RA-4 Printing at home. Is it dead?

[frotog]

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.

Drew, you'd be wise to follow your own advice. CAII is a paper type designating one specific emulsion, not an entire line. I've shown this to you before but I guess in another episode of magical thinking, you've convinced yourself of your own misinformation.

Ever wonder why CAii's base is twice as thin as fuji's professional line-up of paper? Ever wonder why it's not available in rolls wider than 24" like every other paper in Fuji's line-up? Perhaps you've noticed how its base and back print is the same as what you get from walmart's photo kiosk? Is this any surprise considering that for the past 15 years 99.9999% of all RA-4 paper is sold to photo-finishers using laser exposure who want paper optimized for their digital process and not hobbyists with enlargers such as yourself?

Me thinks your protests amount to little more than an angry old man watching the world pass him by, raging with empty boasts and rants of technical obfuscation in order to hide his fundamental insecurities.

 

[DREW WILEY]

They're different options, Chris. The nature of blacks on color inkjets is quite uneven, and the other tones are all more discontinuous. The inks are opaque and not transparent. For some subject matter, that might not be an issue. We each have our preferences in both look and workflow. You gain a certain range of new options by going inkjet, but you lose other things that might be visually valuable in their own right.
Which is better? - that just depends on the skill level of the particular individual involved, and how well matched his equipment and supplies
are matched to his vision. Anything exceptional requires dedication, regardless.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Frotog - you're simply wrong on every count. CAII covers a very broad range of products, most of them available up to at least a fifty inch roll width. I have some of them on hand in my lab right now, including a forty-inch roll of Fujiflex Supergloss which is the CAII version. And the gloss regular paper version I have on hand is not especially thin at all. It handles just fine, and is nothing like the cheap Photofinishing paper you describe. You can readily get cut sheet of these papers in several sheen options up to 20x24 inch. My boxes state the paper was made in Holland and cut in the UK. So why can't you get it over there, if there's so much of it being imported here? Time and again various people
have pointed out your gross error here. ... You might have some very useful information to pass around in certain categories, but this is
conspicuously not one of them. You seem to have founded your own little one-man flat-earth society in this respect. What you claim can't
exist is what many people are using all the time. The paper I use in the darkroom is EXACTLY the same thing being used in high-end large
format laser printers like Lambda, Lightjet, and Chromira, and it is SPECIFICALLY noted as suitable for both optical and laser printing in the
official Fuji Tech sheets, and is definitely NOT the thin narrow roll stock used in certain inexpensive snapshot printers. But it a very responsive product under an enlarger. Why are you trying to discourage people from using a product you yourself have very obviously never
tried yourself?

 

[AgX]

At least here in Europe there are two different Fuji Chrystal Papers with a II-Designation.
Both itended for photo-finishers only. One available in width up to 50".
Obviously both with the same emulsion but different base.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here in the US one has to be careful to access the Professional Photography section of the official website, and not the Photofinisher or MiniLab
section, though a few products will overlap. They make two photofinisher versions of CAII, the thin paper, and a premium thick weight. These
come in various roll sizes, all obviously rather small, and carry the imprint on back. The main selection of paper intended for full-service labs still
lists quite a bit of the previous papers, like Super C and P, but also the various Crystal Archive products and specialty papers. With the Fujiflex Supergloss, you have to search for a formal announcement of the batch number when the change of emulsions occurred between CA and CAII (the actual mfg change was about two years ago, as I recall - but the paper is visually different anyway in terms of contrast and depth of black). But an actual Fuji dealer list is required for all the product numbers and sizes available. Fujiflex is now available in only 30,32,and 40 inch rolls, but most other things are available bigger; and the popular matte and gloss RC CAII papers are available in cut sheet up to 20X24. Few if any of the pro products are imprinted on the back. And it is important to distinguish between a MARKETING notice of
"digitally optimized" (which in each instance was simultaneously IMPROVED for enlarger use too), for something marketed solely to automated
digital printers. Custom printing with big laser devices in terms of color control is very similar to printing with a colorhead, though the input
system is obviously scanning versus direct optical. The color purity of CAII is very very good if one understands these papers. But to achieve
the best result, it is obviously helpful to understand how to contrast mask up or down to fine-tune that characteristic. Masking for color
correction is rarely if ever an issue, like it routinely was with Ciba or dye transfer. But that's another story.

 

[DREW WILEY]

AgX - you might want to snoop around and see if Fuji-Hunt in the EU is selling a wider range of products directly to the big labs. It would be
ironic to have papers being coated in the Netherlands not being marketed there. I don't know of any of the big labs here laser-printing on the
Photofinisher or minilab papers. They use exactly the same papers I use optically. The only significant difference between me and a potential
home hobbyist is that I have the advantage of a couple of custom-built true additive colorheads, which better color purity, but any relatively
modern subtractive colorhead should yield highly satisfactory results too. Choice of neg film and basic technique are another subject.

 

[AgX]

9 papers plus three PET-based materials

 

[frotog]

From the original 2005 press release for the roll-out of CA type ii… http://www.photographyblog.com/news/fujicolor_crystal_archive_paper_type_ii_announced/

RE: optimization for minilab, N.B. this passage * "Designed for Super-fast Processing- In combination with CP-49E chemistry on new Frontier 550/570, it allows for Prints in Minutes performance."
Also this….."Fujicolor Crystal Archive Paper Type One, Fujicolor Crystal Archive Type II incorporates a new silver halide emulsion technology, coupler technology and layer design technology to deliver enhanced color reproduction, white purity, image stability and processing tolerance. When used in conjunction with the newly developed Frontier 550/570 Digital Lab System, it allows for Prints in Minutes performance—super-fast processing, which results in a dramatic improvement in productivity."

Is it any wonder that this paper was rolled out at the same time as the Frontier minilab machine? Clearly this also explains why fuji chose to use a thin base for ca-ii as fuji designed the paper for minimum maintenance frontier machines.

The official fujifilm usa product information bulletin on CA type http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-190U_CATypeII.pdf
Scroll down to section ten "sizes available". Maybe Drew confused cm. for inches? Who knows…anybodies guess.

Yesterday afternoon I had a phone conversation with the owner of the service bureau where I have laser light jet prints made. The tech there confirmed that this catalogue info is current, stating that the fuji rep won't even bother marketing CA-II paper to him as he understands that the bureau's business is with fine art photography and advertising, not minilab quick prints. He also confirmed that Fuji CA type ii cut sheets is the same product as Fuji CA type ii rolls.

Evidence doesn't lie Drew.

 

[AgX]

"FUJICOLOR CRYSTAL ARCHIVE PAPER TYPE II"

A paper of this designation is not even listed in Europe.
All type II papers are designated as DP (Digital Printing) papers

 

[frotog]

Yes, you are correct. In the European market Fuji brands their budget paper simply "Crystal Archive" see here for specs….. http://www.fujifilm.eu/uploads/tx_ffproducts/files/files/Fujicolor_Crystal_Archive_Paper_01.pdf

Further evidence to my assertion that this emulsion is fuji's budget/minilab paper (intended to compete in the same market as kodak edge and the thicker-based but identical emulsion, kodak royal) is this basic statement in the calibration data section of the poop sheet linked to above…"All recommended Dmax values can only be reached when using high active chemistry equal to Fujifilm CPRA Digital Pro AC and Fujifilm ADM chemistry". ADM chemistry is fuji's plug and play chemistry cartridges for their frontier machines. CPRA Digital Pro AC is not to be confused with CPRA standard Pro which is an entirely different set of RA-4 chemistry described in the fujicolor catalogue as thus.."Designed for processing analog exposed color paper, transparency, flex and metallic emulsions compatible with Process RA-4 through low to moderate volume roller transport processing equipment." CPRA standard Pro is currently impossible to find at the major suppliers. As far as my research goes, it has been replaced by CPRA Digital Pro AC. Considering that no one, other than the hobbyists on forum groups like this, who comprise an infinitely small subsection of chemistry consumers, this should come as no surprise if your understanding of the current marketplace is rooted in reality, here and now in 2014 (I'm looking at you Drew.


So what's so special about Fuji digital pro developer and why did it replace the standard pro developer? Fuji's digital pro developer described in the fuji catalogue thusly...http://www.fujifilmeurope.be/apps/fuji/fujifilmnv.nsf/pagesbykey/CPRA FEATURES-E (n.b. in the product description in this aforementioned link that CPRA digital pro was specifically designed to overcome the incompatibility of traditional Ra-4 developer and the advent of digitally optimized papers and digital exposure, or as described by fuji…"Everyone is aware of the problems incurred when attempting to process the output from medium to large format photo digital writers such as the Durst Lambda, Epsilon and Theta, Océ Lightjet, ZBE Chromira and Polielettronica LaserLab using standard photochemistry.
Achieving perfect results with a combination of normal processing times and a minimum of paper waste is always the aim but the difficulty in achieving high Dmax and colour saturation without flare is a classic problem reported by most laboratories.")

It's clear from the evidence above that in order to scoop up that tiny bit of extra profit that was available during the brief time RA-4 paper in cut sheets was unavailable (shortly after kodak discontinued their Supra in sheets), Fuji introduced their budget emulsion in the form of "Crystal Archive Paper type II", available in cut sheets from 8x10 to 20x24. That you must use either digital pro developer (which in the states is only available in 50 gallon drums) or ADM cartridges (plug and play for their minilab line) in order to get passable dmax is conveniently absent from Fuji's description of their CA type II cut sheet poop sheet. Why? The answer is as plain as day - since the only people still using ra-4 material with traditional exposure are hobbyists and tinkerers, fuji has made the assumption that their standards for print quality are not that of a pro lab and, consequently, don't really matter, shitty dmax, mottled blacks and crossover be damned! And given the majority of APUG'ers singing the praises of CA type II, it's clearly obvious that their assumption was dead on.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So who is filling the niche over there? Kodak? Ilford Switzerland and Mitsubishi were only very minor RA4 players here. Who is providing the RA4 materials for big backlit or metallic store ad displays? Here it's mostly Fuji-Hunt, but not exclusively. The big full-service lab down the street does keep on hand a couple of rigs to handle snapshots for the camera stores, i.e., inexpensive "machine" prints, but of better process control than the big chain store or drugstore options. But all the big custom stuff is done on whichever premium Fuji product is specified, generally on 8x10 colorhead enlargers - a niche niche, since there is plenty of competition when it comes to big lasers, though they all use the same paper. I did give one minor point of misinformation. The Super C and current CAII regular paper does have a very faint imprint on the back, less conspicuous than the photofinisher paper. Polyester stock obviously does not. But as usual, I can't relate to the lack of basic literacy in medieval feudal towns such as frotog inhabits. Maybe he thinks there are all kinds of sea monsters swimming around certain parts
of the Fuji product listing that might give him bad dreams at night or something. Numerous businesses and well-known galleries in this country
make their living using big rolls of Fuji RA4 CAII products which he claims don't exist. There is still a fair amt of Super C and P still available in
big rolls too. Anybody can order this stuff from popular houses like B&H and Freestyle, though the big labs all buy it direct from Fuji-Hunt.
Even the neighborhood camera store orders it in for me at competitive pricing, that is, the big 40-inch rolls. Cut sheet has generally been sold
right off the shelf. It's damn good stuff and easy to print on. If you have a colorhead, some simple processing drums, good ventilation, and
reasonable temp control, any serious darkroom enthusiast should have no difficulty printing their own color negs at home. Don't let anyone
scare you off with all kinds of horror stories about ghosts and gremlins and trolls hiding inside boxes of CAII paper!

 

[DREW WILEY]

PS - the CAII papers work perfectly in ordinary Kodak-label RA/RT chem or the popular clones like the Arista kits, as well as standard Fuji-Hunt
chem. The image quality is better than ever, though we each have our own preferences with regard to specific sheens or contrast levels relative to our preferred negative films. In this respect too, Frotog is spinning just a lot of utterly misleading BS. Don't be scared off by that
nonsense.

 

[frotog]

Drew, either grow-up or show me the evidence.

I've already stated my case and it's based on facts (perhaps you're too thick to follow?). Do you really think your empty boasts based on your expert authority comprise a counter argument?

You would have been better served had you finished high school.

 

[frotog]

Maybe Drew is what they call an auditory learner -

Here you go Andrew...


Paper and Lab Product Technical Hotline and Color Paper Hotline:
1-800-788-3854, option #73
Business Hours: 8:30AM-5:00PM local time nationwide

Hotline Voice Mail Box Number: 1-800- 736-3600 #3145

...though I doubt you'll call as few things enrage the narcissistic personality more than being proven wrong.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If it wasn't for the blatant misinformation being plastered on this thread, I would simply ignore a particular individual. But trash talk on the web discourage people from trying what are otherwise very superb products. And I will candidly admit I have no immediate knowledge of what is being specifically marketed in the UK. There are many Fuji paper options here in the US, and they are being utilized in all kinds of pro fashion, including the work of very high priced artists, derived from BO optical enlargement and laser printers. Everybody knows this who is a serious color printmaker these days and prefers something other than inkjet, which is indeed the case with many photographers. And I personally think the seamless optical mode gives the best results with color negs. Getting used to the newest color neg films themselves takes a little time, but making superb prints of the very highest quality onto the CAII products here is, frankly, rather easy. It's their highest quality paper line ever, with cleaner whites, better blacks, and crisper hues, but only incrementally different from Super C. I have never had even an inkling of what Frotog describes as crossover or blotchy thin blacks. Either he is using completely the wrong paper or maybe has moss growing in the developer. I just don't know. Maybe he hasn't changed a burnt-out enlarger bulb in a few decades. That is his problem,
and if he want to have yet another misinformed rant, I'll be happy to let him have the last word. There's nothing worth listening to.

 

[frotog]

Drew,

Don't you have the attention span to stay on topic? You're being evasive and misrepresentative again. My contention has to do with Fuji CA type II, not the rest of the fuji line. The lab that I use for digital c's prints on type CN and the concomitant fuji digital pro Ra developer (kodak ra-rt tends to produce flare when used with this exposure/paper combo). The prints look beautiful!

But go ahead, malign me with accusations of poor technique all you want - it doesn't bother me. Quite the contrary, it only serves to make you appear even less secure than you already are. I've given you all the resources to discover what in fact CA type II is, where it lies in the line-up of the currently available papers from fuji and what developers work with it and which are sub-standard. Now it's up to you to get over your insecurities and follow the dots.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Basics : I routinely print on CAII, both paper-based and polyester (Fujiflex). No question whatsoever that these belong to the CAII family. I and many others routinely use standard Kodak RA/RT chem or identical generic equivalents. It works easily, reliably, and perfectly. I have never seen a sample of what you call "CN" paper, so don't know if there is an equivalent of that here in the US or not. Please address any of your further comments objectively, because I frankly have no concept of what your gripe with Fuji is. On this side of the pond, they seem to know precisely what they are doing, and their paper line performs admirably as stated in their official literature and tech bulletins. There is nothing substandard or difficult about any of their papers I have used, including those which are plainly labeled CAII. These same papers are
indeed used both under colorheads and with pro laser printing devices, and are processed in standard RA4 chem. I can't speak for minilabs or the nature of their supplies, because I never use such services. No "flare", no crossover, no mottled blacks, no muddy blacks. And calling it
pro lab quality would be an understatement.

 

[RPC]

Frotog, have you made optical prints on both Fuji Crystal Archive Paper Type II paper, and Endura paper using Kodak RA-RT developer, compared them side by side, and evaluated sensitometric tests done on them? If you had, you would see that the Fuji paper results were high quality, and almost identical to Endura. I have done so, and use this paper regularly and see none of the problems you have complained about. So have many others with no problems. I have even used it with home brew RA-4 developer and gotten superb results. Why do you keep bad mouthing this Fuji paper when it is apparent you have not yourself used it, and in spite of what other users say about its high quality? Use and evaluate it yourself before you judge it.

 

[frotog]

Newsflash! I just got off the phone with Pat from Fuji professional (at the phone # I referenced in a previous post). Some interesting info:

First off, Pat confirmed everything that I've already stated about Fuji Ca type II paper

1. It's available in sheet sizes up to 20x24.
2. The largest roll of CA type II is 12" wide.
3. It is fuji's only "consumer" paper, not to be confused with their professional line.
4. CA type II does indeed have lousy dmax and mottled blacks (yes, he used the word "mottled").
5. They stopped manufacturing the cut sheet ca type ii in the USA due to the low market volume.
6. The reason for the high price for this consumer paper in cut sheets in the US has to do with the fact that it is imported from the netherlands.
7. The market for cut sheet paper and film is bigger in europe than it is in the USA.
8. All the professional papers sold in the US are coated and cut in Greenwood, South Carolina.
9. These professional papers as well as CAII are digitally optimized for millisecond long laser exposure instead of seconds-long exposure under a tungsten source.
10. Due to fact #9 above, digitally optimized papers will always have reciprocity effects when subjected to seconds-long exposures under a tungsten source resulting in color cross-over.
11. With the current digitally optimized papers latent image drift is extremely pronounced, making getting consistent results with anything other than a chromira, lambda, frontier, etc. (other than a tungsten source) very difficult

This is directly from the horse's mouth folks.

And Andrew, if you have a hat, now would be a good time to prepare to EAT IT!

I trust this answers the OP's question.

QED

 

[RPC]

Frotog, Endura paper may have slightly better shadow detail than CA II, but I get no "mottling" and no crossover from this paper. Perhaps in Fuji or other developers, it happens. But not in RA-RT or my home brew! Again, you should evaluate it yourself.

 

[frotog]

RPC -
thanks for the info - I already have otherwise what would be the point of my post?

As for the mottling; Pat at Fuji Professional said that this is due to the low silver content of CA II. He told me that it is unavoidable, even in digital exposure minilab machines running chem at higher temps (btw, I run kodak RA-RT in my roller transport machine here in my studio).

Try exposing an entire sheet, then process. You will see it. If you don't - see the eye doctor.

 

[RPC]

I have not run that test, but what counts is if it is in the prints. I have made many prints and run sensitometric tests, and have observed no hint of any mottling. I don't need to see an eye doctor--if it was there, it would show up in the sensitometric tests and on the gray scales, which it doesn't, or I wouldn't use it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The color balance setting on the colorhead between the popular previous Super C and CAII was only about 5cc green, exactly as Fuji implies, because the green laser is generally the weakest of the three. Printing times almost exactly the same. It took me only two test strips to
balance to the new product. I have a fresh forty inch roll of it on hand right now, in my own lab. I routinely expect own standard of print quality to conspicuously exceed that of any professional lab, otherwise I wouldn't be doing this myself. I learned to print chromogenic prints decades ago, even though Cibachrome was my preferred medium, and I was realistically as good at Ciba as anyone in the world. Now I believe I can make even better prints on CAII, given recent improvements in both the papers and relevant color neg films. Scheduling is a bit of an issue, because I spend a fair amt of time doing black and white work, but I've got no complaints about the competence of Fuji to
provide appropriate papers.

 

[frotog]

I have not run that test, but what counts is if it is in the prints. I have made many prints and run sensitometric tests, and have observed no hint of any mottling. I don't need to see an eye doctor--if it was there, it would show up in the sensitometric tests and on the gray scales, which it doesn't, or I wouldn't use it.

Good for you - keep on believing and hold onto that feeling.


Drew,
How is it that you have a fresh 40" roll of CA-II when it's only available up to 12" per Fuji's confirmation as I've already shown? Wait, let me guess, fuji made an exception for master printer Drew Wiley who has miraculously discovered heretofore hidden magical properties in their bottom-of-the-line consumer paper and so they halted their normal production and ran a special size exclusively for you. Is that right? With each post you retreat further and further into a fantasy world populated by nonexistent papers, plutonium powered cold lights and two person shows with Ansel Adams. What is your deal?

 

[Wayne]

RPC -
thanks for the info - I already have otherwise what would be the point of my post?

To flog a personal grudge?