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.
Funny thing is that I can get excellent results with the digitally optimized ilford b/w papers under the enlarger, both fb and rc. Granted, it prints just like grade 4 galerie, but this oftentimes is just the ticket for mural prints. Other than that, I don't notice any differences between galerie digital and conventional b/w papers in terms of exposure and tonality.
I would love to hear what PE or Simon Galley has to say about the digitally optimized papers and their incompatibility with traditional tungsten/halogen exposure.
I don't know exactly what paper you people who have problems are printing with, but I am using the current Fuji Crystal Archive Type II cut-sheet paper and simply am not having any of the problems talked about. I have been printing with Kodak papers for 30 years and see little difference with the current CAII paper other than a little higher contrast I mentioned earlier and it is faster. Have you used cut-sheet paper or just from rolls? Since they will be exposed with different light sources, perhaps Fuji manufactures each with different response characteristics. If you haven't used the current cut-sheet version I suggest you try it before bad-mouthing it. If there was anyone out there reading this thread thinking of trying color printing , you have probably scared them away by now.
Last edited by RPC; 10-13-2013 at 09:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
That's precisely why we need, as I asked, for everyone on APUG who has had experience of the new Fuji paper to give us their experiences as you have.
Originally Posted by RPC
I have no doubt that frotog's opinion is genuine as indeed is Drew Wiley's but as things stood it was simply two APUGers with diametrically opposed opinions which doesn't help those who want to try RA4 printing and don't want to try cutting their own sheets from Kodak roll paper which it seems does not suffer from the same problems as the Fuji paper if I have understood frotog's contention correctly.
Last edited by pentaxuser; 10-13-2013 at 06:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.
In case my opinion matters... I've been color printing only since the beginning of this year. I'm using Fuji CA Type II (lustre) and Kodak RA/RT chemistry. I process in drums at 94F. I like the results I'm getting. You can look at my gallery: Everything in color (Polaroids excepted) are scans of 8x10 color prints, with no corrections in most cases. The paper works for me, but I'm admittedly a "casual" printer. I don't inspect my prints with a microscope or run complicated color matching tests. I find the process no harder than black and white.
The cut-sheet CAII is the same as CAII in rolls. According to the fuji rep that I spoke to, it is their least expensive silver halide color paper and is expressly marketed to their minilab clients. The cut-sheet packaging is the exact same digitally optimized emulsion on the same thin budget base - only difference being that it is packaged in sheets for the student or home hobbyist.
Originally Posted by RPC
Like many others, I use fuji and kodak paper with an enlarger and get excellent results.
To anyone reading this with an eye on starting colour printing, I say do it.
With the exception of Bob, the naysayers are trying that little bit too hard to sound oh so intelligent, with super-critical faculties, when I suspect the opposite is nearer the truth.
All one has to do is visit Fuji's website, or take a sneak peak at an actual dealer's price list, to realize that "Crystal Archive" is a suite of products, just like I said, and not one paper. But otherwise, every variety I've tried has similar color balance, though contrast, sheen, and
paper surface, and even base material, differ between specific papers. Good chemistry is important. I've printed chromogenic papers for
three decades, and CAII is just as easy as any of them. If you understand the optical parameters of either colorheads or lasers you start
to realize that the sensitivity peaks to the paper have to be similar. A damn tech sheet will show you that if you know how to read it. And
Mr. Pentax - I don't have a "diametrically opposed opinion" - I actually use these products! The other dude repeatedly makes statements to
the effect he doesn't even know what it is. Don't believe me - fine. Just go to the damn Fuji website and look for yourself. It ain't all
minilab product. Go to the horses mouth - learn to print it yourself instead of depending on some ridiculous web chatter by people who have
never even touched the stuff.