RA-4 Developer with Hydrogen Peroxide

[Joakes]

It doesn't. That is to say, its contrast and color balance are similar to the other Crystal Archive papers. It essentially gives the same colors as CAII but with good blacks, so technically contrast is a little higher.



Yeah, I know, they list a couple of variants as available, at least they did last time I checked. It's probably old stock because I've been seeing the exact same stocking situation on their website for 3 years now.

Ok thanks. I don’t mind CA colours for some images but the blacks and thickness are a major issue for me as you have noted. Once you see this issue it’s hard to print anything on that stuff. Large prints on such thin base is a real issue. DPII I understand has similar thickness to endura

The colour from endura is second to none but sometimes I need to lower contrast. One of the biggest challenges with RA4 is getting the range out of the film. Paper simply doesn’t have the range of the negative so blown out highlights is common. Hence contrast control which is why I took a deep dive into this

 

[koraks]

T

I don’t mind CA colours for some images but the blacks and thickness are a major issue for me as you have noted.

Then Supreme might work for you. It solves these issues, at least it does for me.

DPII I understand has similar thickness to endura

That's interesting; I would have expected it to be slightly thinner, just like Supreme. Then again, perhaps Maxima is also in the same ballpark as Endura? @DREW WILEY knows as he's got his roll of Maxima so perhaps he can comment on this.

Paper simply doesn’t have the range of the negative

Back in the old days (long before I got into this) color paper came in different gradations, like B&W used to. Not all advancement is progress

 

[Joakes]

Now that I've had some time to experiment on my own with alleged RA4 contrast reduction using sodium sulfite as per the linked Greg Davis video, let me briefly share the result. Right now, I'm printing on Fujiflex, which has the most contrast and color saturation of any of their lineup. 25ml of 1% sodium sulfite per liter of RA4 developer didn't do a damn thing. At double that amount, 50ml, it just barely lightened deep tones, but did mess up the highlights with serious magenta crossover. I don't think this is a realistic option for me.

I'll get to the peroxide contrast increase question later. But I'm skeptical about that too.

Have you tried Fuji maxima? I’ve just read it has 20% more color space/range. Sounds good.

 

[Joakes]

That's interesting; I would have expected it to be slightly thinner, just like Supreme. Then again, perhaps Maxima is also in the same ballpark as Endura? @DREW WILEY knows as he's got his roll of Maxima so perhaps he can comment on this.

I’ve just asked him. I may be wrong about DPII but that’s what the woman at Fuji told me but she was a bit clueless. Maxima sounds good according this https://www.rwongphoto.com/gallery/the-art-of-making-prints/

I have no idea where to get it. Sometimes these names are very confusing

 

[Joakes]

Then Supreme might work for you. It solves these issues, at least it does for me.

Then I’ll definitely try it. These days I try to shoot with this in mind but older stuff still has contrast which is very hard to control without paper grades

 

[koraks]

Have you tried Fuji maxima?

No, but here's a very useful example posted kindly by @brbo : https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/matte-colour-paper.191738/post-2563287

> I have no idea where to get it.
Can't speak for Australia; it is listed on the price list of the retailers in Germany I generally use. What I don't like about it is that the smallest size is 50cm, which is unwieldy and heavy compared to the 20cm and 30cm rolls I generally use.

 

[koraks]

Maxima sounds good according this https://www.rwongphoto.com/gallery/the-art-of-making-prints/

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.

 

[Joakes]

I would have expected it to be slightly thinner, just like Supreme

Seems endura is 255, maxima 245, DPII 230,

No, but here's a very useful example posted kindly by @brbo : https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/matte-colour-paper.191738/post-2563287

this is very helpful thanks. Seems maxima is also fairly contrasty. CA supreme looks like what I’m after for a lower contrast print

 

[koraks]

Yeah, for somewhat more subtle looks, Supreme is great. And of course good lighting control when making the photo...

 

[Joakes]

Yeah, for somewhat more subtle looks, Supreme is great. And of course good lighting control when making the photo...

Yeah absolutely. It’s Clearly lower contrast and looks like it will work well as long as the blacks are decent

 

[koraks]

as long as the blacks are decent

They are; they're not quite as deep as on Endura, but you can pretty much only tell this by evaluating transmissive density. I.e., it only shows under conditions that aren't really relevant for a print anyway.
Btw, my experience is that even Endura's blacks break down if viewed under extremely bright light. If you want real blacks, RA4 just doesn't touch actual B&W.

 

[Joakes]

They are; they're not quite as deep as on Endura, but you can pretty much only tell this by evaluating transmissive density. I.e., it only shows under conditions that aren't really relevant for a print anyway.
Btw, my experience is that even Endura's blacks break down if viewed under extremely bright light. If you want real blacks, RA4 just doesn't touch actual B&W.

Yes that is probably true. What I did find with the right amount of hydrogen peroxide blacks go even deeper. This print is on endura with 5ml (I think I remember the amount) of HP in 150ml of developer. The blacks got even blacker. That is what works with HP in small amounts. The scan doesn’t truly pick it up as the print does but there is definitely deeper colouration

 

[koraks]

That looks nice, nut there's no way I can tell anything about the dmax of the paper through a digital representation.

 

[Joakes]

That looks nice, nut there's no way I can tell anything about the dmax of the paper through a digital representation.

Yeah it is impossible to see here that’s why I love the print! Also, scanning a print really needs glossy finish to even get close. This is lustre endura

 

[DREW WILEY]

I haven't been able to obtain any Maxima yet to test. Fuji states that a special developer of theirs is needed for the richest DMax on Maxima. From the tech sheet it seems to be an emulsion very similar to Fujiflex, but on ordinary RC paper instead. Fujiflex itself has superb DMax in regular RA4 as well as expanded hue gamut. Truly a deluxe product. But it's true high gloss isn't suitable for every image, is higher contrast than regular papers, and it only comes on big expensive rolls. I'll be printing on Fujiflex most of this summer. Darkroom contrast control is best done via supplemental unsharp masking. But this extra masking step has not been routinely necessary.

Right now I'm printing contact internegatives made from older 8X10 and 4X5 chromes. That is a lot of work up front, including masking. But the result is wonderful.
I've also recently made a number of direct enlargements from Ektar, mostly 6x9 format, but overall, everything from 35mm to 8x10 film size. None of this resembles a stereotypical color neg look. The hues are exceptionally clean and well differentiated, and the contrast is snappy. But to achieve that, there is a lot more to the learning curve than just buying an appropriate paper. Still, I'd encourage people to experiment with RA4 printing, especially now that the issue of covid shortages in paper selection seem to be starting to improve.

 

[koraks]

I haven't been able to obtain any Maxima yet to test.

Sorry, it must have been @brbo who posted the Maxima comparisons that I cited. My apologies.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No problem. Maybe I'll be able to track down some Maxima for next year. Once I get into the Fall I'll switch to black and white work and my backlog of drymounting. Just spent the last two hours cutting some more 24X30 sheets in the dark from my 30 inch Fujiflex roll, certainly the trickiest part of the overall process. Maxima rolls would be lighter weight and a lot cheaper. In the past I've used Super C when I wanted standard RC paper in 40 inch rolls. But when one wants that something extra look, reminiscent of Cibachrome, Fujiflex Supergloss is the obvious choice.

The biggest problem hunting down specific paper these days is just finding a competent customer service rep. That seems to have become an entry-level job just keeping the people who actually know something from being bothered. Allegedly, in this country one needs to contact the Fuji field sales rep directly. Maxima is not ordinarily sold through dealers, but only to dedicated labs featuring this product. Likewise Fujiflex, although B&H was eventually able to get it for me.

 

[halfaman]

I have a picture 16x20'' digital print in Fuji Maxima a DPII done by a good lab. I can't find anything really special in the first one and I prefer the second overall, general contrast and saturation is the same on both prints. With Maxima there is a some more density in the shadows but deep shadows are a very tiny and unimportant part of this image, also this extra density comes at the expense of shadow detail and texture.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you go to the tech sheets, there are three products essentially matched per improved performance over the other papers : Mxima, Fujiflex, and their Fujitrans (transparent medium for backlit use). But as I've already noted, I don't have any personal experience with Maxima. But I can state with 100% confidence, that even if Fujiflex wasn't coated onto a deluxe polyester base, it's hue gamut range, saturation, and depth would still be significantly richer than CAii. I don't know what DPii
is being marketed as in the US; perhaps it's the same as "CN" Crystal Archive.

The other major factor in play is that commercial labs nowadays print via scanning and laser output. In that mode, it should be easy for them to control shadow gradation. Sheer punch is a different story. Traditional enlarger halogen colorheads should do better at that. And I have both CMY and additive RGB colorheads, with narrow-band RGB being so pure that it's almost too much over the top for some images. Just depends.

But the two "papers" I just specifically mentioned, namely Flex and Maxima, have especially steep drop-off in the shadow values, intended to render superior blacks with laser printers. There's also a new "CN" paper apparently intended to replace Super C, available in a wide range of roll sizes (no cut sheets), with allegedly more punch than CAii. Of course, there are times I don't want high saturation or contrast, and use CAii myself with good results. It's a decent product provided you don't need a print size larger than 20X24. Regardless, any of these papers are able to produce a black superior to inkjet prints if you have the right negative to begin with.

Yet another factor is that the greatest display and storage permanence is ascribed to Flex and Maxima, with specific reasons for that. Fujitrans shares the same improvements, but due to its dedicated use as a backlit display material, it's likely going to be subjected to constant UV torture, so can't realistically be expected to last as long.

 

[Joakes]

I haven't been able to obtain any Maxima yet to test. Fuji states that a special developer of theirs is needed for the richest DMax on Maxima. From the tech sheet it seems to be an emulsion very similar to Fujiflex, but on ordinary RC paper instead. Fujiflex itself has superb DMax in regular RA4 as well as expanded hue gamut. Truly a deluxe product. But it's true high gloss isn't suitable for every image, is higher contrast than regular papers, and it only comes on big expensive rolls. I'll be printing on Fujiflex most of this summer. Darkroom contrast control is best done via supplemental unsharp masking. But this extra masking step has not been routinely necessary.

Right now I'm printing contact internegatives made from older 8X10 and 4X5 chromes. That is a lot of work up front, including masking. But the result is wonderful.
I've also recently made a number of direct enlargements from Ektar, mostly 6x9 format, but overall, everything from 35mm to 8x10 film size. None of this resembles a stereotypical color neg look. The hues are exceptionally clean and well differentiated, and the contrast is snappy. But to achieve that, there is a lot more to the learning curve than just buying an appropriate paper. Still, I'd encourage people to experiment with RA4 printing, especially now that the issue of covid shortages in paper selection seem to be starting to improve.

Thanks for the great info. I’m interested with fujiflex, how it compares to say endura? I’m going to start test more papers, this looks like it might be one. Do you have a print/comparison you can share?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Kodak has nothing comparable to Fujiflex. Keep in mind that it's coated on heavy polyester sheet, not on any kind of paper. So it's going to be a lot more expensive than RC paper. The smallest size it comes is a 30 inch wide roll. The only thing comparable in look (though not in procedure) is past Cibachrome. This is true high gloss - nobody is going to mistake it for any kind of "gloss" RC paper or inkjet medium. It is capable of holding just as much detail as a piece of film. It's made in Japan. If you just want to test for the look, you probably want to submit an image to a commercial lab which already routinely offers this particular choice of material.

 

[Joakes]

Kodak has nothing comparable to Fujiflex. Keep in mind that it's coated on heavy polyester sheet, not on any kind of paper. So it's going to be a lot more expensive than RC paper. The smallest size it comes is a 30 inch wide roll. The only thing comparable in look (though not in procedure) is past Cibachrome. This is true high gloss - nobody is going to mistake it for any kind of "gloss" RC paper or inkjet medium. It is capable of holding just as much detail as a piece of film. It's made in Japan.

Interesting. Frankly I wasn’t aware something like this existed. I’m looking to print larger images these days. So 30in is ok. Designing a special cutting technique for it. Cost, yeah I can see expensive but for large prints worth it. What I’m interested in is it’s image “look”. I can visualise a trans on cibachrome but not a neg with RA4. Will I get more range than endura for example? Cheers

 

[DREW WILEY]

Automated XY paper roll cutters are quite expensive, take up a lot of floor space, sometimes have reliability issues, and like other commercial equipment, are complicated and can be expensive to fix. So I'm strictly low tech. My laminated cutting table is about 4 ft by 4 ft, with an equal length dual bar Rototrim cutter attached at one side. There is a stainless steel squaring bar attached to one side of the table at exactly 90 degrees. Then a second stainless bar is placed across the table at predetermined paper length positions, with threaded inserts into these locations accepting non-scratching teflon thumbscrews. Just below the cutter bar is a pair of adjustable cones which receive the paper roll, in combination with a couple other roller rods allowing me to manually feed the paper under the standard retaining sleeve and onto the table.

This table works great for trimming all sizes of prints and mounting tissue in daylight. But it took quite a bit of practice to handle big heavy Fujiflex rolls in the dark.
It's not like paper. There's a fair amount of spring to it, all coiled up. I have a non-marring long accessory weight nearby to place over the paper when it's in the correct position, prior to pulling the cutter itself down the alignment rods. I don't use any safelight, except to keep a tiny little Jobo Minilux available in my pocket for momentary emergency use if needed. Other tables hold various paper safes: 30X40 inch, 20X24 inch, and 8x10 inch for test strips cut down from leftover pieces.

The really nice thing about Fujiflex is that it isn't electrostatic like Cibachrome was, which attracted dust, and is also far more resistant to dents, creases, and scratching; that's why they named it "Flex". Ans on the enlarging table it lies so flat that a vacuum easel is seldom even needed. Great product. Ektar film and Fujiflex is a marriage made in heaven. And of course, like other RA4 chromogenic media, it prints in just a fraction of the time once needed for Ciba. Fuji's batch to batch control is also quite consistent, and the paper keeps well for several years unless it's hot or humid.

As for your specific question. Yes, with a greater hue gamut, Fujiflex can reproduce more range than ordinary RA4 papers like Endura. But the name of the game is matching the negative contrast range to that of the print medium itself. That is done by digital curve adjustment in commercial laser mode. But in darkroom printing, you either want to find a film which corresponds to your expectations at a certain magnification, and/or learn supplemental contrast masking (highly recommended if you're going to get serious about this). Ideally, make big prints by enlarging large format film. And yes, you can make prints even superior to Ciba in this manner.
But it takes awhile to rethink what color neg film can do. I've already dropped a clue - Ektar.

 

[halfaman]

I don't know what DPii is being marketed as in the US; perhaps it's the same as "CN" Crystal Archive.

After some search, yes it is. European DPII is american Super Type CN. My favourite standard paper among all (I consider Fujiflex a specialty) and pretty much also a standard for many labs here in the old continent.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That you for finding that out.