Likewise Roger. I changed my 100W bulb in my Durst 605 to a 75W one because the exposures needed were less than the analyser's exposure dial at its lowest would go.
here's the DPII spec; http://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/products/p...al-type-dp-ii/
"For digital printers only" apparently, don't tell anybody
Thank you for that link. Yes, I can tell from both the back imprint and the spectral sensitivity curves themselves that this DPII is different from
either the paper or polyester-based CAII products I am using. I would suspect that this largely amounts to a slightly different colorhead setting and will also have some effect on the actual dye reproduction, with the specific effect determined by the bandwidth of the individuals filters involved (or in the case of typical subtractive colorheads, their direct complement). At a cursory glance, it certainly looks workable under an enlarger - and you've already discovered that. It does look capable of crossover in older-style colorheads which tend to have excess white light spillover. The dye layers overlap more than in the papers I'm using. Both Durst and Omega improved in recent decades in that respect. I'd have to fiddle with my old Omega D colorhead to find out, but really won't waste the time, since all my chromogenic printing is done additive now, and it looks like that specific product has been pulled from the US market anyway, where it was only available in narrow
rolls. A lot depends on the subject matter and specific film involved too. But this still leaves us with a mystery - if the official dual-use CAII
product packaged in the UK (US Branded) available for sale there somewhere?
I also noticed on the second DPII tech sheet how it specified "high activity chemistry" as necessary for full DMax. I don't know if this strictly
applies to photofinishing machines or not. Wouldn't be surprised, since they recycle the chem like laundry water. So those rules could probably be tailored using standard chem in low-volume controlled rates. Again, something I'll never figure out for myself since I have interest in owning
a drugstore photofinishing machine. But given settings are offered for Chromiras, etc - basically big pro lab setups with mated RA4 transport processors, there must be something behind the recommendation. Oh well, we all bend the rules from time to time.
Ooop., typo.... I have "no" interest in drugstore machines. I'll stick with my 30x40 (inch) CPI drum processor, thank you.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
OK, I did a little more sleuthing, and it seems the DPII has been replaced in this country with PDN, which likewise is a lower-contrast CAII
paper marketed for automated printers, but no longer specifying a special developer for enhanced blacks. The dye curves as well as the tech
sheet shows that improvement. Otherwise, it's basically a portrait paper with less snap than the dual-exposure regular CAII or its predecessor,
Super C. So in analog printing, you'd need to increase contrast via added masking, for such subjects where this is warranted. It also looks like
its risk of crossover is also minimized. On this topic, is is not only older design colorheads which can be a problem, but any that have been
so heavily used, or repeatedly overheated, that the dichroic filters start spalling and passing too much white light, and are due for replacement. Ironically, this happens most often on very expensive high-output enlargers which basically nuke the negs. Certain color mural
enlargers, for example, would need filter replacement every six months when heavily used. That might sound insane to those of us who print
at home, but I did own one of those beast at one time, and the cooling fan alone drove up my electric bill more than the rest of the whole
building, not to mention the lamps.