RA4 paper per day than I will likely do in my lifetime apparently is even less capable of keeping their developer functional than I am.



Well, yeah, but not in a literal sense. The weight of the base has nothing to do with it per se; it's really the emulsion. An interesting factoid is that Fuji's RA4 paper datasheets usually do not give absolute numbers on reflective dmax. At the same time, many of their datasheets say things like "improved blacks" - which is kind of sour because if you compare CAii to the original Crystal Archive, both the base of the old product was heavier and more importantly the dmax was miles better than what CAii does today.

Trust me, I've tried just about everything to eliminate what I for months believed must have been user error on my behalf, but all I found was evidence that the culprit was really the paper itself.

Btw, CAii is fine as long as you don't print low-key images on it. Anything high-key, most of your holiday snapshots, etc. will look pretty much fine on it. But the kind of image you posted, that's where CAii really shows its shortcomings.



This problem has absolutely nothing to do with the negative used. Sure, low-contrast negatives necessitate reduced exposure to the point where dmax is reduced visibly. Of course I eliminated that scenario on day 1. Try it out; take a sheet of CAii, expose it to sufficient light to hit dmax and add another stop of light to that just to make sure. Process it, and then compare it to an identically processed print of any other paper. View under bright daylight conditions and observe the nature of the blacks. You'll see the problem, sure enough.

That’s exactly what I did with the image I posted. No mater what I did could I reach anywhere near endura. Scanning looks terrible but it is for comparison. I printed this thing a number of times and I concluded they were shit! I agree with what you say that’s why I asked. I was confounded by the fact that so many have pointed this out. I have used different chems one at room temp the other at recommended and it’s the same. Something told me it IS the paper not the chems. I understand what you say about scanning; tha scan was meant to show a comparison unedited. In reality they are deeper in print of course. One would think that Supreme being a professional paper has higher silver content and dmax

 

[Joakes]

looks to me like a rather exaggerated digital representation of what you get in chemistry that works OK for other papers, including Fuji papers. The nature of the blacks really depend a lot on how you digitize something and particularly what kind of corrections are applied. To put it differently: the dmax of RA4 paper is always less than the densities that modern scanners easily resolve detail in, which means you can make any RA4 black look mottled if you scan into the shadows deeply enough. My comment of recognition pertained to the hue of the CAii blacks (which leans towards purple/brown) and their uneven nature (mottled); particularly the former is apparent in your digital example.

It is ina way because the negative is almost pure black. Scan is totally raw so looks terrible

 

[DREW WILEY]

Most commercial papers are meant to be mid-range these days. Labs take in all kinds of film images with a lot of potential exposure idiosyncrasies which have to be quickly ironed out. It's not like printing your own shots, and having control of the entire workflow start to finish, in which case premium papers might be well worth it. But it depends on the subject matter too, as well as one's budget and specific process control.

But this subject is a lot more complicated than just hypothetical silver content (which is minimal in any chromogenic paper) or potential DMax. Don't forget the important improvements already, like less yellowing over time, better light resistance to fading, better batch to batch consistency, etc. Even CAii is a stepping stone in the right direction. But that particular product would be tricky to handle in large sizes.

 

[Joakes]

Most commercial papers are meant to be mid-range these days. Labs take in all kinds of film images with a lot of potential exposure idiosyncrasies which have to be quickly ironed out. It's not like printing your own shots, and having control of the entire workflow start to finish, in which case premium papers might be well worth it. But it depends on the subject matter too, as well as one's budget and specific process control.

But this subject is a lot more complicated than just hypothetical silver content (which is minimal in any chromogenic paper) or potential DMax. Don't forget the important improvements already, like less yellowing over time, better light resistance to fading, better batch to batch consistency, etc. Even CAii is a stepping stone in the right direction. But that particular product would be tricky to handle in large sizes.

Yes absolutely. I actually like CAII color profile for some shots and endura for other hence I’ve asked other about this. As you’ve noted the thickness is an issue now I’m looking at 20-30in prints. It is so hard to keep flat. And the black issue BUT that is only a problem with images like I posted; I wanted the color profile of Fuji and the blacks of endura! So I’m looking at supreme. I’ve also recently purchased Lynn Rydekas mask kit so for the right image I will use a mask. But the looks of things at some point I’ll add Fujiflex as a third paper that could be very exciting but only for larger prints.

 

[koraks]

does Heiland’s LED head have the capacity for additive color

It is by definition an additive system, being based on R, G and B leds.

 

[Joakes]

It is by definition an additive system, being based on R, G and B leds.

Sure. I’m guess my query was do they expose each color separately like split grade? As opposed to CMY which is a mix. Sorry for me amateur understanding as I’m not very experienced with this

 

[koraks]

'Additive' means the approach towards filtering; adding the three primaries to each other. Subtractive means filtering out certain wavelengths. It's not connected to the order of exposure; you could do additive or subtractive in one go, or after one another.
With Heiland it's all in one go. Btw, it wouldn't matter; the end result is the same.

 

[Joakes]

Most commercial papers are meant to be mid-range these days. Labs take in all kinds of film images with a lot of potential exposure idiosyncrasies which have to be quickly ironed out. It's not like printing your own shots, and having control of the entire workflow start to finish, in which case premium papers might be well worth it. But it depends on the subject matter too, as well as one's budget and specific process control.

But this subject is a lot more complicated than just hypothetical silver content (which is minimal in any chromogenic paper) or potential DMax. Don't forget the important improvements already, like less yellowing over time, better light resistance to fading, better batch to batch consistency, etc. Even CAii is a stepping stone in the right direction. But that particular product would be tricky to handle in large sizes.

Yes large sheets are difficult. I am quite keen to have a try of

'Additive' means the approach towards filtering; adding the three primaries to each other. Subtractive means filtering out certain wavelengths. It's not connected to the order of exposure; you could do additive or subtractive in one go, or after one another.
With Heiland it's all in one go. Btw, it wouldn't matter; the end result is the same.

ah I see. So CMY subtracts from the white light from the lamp. RGB LED would add these colors to produce the finish light source. So you are saying there is no advantage as the end light source would be the same. I think I read somewhere in the thread about additive being better. Maybe I miss understood

 

[koraks]

C

So CMY subtracts from the white light from the lamp. RGB LED would add these colors to produce the finish light source.

Correct.

So you are saying there is no advantage as the end light source would be the same.

To be clear: there's no advantage/disadvantage to subsequent exposures vs. a single exposure. I can't comment on additive vs subtractive; I've used both, but haven't compared them systematically enough to say more than "it looks the same to me". But that's a haphazard conclusion on my part. Note Drew's comment about subtle differences; they're likely there.

 

[Joakes]

Note Drew's comment about subtle differences; they're likely there.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes maybe Drew is across the subtleties Very nuanced topic. I’m considering getting a Heiland LED lamp, curious about the potential differences despite how subtle they may be

 

[koraks]

I can't comment; I know of only one person who has one and prints color, and I've seen only a few prints of his. They looked perfectly fine.
I ended up making my own RGB led head out of frustration for not being able to find a suitable color head for my enlarger on the second hand market and I didn't feel like shelling out several thousands of Euros for it. I already had color enlargers for smaller formats up to 6x6cm at the time so it felt excessive to throw that much money just for the possibility of the rare event that I like doing 4x5" in color. In the end I got rid of the smaller enlargers and now print everything on the DIY light source. Sorry, I digress...

 

[Joakes]

I can't comment; I know of only one person who has one and prints color, and I've seen only a few prints of his. They looked perfectly fine.
I ended up making my own RGB led head out of frustration for not being able to find a suitable color head for my enlarger on the second hand market and I didn't feel like shelling out several thousands of Euros for it. I already had color enlargers for smaller formats up to 6x6cm at the time so it felt excessive to throw that much money just for the possibility of the rare event that I like doing 4x5" in color. In the end I got rid of the smaller enlargers and now print everything on the DIY light source. Sorry, I digress...

No probs. They certainly are not cheap. You can buy a new Kienzle enlarger for the same price as the LED and control unit. I have x2 4X5 enlargers both in very good condition so I don’t need to replace anything just yet. The dichro head for my Beseler is practically brand new, mint condition. Was an extraordinarily find 8 yrs ago when this stuff was being thrown away. Diff these days…The Omega 5DXL superchromega head has an issue but I think I’ll get it fixed. It’s more of a irritation as the magenta wheel won’t bottom out at zero. If the lamps are no longer produced at some point may have to move to LED.

Interesting thing happened to me a few months back. Was in a photographic store, just a run of the mill type place. Got to talking to the shop assistant. I told him I’d started color printing, he said follow me. Had a trolley full of Kodak endura cut sheets, maybe 20 or 30 boxes 100 sheet boxes. I said holly shit! Some older guy had given up his lab and handed them in. Circa 2010. Gave me a box to test but sadly it was done….

 

[DREW WILEY]

Please note that I do not use LED's, but high-output true narrow-band halogen simultaneous RGB (not three successive exposures), suitable for large prints. This kind of colorhead was designed to punch heavily masked large format chromes onto Cibachrome media in relatively brief printing times, and was difficult to engineer. I'm very skeptical of LED's doing that same task, though they might be suitable for smaller color prints, depending. Fortunately, ordinary RA4 chromogenic papers are way way faster to print than Cibachrome was, so need less muscle.

It's pretty hard to beat a traditional 4X5 CMY halogen colorhead for basic use and simplicity, as long as it's not old and worn out, or over-complicated electronics-wise. A simple bulb change every five or ten years is often all you need to keep them going (if you buy good bulbs and not junk ones). But old colorheads which have been intensively used, abused, or repeatedly overheated sometimes suffer from a degree of spalling loss of dichroic coatings to the filters, so lose their efficiency and color purity over the long haul. Or grime builds up on the filters. Something to be aware of when buying used equipment. Chromega, basic Beseler (the CMY variety), Saunders, etc. are all suitable. Once you go bigger than 4x5, well, then you need to look elsewhere, like Durst.

 

[koraks]

It's pretty hard to beat a traditional 4X5 CMY halogen colorhead for basic use and simplicity

Certainly so. And, if you can actually find one, in terms of cost.

 

[DREW WILEY]

They're abundant here if one is in the right area. I've actually turned down about thirty enlargers for free in the past 15 years or so, and a number of those were true commercial duty Durst L and Omega F 8x10 machines, plus all sorts of regular 4X5 Omega etc. I don't have space for any more enlargers. I did take one especially nice Durst L184 with colorhead and bring it back to 95% new look and 100% new functionality. Using that today, in fact. My huge RGB 8x10 machine is currently undergoing some slow maintenance.

 

[koraks]

Around here the market is very different. 4x5 enlargers do pop up from time to time, but not all that often and these days asking prices are generally between €500 to €1000. 8x10 - as rare as hen's teeth in these parts. I think I've seen one or two for sale over the past 5 years. Mind you, I got my 138 for free from a guy who had 4 or 5 of them and had to take the remaining 2 to the junkyard due to lack of interest. That's only a few years ago. A lot has changed since then.