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 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.
He said supreme is the same as CAII
the problem is almost certainly chemical issue
What’s your experience??
I think the paper is just thin
IF the neg itself is contrasty enough
to get sufficient contrast
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
Note Drew's comment about subtle differences; they're likely there.
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...
It's pretty hard to beat a traditional 4X5 CMY halogen colorhead for basic use and simplicity
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?