RA-4 Printing at home. Is it dead?

[DREW WILEY]

Customer service positions at numerous manufacturers are entry level positions and need to be supplemented with other forms of information.
I've gotten completely wrong information from Fuji's US people several times, and frankly, knew about fifty times more about their own products than the person on the other end. But I can see how it might be a problem if the kid at the other end only understood the photofinishing line and not pro products. But who know? The "plutonium" cold light was obviously hyperbole - it is just an exceptional high-powered V54 unit I once had Aristo make for me, and still use. The big additive enlargers are my own design, but employ a lot of cannibalized components. I'm no electrical engineer. I've been featured alongside all kinds of famous artists, including AA. Big deal. Lots of people have. But at least these people respected my work and treated me like an equal. I'm nothing special. I do this for my own satisfaction and from
time to time do bag some serious print sales. They know who I am. I need not be concerned about ridiculous web chatter. I will just keep on
shooting and printing wonderful images on "nonexistent" materials.

 

[frotog]

To flog a personal grudge?

My only grudge is against people spreading disinformation here about the current state of RA papers and their compatibility with tungsten light sources either willfully or with ignorance. I've shown the evidence. Take it or leave it.

 

[frotog]

Customer service positions at numerous manufacturers are entry level positions and need to be supplemented with other forms of information.
I've gotten completely wrong information from Fuji's US people several times, and frankly, knew about fifty times more about their own products than the person on the other end.

And there you have it folks, Drew Wiley knows Fuji's product line better than the rep at fuji professional and the tech supervisors who write the pdf data sheets. Why am I not surprised?

 

[frotog]

Oh, by the way Drew, tell us where you purchased your 40" roll of CA type II. Curious minds want to know.

 

[AgX]

Newsflash! I just got off the phone with Pat from Fuji professional (at the phone # I referenced in a previous post). Some interesting info:
7. The market for cut sheet paper and film is bigger in europe than it is in the USA.

I don't know.
But Fuji in Europe themselves do not offer paper in sheets

 

[frotog]

I don't know.
But Fuji in Europe themselves do not offer paper in sheets

Dig - In the UK Ag photographic has it, in EU sizing to boot. http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/fuji-crystal-archive-sheet-sizes-331-c.asp
In Eu, it's appears readily available at Calumet stores - http://www.calumetphoto.de/INTERSHO...MHw==&SearchTerm=fuji+crystal+archive&search=

Generally, you can't buy direct from Fuji unless you're a distributer, a photo-finishing lab or, evidently, Drew Wiley who orders his 40" rolls "off the menu", so to speak, sort of like an in-the-know customer at In n Out asking for an "animal style" burger.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Is there an "Ignore" feature to this forum? That would be useful, so that we can concentrate on sharing actual constructive information. Anybody can order any of the products I use from any legit Fuji dealer (in the US or Canada, at least). The Carolina-mfg cut-sheet papers are
being marketed under the discount Arista private label, and is allegedly to be coated on a bit yellower paper than the premium imported product,
which is being sold parallel by them, with each clearly distinguished. I don't know what B&H's private label paper source is. I can't test them all
personally. So forum feedback would in fact be useful. Do not confuse any of these with the DP papers, which are plainly differentiated in
Fuji's tech sheets as something entirely different, and which I have no logical interest in ever testing.

 

[MartinP]

May I humbly suggest that perhaps there is some confusion here, possibly between different markets, between CA-II and CA DP-II papers??

The latter one seems to be the (European) designation for the higher range CA paper which is wider, with a heavier base and available with no backprint - compared to the smaller rolls for Frontier enprint-sized machines etc. The whole product family is (here in EU) labelled Crystal Archive, even the Fujiflex material.

 

[frotog]

The Carolina-mfg cut-sheet papers are
being marketed under the discount Arista private label, and is allegedly to be coated on a bit yellower paper than the premium imported product,
which is being sold parallel by them, with each clearly distinguished. I don't know what B&H's private label paper source is. I can't test them all
personally. So forum feedback would in fact be useful. Do not confuse any of these with the DP papers, which are plainly differentiated in
Fuji's tech sheets as something entirely different, and which I have no logical interest in ever testing.

Wow… you just can't help yourself, can you?

Arista? Really? And what does B & H's color tone bargain paper have to do with any of this???

Yet even more blatant disinformation and dissembling from Drew.
Drew, your lies are getting more and more egregious, easier to prove wrong and with each passing one, whatever credibility you may have had here is disappearing faster than your cherished idea of analogue RA-4.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/about/corporate_profile/fujifilm_companies/manufacturing/about/index.html

What are you talking about - "DP"? Do you mean "digital photography" or is this another one of your imaginary lines of paper that you've dreamt up to further obfuscate the fact that you've been caught in an ever-increasing web of outright lies?

 

[Truzi]

Wow, this is almost as good as a Kodachrome Revival thread:munch:

 

[frotog]

May I humbly suggest that perhaps there is some confusion here, possibly between different markets, between CA-II and CA DP-II papers??

The latter one seems to be the (European) designation for the higher range CA paper which is wider, with a heavier base and available with no backprint - compared to the smaller rolls for Frontier enprint-sized machines etc. The whole product family is (here in EU) labelled Crystal Archive, even the Fujiflex material.

Yes, there is a CA DP-II paper available in europe. From my research (confirmed by Fuji professional), this is the same emulsion as EU Crystal Archive (but on a thicker base) which is the same emulsion as the US Crystal Archive type II. In the US catalogue it goes by the moniker "Fuji Crystal Archive Preferred". Fuji refers to these two papers as "consumer" papers, which means significantly less silver than the professional line. It's a good thing Drew has no interest in "testing" this paper as he'd have to pay shipping from Europe or the UK. And even if he were to have in interest in "testing" it he'd see that it produced identical results to his beloved CA-II. I shouldn't have to explain this again as I've submitted links whenever they were needed.

Just as in EU, the entire range of Fuji USA photo paper is designated "Crystal Archive", even, obviously, the lowly consumer-grade CA-II. This would be clear to anyone who followed my links - it cannot be construed as a source of confusion.

No, Drew's contention, as he's plainly stated here and in a number of other threads, is that CA-II does not designate a single product but rather an entire line. He also contends that this paper is better than the old pre-digitally optimized type "C" paper and that he has a 40" wide roll of it even though it's only available in up to 12" rolls.

Looking forward to his next whopper!

 

[AgX]

May I humbly suggest that perhaps there is some confusion here, possibly between different markets, between CA-II and CA DP-II papers??

The latter one seems to be the (European) designation for the higher range CA paper which is wider, with a heavier base and available with no backprint - compared to the smaller rolls for Frontier enprint-sized machines etc. The whole product family is (here in EU) labelled Crystal Archive, even the Fujiflex material.

Good Point.

Fuji themselves are inconsistant in their designations, using other terms in texts than on labels, furthermore you get dfifferent listings or even none at all depending to which page you are led within their internet system.

 

[frotog]

Good Point.

Fuji themselves are inconsistant in their designations, using other terms in texts than on labels, furthermore you get dfifferent listings or even none at all depending to which page you are led within their internet system.

It's really not that confusing if you spend five minutes looking into it and know how to use a search engine. But let me parse it for you….

The discrepancy in fuji's paper designations is limited to two sets of different names, one for the fuji USA, one for fuji EU. Here is the complete list of all the current RA-4 papers(including both the professional line and the consumer-branded Crystal Archive) for Fuji EU http://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/products/photofinishing/photographic-paper/

And here is the complete list of all the current RA-4 papers for Fuji USA (including Crystal Archive Professional papers and the consumer, bottom-of-the-line Crystal Archive type II) http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products...ts/color_papers_printing_materials/index.html

Relevant to the discussion here are the cut sheets which fuji packages specifically for the hobbyist market. In the EU this is labeled simply "Fujicolor Crystal Archive Paper". In the USA, the same exact product is branded as "Fujicolor Crystal Archive type II". As I've already pointed out, all fuji color paper packaged in cut sheets, both for the EU market and the USA, comes from the Netherlands Fuji factory. The only difference is the box label and the sizes available. The most salient point here is that the cut sheet product that everyone here raves about is Fuji's least silver-laden, least expensive, bottom-of-the-line, consumer product. Fuji technical outright admits that this paper suffers from mottled blacks and poor color reproduction in comparison with the rest of their emulsions. Latent image drift, a subject I've never seen taken up on the forums, becomes a serious problem for precise color correction when this paper is used under an enlarger (btw…there is a fix for this problem but I won't point it out since no one has mentioned the inherent difficulty in color correcting digitally optimized papers) Bottom line is that it is the exact same paper you'd get from one-hour photo kiosks around the world that use fuji products.

On the other hand, all the roll paper products sold to the US market, including the consumer CAII product in rolls, come from the South Carolina plant. Likewise, all roll paper products destined for the EU market are manufactured at the Netherlands factory.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Once again, I must point out the fact that I have already been printing for at least two years now Fuji Type II papers made in the Netherlands,
just like many other people. The US Carolina mfg paper has only recently been made available, and is being sold and labeled differently. I have
not tried it. This new CAII paper is an incremental advance from the previous Super C paper, which was popular for enlargment among various
parties, including big labs, but otherwise behave very similarly in color balance and printing speed. I happen to be a professional buyer and am
very very familiar with the idiosyncrasies common to mfg corporations, which often include the potential for marketing people and website
designers to be a bit out of sych with manufacturing and actual inventory status. With some big companies like 3M, nobody even seem to
know how many different depts there are, or how to communicate between them. So unless someone is dealing with cut-sheet Fuji paper
being plainly marketed by a well known distributor like B&H or Freestyle (here), it really really helps to have the exact product number on
hand if you special order a roll of something, and not just a generic description of it. You can't realistically expect someone in a camera store
or even on a phone line to correctly sort thru all the possibilities otherwise. I don't know about Europe, but here Fujifilmusa is known for a
fair amt of infighting and lack of communication. If you have the correct product number to start with, you can get it quick.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... otherwise, Frotog, your information is as usual, dead wrong. You merely speculating based upon a little phone and website time. Many people
actual use these products, get superb results, and even make their living with them. I don't know if you are trying to slander a very reputable
manufacturer or me ... I've got a thick skin, so it doesn't bother me personally... but I don't like to see the dissemination of misinformation
potential discourage the use of very fine darkroom products which we all need to support. This is, after all, APUG. But your own information would come across with a lot more weight if you ever actually printed with these products instead of providing us with a rant.

 

[frotog]

More blatant lies, Drew, with nothing to back it up other than hearsay. Considering that the tenor of all your posts on this forum and LFF is one of hyperbole, self-congratulatory bombast and obfuscation, that's not a good thing.

I actually feel a little let down by this recent "fuji-is-so-big-they-can't-properly-communicate-within-their-own-dept-let-alone-their-customer-base-because-of-corporate-infighting-so-therefore-the-info-you've-posted-is-meaningless" post of yours. Frankly, it lacks the show of imagination that I've come to expect from you. Oh well…have fun stocking shelves at the hardware store you work at.

 

[polyglot]

My god people, give it a rest already. None of you is going to listen to the others so how about we all just stop before someone has an aneurysm.

Yes, there is an ignore function. I have about 3 trolls in mine and I suggest that both of you make good use of it before I start growing my list

Can we lock this unproductive thread?

 

[DREW WILEY]

My information is right on, Polyglot ... and I'm not part of any deep dark conspiracy along with Fuji, B&H, Freestyle, and many other successful darkroom printers to fool all the little hobbits in the shire. It helps to know what to ask for. Everyone who actually knows me knows that I might spice the conversation up a bit, but I never bullshit. I could care less about personal flack form the cranks. I do care about people being able to acquire and use real products effectively so that the stream remains available to the rest of us in the future. What incentive would someone like Fuji or Kodak have to reintroduce 30X40 cut sheet, for example, is these very products were being constantly and ignorantly bad-mouthed on those very forums dedicated to promoting their use? "Unproductive" is relative. Yeah, I'm sick of it myself. But maybe someone actually wants to try RA4 and has become confused by a lot of conflicting information. But there are already
parallel threads out there, where numerous individuals have vouched for my competence and experience. I know the ropes in this kind of
game. Learn the hard way if you wish, but there might indeed be some distinct benefit from getting worthwhile advice from someone whose already taken the trouble. And if the others can't distinguish between hands-on fact and fabricated rumor, that isn't my fault.

 

[Roger Cole]

My only grudge is against people spreading disinformation here about the current state of RA papers and their compatibility with tungsten light sources either willfully or with ignorance. I've shown the evidence. Take it or leave it.

Oh, you have a grudge against yourself? That would explain things.

Drew can come across as abrasive to some (doesn't to me, but I understand it) but he knows what he's talking about and has very high standards. If he were the only one claiming the CAII paper works great for conventional optical printing I might think it works great for someone of Drew's experience and ability but maybe not for everyone. But there are many, many reports from other people who have no problems at all with this paper either.

I don't really what some PR droid at the company said. The proof of pudding is in the eating and proof of paper is in the printing. I've simply seen too many optically printed prints on this paper that are very good to worry about it. I'll jump back into RA4 again without a worry as soon as my darkroom build out with running water is completed.

 

[tnabbott]

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.

I am too (only recently as to RA-4) and agree that results from optical wet printing are superior to digital by a noticeable margin.

 

[mklw1954]

I've been making RA4 color prints for the last two years. It's not difficult and the results are great. I'm a serious amateur and have done b&w printing for nearly 40 years, and in some ways developing color prints is easier. I use fresh Fuji Crystal Archive Type II 8x10 and 11x14 paper. Establishing the color filtration and exposure time for your enlarger, film, and paper takes a lot of trial and error in the beginning (I think it took me around 15 prints) but once you establish this you can just turn out the prints. Of course, you may have to adjust the filtration and do another print or two if the shot was done under non-daylight lighting, poor exposure, etc. Calculating a different exposure time using the square of the distance from the lens to the paper works so that is not a variable that requires another print for a normal negative. It does pay to stick to the same paper and film but I do use a few different color films and establish the exposure conditions for each film. I develop my own color film which would reduce any variability due to film development.

I was given boxes of old Kodak paper with a couple of color head enlarger deals but ending up discarding all of it because it's very difficult to establish the exposure conditions and they're not consistent. Just use fresh paper and store it in the refrigerator.

I follow the directions for Kodak Ektacolor chemicals (no starter, one-shot), and use a Unicolor roller base and Cibrachrome drums. I adjust the temperature of the pre-wash water and each chemical using a digital thermometer with a wire probe (calibrated to a color thermometer) just prior to addition to the drum. The temperature of the small amounts of water and chemicals is adjusted in pots of hot and cold water and developing is done at room temperature. So no expensive processors are required.

The paper and chemicals are not very expensive and the results are great. I am confident that no one could produce better prints from a digital file and inkjet printer. I've gone back over a year later and used the same conditions to produce a second print that looks just like the first print, so reproducibility is good as well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And I do the same. In addition, I print from negatives nearly 50 years old with good results.

PE

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting. We are now 9 months from the start of this thread and have maybe destroyed a few beautiful friendships along the way that otherwise might not have been destroyed but for the initial post and in all of this time I cannot see another post from the OP

Either consciously or otherwise he "lit the blue touch paper and retired immediately" to quote the warning placed on every firework sold in the U.K.

pentaxuser