Here in the US, Pro photog products and minilab products are classified separately by Fuji, though there might be some incidental overlap. I just checked
some boxes last nite of 20x24 cut-sheet CAII (regular paper based), and it's labeled "Made in Netherlands", "Packaged in the UK". That doesn't automatically guarantee that the identical product is actually sold in the UK, but it would sure be odd if it wasn't. The specific labeling might differ from
country to country. It's clearly intended for an international market. Once again Frotog is making ridiculous uniformed assertions about a product he has apparently never used, or perhaps never used competently. One of the tweaks inherent to "digitally optimized" was to actually INCREASE the blacks over previous papers, since weak black was a common complaint with laser exposure. Otherwise the product has been marketed as a direct replacement to Super C, which was popular for enlarging, with only minor differences. I have found this to be true. The speed and color balance are very similar. The base is a tiny bit whiter and the color a little cleaner, the paper a tad thinner but not flimsy. Just get out and try it. Despite the rumors, you won't fall off the
edge of the earth or get swallowed by sea monsters if you sail too far West.
If it's too fast add some ND.
I printed all the color I printed in the past with filters in the filter drawer. A bit slower but the difference is trivial compared to the processing (and drying to evaluate) time, and it works fine. Via whatever method, just throw in equal parts of additional Y+M+C and you have ND. Normally you'd never have all three but you CAN if you NEED to slow things down.
As long as this doesn't get you into problems with reciprocity - which are a bugger to deal with in colour (crossover!).
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
“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
From what I'm hearing it shouldn't, if the problem is that the stuff requires 5 second exposures or something. My exposures on old RA4 tended to run, best I recall, about 10-15 seconds, which doesn't leave much time for dodging and makes burning critical. I much prefer slightly longer exposures. I doubt 30 or 40 seconds is going to be a problem. Two minutes (old Cibachrome could run nearly that long!) might be different.
pentaxuser, we print optically with negatives and enlargers. we do have fantastic durst machines which allow us fine control, ND dials, reliabilty and options such as colour contolled pre-flashes and burn-ins.
DpII is the thicker based paper, the cut sheet is really thin and flimsy and weren't impressed with the blacks at all.
When we spoke to fuji rep about this a few years ago he was surprised that we were cutting off rolls and was even more surprised that all the pro labs in london were doing the same....check out michael dyer associates for an example of hand printing from 50" wide rolls for some highly respected art photographers. maybe this was something that fuji took note of!
regarding exposure times we are generally above 5 seconds, much nearer 10-15 seconds, you may have to adapt your printing style a little but really whatever some people on this thread are moaning about is not something that keeps me awake at night
Last edited by labyrinth photo; 10-15-2013 at 06:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I've printed it as short as 8 sec and as long as perhaps a minute with no color balance issues. But I typically like to work somewhere in between just in case some dodging/burning is needed. Adding ND to a colorhead is pretty easy if you don't have that built in.
The problem with the blacks is partially due to matching the contrast range of the paper to the neg itself. Digital printers handle this by tweaking the curve either in the scanning or post-scan mode. I do it with unsharp masking for optical printing, though this seems to be needed
only a small percent of the time for my negs. What we call CAII here has better blacks than Super C did. So I don't know if this "DPII" is ahead of the US market or behind it. One more thing to investigate. But if you want really rich blacks, the newer Fujiflex Supergloss has it. The prints
rival Ciba in that respect.
Thank you labyrinth photo for your helpful reply. For what it is worth my exposures for what was Fuji MP paper which was what I used several years ago was very similar to what you quote for your current paper. Presumably MP paper wasn't optimized for digital laser printers.
My experience with all RA4 paper has been short exposures and I can't recall needing anything over 10 secs.
I strongly suspect that products are being labeled differently in the US than Europe. The categories of CAII paper I am using are distinctly recommended for BOTH optical and digital printing on Fuji's US website (pro photog section). There are some newer offerings which make no
mention of optical. But I do remember when a "DPII" was being offered as a thicker version of snapshot paper here, but was not the same thing
at all as standard CAII large cut sheets or rolls, which never was so thin as to be flimsy like photofinishing paper. Even though my paper was
made in the EU, it is labeled for Fujifilm USA. The Supergloss was made in Japan.
I used to use a PH212 150W bulb in my D2 for printing black and white and a PH211 75W for printing color (with filters in the filter drawer) to slow it down a bit. Now I use an LED lamphouse for black and white that is just about squarely in the middle between the two in brightness.
Originally Posted by pentaxuser