the four papers I use there is significant difference in the paper base well two are the same... the luster finish and the glossy finish are white .... The flex always seems a bit more yellow than the first two and the metallic is really grey by comparison.
Originally Posted by polyglot
Last edited by Bob Carnie; 10-11-2013 at 01:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
The new Fujiflex has the same yellowish base color as the previous C version, but the hues come out cleaner anyway. Last nite I looked at a
few recent prints on it, and weirdly, there were white highlights in some of the prints which actually look brighter than the base. I pondered
over this before. Perhaps those "true" whites in the actual scene contain a tad of blue and just look cleaner, just like laundry bleach bluing or
how, when someone wants a really clean bright looking wall paint, a tad of blue is added to give it that impression under indoor light, even
though the measured reflectance might be less. But I don't think so. A few of my print borders are a bit brighter than others, so it must be
related to something else, and I've ruled out fog. And it seems to have no effect of the final image - haunted? A very minor difference, but
has me puzzled. I've checked temp and chem freshness, test strips vs big prints (no difference), and still can't figure it out. Anyway... The earlier supergloss never did that. Yet overall, for me at least, the current version is giving much better results, really nice and clean, esp from masked Ektar - rival Ciba, maybe even better. I never use metallic, so can't comment there.
The slight yellow is the Flex materials natural state, I have discussed this with Fuji, they could not tell me why but its something to consider with flex.. Kind of freeked me out the first couple of years as , yellow stain is generally not a good thing in process control for RA4 and took a bit of patience to get use to the base.
Still bothers me.
I just very carefully match the color of my matboard to the exposed margins of the poly base, that way everything looks "white". But the image area itself is so damn rich - even better than the RC version of CAII. (Maybe too good sometimes - there are obviously subjects where I want
to pull things back a bit, but without the "muddiness" inherent to Portra 160 or traditional neg films). I don't think it's a stain, but perhaps something which changes with even minor amounts of exposure. A very different base material from what Ciba used, that's for sure. Oh well,
I've got bigger fish to fry, cause the current CAII lineup is going to give me a lot of happy mileage...
These are my findings exactly. Although I suspect that if Bob were to try CAii under an enlarger today he'd see that even the most indiscriminate of color correctors could easily tell the difference between the two. I also suspect that Bob, who prints for clients and thus has an eye for neutral color balance instead of the gross, dominant color casts that some here seem to prefer, were to attempt making a neutral balanced color print under the enlarger with today's papers then he'd more than likely come to the same conclusion that I have.
Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
My reference to not being able to tell the difference ... was is that a colour print made in 1990 with an enlarger using the best papers available,, and a colour print made
of the same scanned negative today using a laser device and current best paper... I believe both prints are of excellent value and look, and very hard to tell which one is which. They both would be good and with good workflow I can see the benefit of both printing methods.
I have had the pleasure of doing both, I think that today its still possible to enjoy enlarger printing of colour, just not sure which paper is maximized for that process.
I do not have any experience using an enlarger with current paper optimised for current LED or LAser printing. There may be huge differences, I would be surprised it there were not complications.
I do not have any motivation at this time to try it , other than for my own edification, and currently I have work to complete rather than testing.
When it comes to comparing a digital c to an analogue print made in 1990, you're right, it's hard to tell the difference. But now try to print that same neg under an enlarger and you will confirm that your suspicion is correct - complications abound. No amount of tweaking will get you anywhere near the paper you were using in the '90's. I have tried every current paper under the sun (with the exception of metallic, which I abhor) and all digitally optimized papers suffer under the enlarger in ways that make it impossible to get a great print. I wish this weren't the case as I hate not being able to use my roller transport machine, it doesn't make sense to invest in a laserlight printer when I can use a service bureau nearby, and ink jet is just not the same as a glossy c-print. So currently I proof work on a cache of kodak vc (the predecessor to premiere, exhibits some of the nasty qualities of the digitally optimized papers but nowhere near as bad as the current crop), then I go to a digital flow for finished, exhibition prints.
Mind you, I'm just as much a die-hard analogue practitioner as the biggest retrogrouch here, however, what's the point of pretending that it's the same as it's always been when clearly the manufactors have directed their efforts solely towards the digital workflow (misleading manufacture's info and erroneous misinformed personal testimonials of luddites aside).
I suspected as much as not only is the paper incredibly faster the colour of the latent image is different from what I ever remember.
I have always wanted to shoot an 8x10 colour project and make some fine prints on an enlarger but I was put off by the complete speed.
I would be able to print and see the image on the easel and with some pretty predictable times in the ***good old days*** I just am not sure there is a paper out there that is maximised for it.
Your findings back my thoughts.
Drew.. ** the founder of photography** on the other hand could turn a sows ear into a silk purse.. I have always said that he is the most interesting man on the earth.. keep thirsty my friends.
Just a thought here.
Could the performance of the current papers be improved by changing/filtering/augmenting the light sources?
Are there issues with UV in the light source?
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
For papers to work with laser or Led exposure the sensitivity or band-with of light that exposed the colour layers is very precarious.
This is also true for laser exposure of Black and White paper.. Agfa Classic would work with laser light, Ilford Warmtone would not.
The manufacturers need to figure out how to design the emulsions to work with the output of the laser and LED ouput, not the other way and could be IMO very difficult task.
Others with experience like PE or Simon Galley could probably give more insight than I regarding this issue, I just am the monkey making the prints.