Sorry that I never answered your question directly. I tried looking at the Fuji selection here, but apparently the papers are either labeled or distributed differently.
Oh, one thing that just occurred to me... I asked a similar question last year to someone who does CA
printing in another country both optically and digitally. Apparently there are certain papers designed primarily for advertising or trade show displays where they want the lettering to be very crisp black and white. So they've tweaked the curves to dump the blacks a little harder and raise the whites to the max. For this reason they consider them unsuitable for "typical" color neg applications like portraiture. But this doesn't meanthey're insensitive to ordinary exposing lights. You might have to do a little contrast masking to optimize for such papers. I hope this explanation helps. And again, I apologize if I seem to have been
hijacking the thread. I was simply trying to explain how the effect of digital and analog printers really can
be made quite analagous.
Thanks Drew. I just thought the information you were sharing was too valuable to be buried in an unrelated thread. But perhaps it's not that unrelated, I just have to re-read your posts. Cheers
My thought behind the whole additive exposure diatribe was that certain "digital only" papers might be at risk for crossover in the extreme highlights if a conventional
YMC colorhead has too much residual white light spillover affecting all three dye layers. This is very difficult to predict since I don't have direct experience with such papers and because subtractive enlargers differ somewhat in how narrow a
spectrum they pass, Durst and Omega colorheads less than twenty years old generally being superior in this respect to older units. If this happens there are
ways to correct it. But my assumption, given the general ambiguity of Fuji's literature, is that by "digital only" they mean that the scan might need certain
curve corrections in PS in order to fit the entire range of certain subjects. In
analog printing we do this through masking. But it's certainly worth a try. Good
Thanks for the info , Drew. That sounds like an awesome setup. Would be cool to see pics sometime. I too wondered if additive heads like beseler 45a could get around the issues with 'digital only' type papers.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In digital printing they don't generally do the curve corrections in Photoshop, but rather the driver software for the printer has a linearization function. In essence each channel of RGB gets its own curve. At least that's how the LightJet I'm familiar with works.
I imagine this lets the paper manufacturer have much more leeway in the tolerances for the paper. In essence crossover can be eliminated at the printing stage. Also papers such as what Drew described above could be made to work perfectly fine for regular photos. Of course you could also tweak the output curves for the printer to get really dense blacks and crisp whites. So I guess digital only papers let them ship crap assuming the printer will take care of it. Maybe I'm too cynical.
I don't think that's the case at all. In advertising displays you have a common scenario where a model might be involved, so you need to retain good highlight
retention of subtle skintone hues and so forth, yet you also need text copy to
come out crisp at both extremes. That would mandate printer profiles which have
a distinct upsweep in the extreme ends of the curve, which could then be custom
adjusted as needed. Fuji is probably concerned that if a conventional printer gets
ahold of this kind of product, there will be complaints because analog printing of
color negatives conventionally uses no contrast alteration at all, but only a choice
of paper. But for some of us, convention is the first thing to go out the door.
iranzi, how did it go with printing optically on the Fuji type dpII? I'm assuming you have tried it by now and would be interested to know what results you got as I'm thinking of trying the same.
This is probably a daft question --- but somewhere I have an old Beseler wheel thingy with three filters, R,G,B - that you fit under the lens and use to make three separate exposures by spinning each into place. A very poor man's RGB system. Would that work with these papers? I don't see why not. I may have to renew the filters, they are probably scratched by now.
That would be sequential additive printing, and it would be slow, tedious to balance, and some enlarger simply might not have enough output for it. Image quality would depend on the quality of
the filters themselves. And you couldn't dodge/burn without fringing effects. The Beseler-Minolta
additive system used flash tubes in sequence. Also low light output and sequential, but more user
friendly. A true simultaneous additive system is a lot tricker problem to put together. The first reason
for this is that true additive filters are much deeper than subtractive ones, so pass much less light.
So when you increase your light output you end up with all kinds of maintenance issues with the heat and internal components of the colorhead. The second problem is with the electronics. Won't
go into that. But for old-school assembly print processes like dye transfer or carbro, those under the
lens filters might work.