RA-4 Printing at home. Is it dead?

[brian_mk]

I've been doing some RA-4 printing over the Christmas period.
It's the first time I've done darkroom colour printing in about 3 years.
The aim was to use up some paper and chemicals I've had in storage before they become totally useless.

I got to wondering how many people are still using colour neg film and RA-4?
In a digital world, RA-4 seems very restricted:-
No control over contrast, tone curves, colour saturation etc.
Much more difficult to control and adjust colour balance.
Dust on the negative.
You can't use digital manipulation such as pixel cloning to tidy up the image.
Dodging & burning in much more difficult.
Chemicals and paper deteriorate over time.
Hours spent in the dark breathing chemical fumes.
You need a darkroom.
etc etc.

Fujifilm have discontinued my favourite medium format colour neg film, Reala.

When my current batch of paper and chemicals has been used up, I'm wondering if I should throw away my Nova tank
and in future (assuming I continue to use film) scan my negs and use an inkjet printer.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have large stocks of RA-4 paper I need to use as well, which I hope is still in good condition. When I tested various colour negative films with the Fuji Crystal Archive paper after Kodak Supra Endura was discontinued (my preferred option) I found that Reala printed better on FCA than the Kodak films. However the current Kodak Portra are extremely good quality materials.

Tom

 

[frotog]

The problem is in the current paper offerings. If you want cut sheets you need to use fuji C.A ii which is indistinguishable from crappy mini-lab paper (i.e. no black). Everything else carries horrible color cross-over problems under an enlarger due to the design of papers meant to be exposed by LED. Those that say this isn't true must not have made a color print in the past five years as the effect is as plain as day. I've long since gone to ink-jet and digital c - the results are far superior than my proof prints from current kodak roll paper.

 

[Jim Taylor]

RA-4 is alive and well in my DR!

I'm such a stickler for "getting it right" in camera that I seldom do much manipulation - I can wet-print much larger in the DR than I can easily (and quickly) get hold of locally.

And... I prefer the results.

 

[Wayne]

I got to wondering how many people are still using colour neg film and RA-4?

I don't know. I know I just started so it apparently isn't dead. PE said in a recent post that the market for the materials is still there.

In a digital world, RA-4 seems very restricted:-

So go digital.

No control over contrast, tone curves, colour saturation etc.

You can control which film you use, which gives some control.

Much more difficult to control and adjust colour balance.

Is it? It sounds like you've been playing with PS too much. Get back in the darkroom.

Dust on the negative.

Aww....

You can't use digital manipulation such as pixel cloning to tidy up the image.

Awww
Dodging & burning in much more difficult.

Awww
Chemicals and paper deteriorate over time.

Hardware and software needs updating

Hours spent in the dark breathing chemical fumes.

Hours spent sitting on your ass staring at a computer monitor getting RSI.
And why are you breathing chemical fumes?

You need a darkroom.

You need computers and expensive software and a comfortable chair and a good hand surgeon


etc etc.

Wow you must really dislike this! Why do it then?


Sarcasm aside, I guess it comes down to whether you want to do it or not. It's not dead, and I think its going to be alive for the immediate future. It isn't even expensive, which is a good indication there is still some demand for it.

 

[AgX]

PE said in a recent post that the market for the materials is still there.

The main market for RA-4 papers are photo-finishers.

 

[Wayne]

Correct, but that means the materials are there for us too.

 

[EdSawyer]

I am an avid c41/ra4 darkroom user. Frankly, I find the results of an optical wet print superior to any digital print, and that includes basically the best digital has to offer, yes. Digital inkjet printing can get pretty good, but for a film original optical wet printing is always going to be better, imo.

 

[gone]

One thing to be aware of is that inkjet prints fade and shift colors. The manufacturers will quote you all this virtual data from the Wilhelm Institute about how archival the inks and papers are, but they aren't. I have had serious issues w/ stuff that was printed on the best papers w/ the best Epson pigmented inks. These prints have been sitting under the bed (the home of all good artist's and photographer's work) and after 11 years there are noticeable changes, and not for the better. On the other hand, a color darkroom print that I bought my wife 11 years ago has been displayed on the wall all that time, and it looks like the day I bought it. Besides the archival issue (or lack thereof), it looks better. It's a photograph w/ the image in the paper, not a bunch of ink printed on top of the paper.

I don't do color work, but I would never go the digital route if I did. There is a noticeable difference in quality w/ a color darkroom print that has been printed correctly. While any color photograph is fugitive, a darkroom print will last a lot longer than an inkjet print, and look better as well. This I have seen w/ my own eyes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think it's even easier and more economical to print color negs in a darkroom than via scanning and all the fuss after that, and in my opinion, you can even do a better job. But it's all a matter of dedication. Either route can be mastered. Pick one and stick to it. Anyone willing to do
some research into this subject will quickly discover why many of the key controls one uses in PS were named after something already standard practice in previous darkroom or graphics film technique, and therefore, that's where these controls were invented and applied in the first place! Therefore they exist and can be used anytime now. If you like tactile darkroom work and are willing to invest some thought, time,and modest equipment budget into it, there is nothing stopping you from making color prints of the highest quality. Gosh this is getting annoying. Pretty soon people will forget how to tie their shoes unless someone comes out with a smartphone app to do it for them.

 

[Chris Lange]

Show me a currently manufactured baryta/fiber paper that I can use with RA-4 and I would -consider- maybe thinking of doing my color printing in a darkroom.

 

[BMbikerider]

RA4 most certainly isn't dead. far from it. Like all those I have to use sheet Fuji paper and have no problems whatsoever. I get a good black, no problems with colour crossover and it is a lot cheaper than the equivalent sizes in inkjet paper.

I am in the process of designing a wooden light-tight paper dispenser so that I can use Kodak again but that is going to be a while before it is up and running, not because of any difficulty apart from finding the time to make it.

Kodak Ektacolour RA4 chemicals are fine, in fact more than just fine, and very economical to use with a Nova Deep tank. If the day comes when RA4 is no longer available (or an equivalent) then that is the time to think elsewhere but not down the inkjet way. There is no skill in that!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Yes, The Kodak Ektacolor chemicals are reasonably priced and work well, as does the Flexicolor line for C-41 film. It is a shame these are not promoted more over some of the rather expensive and possibly suspect low use kits.

Tom

 

[DREW WILEY]

RA4 papers are either RC or glossy polyester. The latter is avail only in lab-sized rolls. It would be an unrealistic pain in the butt to use a basic fiber-based paper. Of course, you could go to the trouble to learn dye transfer printing, and then be able to use fixed-out fiber-based papers to receive the dyes. ... but that's an utterly different kind of printing, with the very long learning curve and dramatically higher expense.

 

[kuparikettu]

Certainly not dead. I just made some 40 prints to be given as Christmas presents many of which were small 6x4 prints. Durst Printo speeds up the process quite much, though finding the correct filtration for Portra 400 with Fuji Crystal Archive took many, many tests -- but now I have found the correct values for both Portra and Ektar so everything looks good! Fuji Crystal Archive II -- no problems with that paper.

To be honest -- only problem I have with this wet lab process is that I hate finding scratches or smudges in dried prints. I'm beginning to think I shouldn't use a squeegee...

 

[polyglot]

Yeah, it's a little restricted, but it always was. So you lose easy contrast control - but you don't get that with chromes and no one whinges about it. You still have hue control and the ability to dodge & burn which is actually quite powerful, especially combined. And if you're feeling particularly diligent, you can still do contrast and unsharp masking.

It's totally alive an kicking in amateur darkrooms - like mine. Given that digital photofinishers consume so much RA4 material, availability and price is excellent: I can make colour prints for much much less than I can B&W. Good optical prints from modern 4x5 film are pretty hard to beat!

 

[polyglot]

If the day comes when RA4 is no longer available (or an equivalent) then that is the time to think elsewhere but not down the inkjet way. There is no skill in that!

Totally not true. Just because it's not the process of choice here, does not mean that doing it right is a low-skill endeavour. It has a serious learning curve to do properly.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Just as a set of side notes:

1. Wayne said it very well. The OP really wants digital.

2. A mixed workflow is quite nice if you don't like RA-4. I have a Canon professional i9900 inkjet printer and it gives prints that are close equivalents to my RA-4 prints on Endura. In fact, some cannot tell them apart.

PE

 

[frotog]

Just as a set of side notes:

1. Wayne said it very well. The OP really wants digital.

2. A mixed workflow is quite nice if you don't like RA-4. I have a Canon professional i9900 inkjet printer and it gives prints that are close equivalents to my RA-4 prints on Endura. In fact, some cannot tell them apart.

PE

This has been my experience as well. I can match a print on pre-digitally optimized supra (circa 1998) with great precision using inkjet (in my case an Epson 9900). I can only assume that those who think that the inkjet process does not demand exacting technique must be the same folks who think the current Fuji CA ii is a viable Ra-4 material for a fine print.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Once I have finished off my stocks of Kodak Supra Endura I'm not sure I'll make RA-4 prints apart from for proofs for which the materials are very economical.

Tom

 

[sandholm]

For color I am all hybrid now, shoot on chrome/negatives -> scan -> work in photoshop -> output on a digital C-printer which gives me a "regular" wet print. I wish for another Ilfochrome run in the future and then I will do color in the darkroom again. In the darkroom its all about B/W (silver/platinum).

I dont really like to work on the computer (color calibration and so on) but for color its the best and fastest to get the result I want

 

[EdSawyer]

Such a thing has never existed.

Show me a currently manufactured baryta/fiber paper that I can use with RA-4 and I would -consider- maybe thinking of doing my color printing in a darkroom.

 

[fotch]

When my current batch of paper and chemicals has been used up, I'm wondering if I should throw away my Nova tank
and in future (assuming I continue to use film) scan my negs and use an inkjet printer.

'

Yes, but don't throw it away, send to me. Thank you, in advance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Frotog just had to add his two cents of ignorance about the quality of Fuji CAII printing papers. Thought that kind of gross misinformation was laid to rest months ago. Don't fall for it. Perhaps he's confusing RA4 paper with soggy pizza crust. I just don't know where on earth he buys
his alleged paper, but it obviously doesn't resemble anything the rest of us use, which is absolutely top quality. Fuji makes a lot of different papers, and something intended for a one-hour drugstore printer obviously isn't the right product in the darkroom. It helps to read the spec
sheet first. That's what people normally do.

 

[Chris Lange]

Such a thing has never existed.

Precisely. The problem with RA-4 is that every paper is RC/PE. If I want a color print on 300gsm fiber-based/cotton rag paper, there is no solution. This isn't the fault of the manufacturers, more the fact that the color printing process stains paper and reduces Dmax when it is immersed for extended amounts of time (to my knowledge this is why color fiber paper was discontinued four or so decades ago).

I can print on beautiful papers in black and white that truly do make a difference in the final image, why should I sacrifice that flexibility with color?

Anyone that says a C-print is definitively better than a fine inkjet color print has a lot of growing up to do.

That said, Fuji CA-II is -awesome- for glossy prints, and the Fuji Deep Matte digital c paper is pretty good too. I have 3 30x30 prints on CA-II just outside my darkroom from which I'm writing this, and they're gorgeous, not disparaging the process at all, just looking at the (haha) big picture.