Type "R" gone missing?

[garryl]

Just received my daughters dance pictures after a protracted wait. Inside was a note from the lab used by the studio. They apologized for the wait and explained that both Kodak and Fuji stopped production of their Type "R" papers. They had to re-tool for a new process. Is this true? Is Ilford the only other option other than digital? Is direct slide printing disappearing?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As far as I know, yes, this is true. Agfa had a reversal paper for a while, but I don't know if it is still in production.

 

[Thilo Schmid]

The R3/R3000 Process will disappear. The reason is that running only one process is an advantage for any lab. Digital Printer Technology allows to print everything on RA-4 Paper. The only alternatives left will be Ilfochrome and Inter-Negatives.

 

[inthedark]

Yes, everyone except Ilford has/will stop carrying R3, I know this because I had just learned R3 when I received Kodak not of discontinuation. However the date of discontinuation is Sept 31, so your lab just jumped out early is all. I still have enough chems to go through three or four more 40" rolls, but I hesitate to buy more if it just sits. Are you folks interested in having me grab a couple more rolls before it dies completely? That's assuming they (Kodak) haven't jumped their own deadline.

 

[garryl]

This is the very reason the lab in Calif. quit Type "R". It too was told that there was enough material to last till Sept. Then came the notice that nothing was left to buy this July- according to the included note. They then had to spend 30,000+ for new equipment- right in the middle of all their dance photo season orders. An because of the learning curve, the orders (from my daughters school) had to be reprinted. I guess this is just another Kodak--"SUPRISE we don't do that no more"!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Reversal printing has certainly suffered with improvements in digital, but I think the thing that really killed it off had to do with new shipping restrictions that made it difficult to acquire the chemistry, particularly if you wanted to do R-3000 in small batches.

I liked the look of Fuji Type-35, which had good color (I preferred it to Kodak Type-R) and less contrast than Ilfochrome, but just as I discovered it for myself, the chemistry disappeared from the market.

 

[inthedark]

Well, I have been in the process of finding an alternative to this which would be an internegative of sorts, but with my copy cameras two generations are as good as one, so it shouldn't be noticed. The problem with internegative film as such, is that it is limited in size, but because of what I have available through aerial photography, I hope to find a way to utilize a clear film negative or display material as a negative of contact size. Then we would be sure not to loose quality. Enlarge once to the correct size up to 42" wide I believe (but this may have changed) and contact print from there. Essentially only one generation. But as it is clear, I have yet to satisfactorily flashed a correct base density or color. I'm working on it though and I usually succeed, it is just a matter of finding time and energy. I think I am getting a densitometer here soon, so I should be able to get a handle on that pretty quick, and all the chaos with the aerial roll of film has really nudged my understanding of color and what affects it. So were I to have time soon, I think I have some viable options on the way to get a consistent color mask.

anyway I think I am rambling while I sleep type. I am awaiting dinner to be quite ready then off to bed. Sleep well everyone. ZZZZZZZ

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't see demand growing for interneg prints any time soon. They can be done well, but they rarely retain the vibrancy of the original transparency in the way a well-made Ilfochrome or LightJet print can.

 

[DKT]

Don't know if this would be rumor mongering or not...but an Ilford tech told me a week or two ago that cibas were sorta bottoming out. In a way I sorta believe this. There are maybe a dozen labs in my area, with 2 large ones. Of all these, only 2 are left that use Cibachrome, and only one of those has an actual cibachrome processor--a big 52 some odd inch beast. This lab has a Lightjet printer as well and uses RA4 materials for it--they've done quite a number of murals and prints for us in the past couple of years, and they started more expensive than regular optical prints--but now they're much, much cheaper. Think we're getting a 5x7 for maybe 7-8 bucks, whereas a Cibachrome would have been maybe twice that for one without any type of masking or whatever. A straight print. We either do the scan in-house and they tweak the final, or they do a drum scan.

We just did an exhibit that had something like 150 photos in it, half of them outsourced to 2 labs and done on Lightjet printers. Of these, there were 18 murals--one was 16 feet long. It was a big enough job to have to go out for bids, and wound up getting split between two vendors. I really can't believe that using internegs or even traditional optical prints would have been better or cheaper. A number of labs took part in the bids, and if they could have done it cheaper optically --believe me, they would have--because lower bidder almost always wins these jobs, for better or for worse.

I just can't see the business sense for a lab to stick with anything but Lightjets or Lambda printers for this type of work. What I've seen in my area is that either the labs have the business base to afford the astronomical outlay of dough for one of these machines--or try to compete and slowly go under. The other thing is, that you can get a print made at a lab halfway across the country when it comes down to it--so that's another killer for this business. One of the labs was two states away and shipped the murals packed in a ten foot long crate overnight that weighed almost 800 pounds. We had to move it with a forklift. All the communication via email, telephone, and Fed EX--never met anyone from the lab face to face, and they did a great job. no problems.

of course, as always, my opinions only.

KT

 

[inthedark]

Okay, then, just thought I would mention. I kind of figured that might be the case at this point. But again, at least around here the photographers are not preferring the lightjet/lambda (I don't know which) that are being put out. Of course my mosaic is printed on a lightjet in Denver somewhere, so obviously some folks have that all figured out, just not here.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are a couple of old hands in the repro/graphic arts trade hanging around photo.net. Here's one who seems to know a lot about these issues and seems very eager to answer questions:

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member.tcl?user_id=499187

 

[inthedark]

Thanks, David, I will try to connect with him as time permits.

 

[Jorge]

DKT requested that I remove his responses regarding the discussion with Jill. As a result I also had to remove her responses and those which were related to the discussion to keep a coherent thread.