RA-4 kits

[jamesaz]

I'm doing a project where I will be making color prints and am looking for a little direction. Of the kits I've seen available online, Arista and Tetenal, is there a profound difference in the way a print looks depending on the chemistry? By which I mean: Does one give more contrast or saturation? I wouldn't think so but thought I'd see if anyone has any personal experience along those lines.
Are there more sources of RA4 chemistry for small users besides those two?

 

[BMbikerider]

The general information given out by dealers is that RA4 developers are essentially generic (i.e the same) and will have little effect apart from possible some lasting longer than others when mixed. Out of them all I much prefer Kodak but Tetenal isn't far behind.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Go for Kodak. Lasts forever and you get lots of it

 

[mshchem]

I'm doing a project where I will be making color prints and am looking for a little direction. Of the kits I've seen available online, Arista and Tetenal, is there a profound difference in the way a print looks depending on the chemistry? By which I mean: Does one give more contrast or saturation? I wouldn't think so but thought I'd see if anyone has any personal experience along those lines.
Are there more sources of RA4 chemistry for small users besides those two?

Not any difference in contrast or color. If you are going to be doing a lot of printing Kodak, Fuji and others are more economical than the kits. In the US Unique Photo in New Jersey is one of the few places that sell Kodak chemistry in less than case quantities. It can be a bit confusing as the Kodak chemistry is primarily sold as a replenisher, which can be made into a "tank" or normal working solution. There are very few companies still making this chemistry, I don't think you would have trouble with any kit. Kodak no longer makes a kit or cuts individual sheets of paper . Machines use roll paper. Fuji Crystal Archive is the last color paper available in cut sheets. It's a great paper so that's a good thing.

 

[mnemosyne]

Kodak Ektacolor 4x5 liter kits are great and economic. I use the RT/LU variant sold in Europe. The stuff keeps "forever and a day". I had no problem repelenishing and re-using used working solution of developer, that had been stored for 6+ months in a wine bladder. Replenisher will keep much longer in a wine bladder. The blix working solution is also very stable.

 

[halfaman]

I have used Kodak Ektacolor RT/LU and Tetenal chemistry (Colortec and Start-up kits), no differences in the print whatsoever.

 

[jamesaz]

Thanks to all. You have confirmed my suspicions.

 

[BMbikerider]

Since starting colour printing close on 30 years ago, I have always used the Kodak kits and will swear by the quality of the chemicals (plus the empty bottles come in quite useful). I am not doing so much colour printing as I used to, so when it came to replacing my last kit, I decided to buy one of the 5 litre Tetanal kits. I made my 1st two 10x12 prints from it last night and after a few problems with filtration, the two prints at the end are no different from those |I would have made with the Kodak version. The cost is more - about double, but there will be little or no waste.

As a footnote, the colour filtration in the end are more or less the same as I would have made with the Kodak chemicals. The filtration problems I had experienced, actually turned out to be due to that particular image having been taken in an area of mixed lighting. Daylight, tungsten and also fluorescent thrown in. Almost impossible to eliminate.