Everything you want to know about FUJIFILM color RA4 papers

[x.rasenas]

Thanks everyone for all the information.

I have some DPII backordered from AG. The DPII listed in the states is only silk surface as why I asked. Annoying Supreme only comes in 12" rolls around here.

Also this article from last year wasn't a great read considering everything. https://www.insideimaging.com.au/2022/fujifilm-milking-the-market/

 

[faberryman]

Also this article from last year wasn't a great read considering everything. https://www.insideimaging.com.au/2022/fujifilm-milking-the-market/

From the linked article:

"At IPS we calculate that AgX paper and photo chemistry are currently sitting at about ‘1 Minute to Midnight’, with midnight being general product discontinuance."

This is alarming. Even the Doomsday Clock is a only 90 seconds to midnight.

Current Time - 2023 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

It is 90 seconds to midnight.

thebulletin.org

 

[koraks]

This is alarming.

But not surprising.

Keep in mind it was a remark made by a distributor in the US, in the light of the recent closure of Fuji's RA4 paper manufacturing line in the US. The image is likely tainted a bit by that perspective. The story I heard 'on the shop floor' at Fuji wasn't quite as alarming, but it's no secret to anyone that this particular industry has only one direction it's been developing into.

That's also one of the reasons I'm knocking at their door - by sharing what we know about making and using these materials, we can prevent some things from being lost forever. This seems like an opportune moment to do so, since everyone's aware of what's happening and the situation is probably not as commercially sensitive as it used to be two decades ago. I mean, it's pretty clear that by now, the rivalry between Kodak and Fuji of the old days is not much of a business reality anymore.

 

[adamlugi]

I once heard in order to have perfect colors from a negative, I have to make a duplication and only then scan. Now it can be different unfortunately with this color :-(

 

[faberryman]

That's also one of the reasons I'm knocking at their door - by sharing what we know about making and using these materials, we can prevent some things from being lost forever. This seems like an opportune moment to do so, since everyone's aware of what's happening and the situation is probably not as commercially sensitive as it used to be two decades ago. I mean, it's pretty clear that by now, the rivalry between Kodak and Fuji of the old days is not much of a business reality anymore.

Just knowing what's going on will not prevent some things from being lost forever. You need to buy more of the paper and processing chemicals so the manufacturer has an incentive to continuing making them. Of course the amount of paper and chemicals individuals buy is a drop in the bucket. The future of RA4 paper and chemicals is in the hands of commercial photofinishers and their customers. Now if those customers wanted prints and scans instead of just scans, the future would look brighter.

 

[koraks]

I once heard in order to have perfect colors from a negative, I have to make a duplication and only then scan. Now it can be different unfortunately with this color :-(

Well, I'd be weary of what 'people say', in general. For instance, I think scanning is a great way to get all the information from a negative that's in there - probably more so than optical printing. But many people have struggled (myself included) with manipulating that digital information into a desirable end result. That's a different issue than the fundamental question if it can be done. I also think that the tools to help us with this have evolved massively over the past 20 years. There are now tools like NegaFix etc. that apparently make the color correction issue a lot easier.

Just knowing what's going on will not prevent some things from being lost forever. You need to buy more of the paper and processing chemicals so the manufacturer has an incentive to continuing making it.

That's true, but not knowing it will make sure that all of it is lost forever once it's gone.
Buying more - sure, we could try. Where are you going to stack those rolls, though? All of us darkroom users would probably have to purchase about 1000x times more paper than we currently do just to keep the production lines afloat. The darkroom niche is virtually insignificant compared to the scale it takes to manufacture RA4 paper at any consistent quality level.

Now, what would help is if we all asked our friends, family, neighbors etc. to send off their digital snaps to a photofinisher to turn into posters, small prints, albums etc, and for business users to keep printing posters, transparency displays etc. on this kind of material. Those are the business sectors that this industry floats on. Not us.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks Koraks. But the latest data sheet from the US site does show rolls of CA up to 50 inch width. Whether all of that is actually in stock in this country is a different question, and one would need to see the actual insider official product numbering and price list to determine even the actual intended selection for US distribuion. Once again, there are differences between EU and US, and the further complication of between possible sizes (tech sheet), and what is actually being imported, or is intended to be, represented by the detailed price list not available to the public. Actual inventories at any given time are yet another thing.

Manufacturers often promote products well before even actual manufacture to drum up interest interest in advance. Having been a buyer for a distribution corporation for many years, I know that propensity all too well. Sometimes the advertised products never did transpire - weren't ever made.

 

[adamlugi]

Can You ask what the minimum production batch is. Maybe we could order and buy such an optimized paper once a year.
In Poland alone there are several large companies , which could be interested.
I assume that the recipe for such a paper they have

 

[DREW WILEY]

adamlugi - I don't know where you heard that nonsense. It's never been true.

Gosh a lot of unnecessary doom and gloom on this thread. Those of us who actually do optical RA4 color printing know better.
Everything is going to change somewhere down the line. Electric vehicles are arriving already; but lots of people still enjoy riding horses, even around here. One can even look down at the original Tesla plant from certain horse and hiking trails. No need to panic and buy a battery-powered horse; the real ones still work.

 

[adamlugi]

adamlugi - I don't know where you heard that nonsense. It's never been true.

Gosh a lot of unnecessary doom and gloom on this thread. Those of us who actually do optical RA4 color printing know better.
Everything is going to change somewhere down the line. Electric vehicles are arriving already; but lots of people still enjoy riding horses, even around here. One can even look down at the original Tesla plant from certain horse and hiking trails. No need to panic and buy a battery-powered horse; the real ones still work.

Even now there is a huge fad for scanning enlargements. They do it, for example, in the Polish version of Vogue. I'm absolutely not saying it's true, I'm just wondering if it's true. I enlarge all the time under the enlarger and scan on the drum and do not complain

 

[faberryman]

Gosh a lot of unnecessary doom and gloom on this thread. Those of us who actually do optical RA4 color printing know better.

You are in your 70s, so, with any luck, you will be dead before RA4 paper and chemicals are no longer available. Your nonchalance is understandable.

Everything is going to change somewhere down the line. Electric vehicles are arriving already; but lots of people still enjoy riding horses, even around here.

When they stop making horses, horseback riding will be a problem.

 

[adamlugi]

Everything is going to change somewhere down the line. Electric vehicles are arriving already; but lots of people still enjoy riding horses, even around here. One can even look down at the original Tesla plant from certain horse and hiking trails. No need to panic and buy a battery-powered horse; the real ones still work.

In Poland they say that newer is the enemy of good

 

[DREW WILEY]

Every extra step something is reproduced, there is some kind of inevitable loss. Maybe they're just doing that for some kind of trendy "look". I never pay attention to fashion nonsense. Let Department Store displays worry about that. I never go in those either.

But more likely it's just an internal workflow issue. They want to see a physical print and either say yes to the look, or no. Just like when chromes were once viewed on light boxes as the standard for pre-publication purposes. Magazine editors want to decide the selection, and then leave the actual details to staff technicians. Whatever.

 

[koraks]

there are differences between EU and US

Yes, clearly so, and I'll bring that up with them. Since all papers are manufactured at the same plant, they're likely only labeling differences.

 

[adamlugi]

Every time something is reproduced, there is some kind of inevitable loss. Maybe they're just doing that for some kind of trendy "look". I never pay attention to fashion nonsense. Let Department Store displays worry about that. In never go in those either.

It is a trend, absolutely. But when I asked why, this is the answer I got that it is better than a scan.

 

[faberryman]

Every time something is reproduced, there is some kind of inevitable loss.

I heard someone say that in a senior center the other day. He was talking about the idiocy of young people today.

 

[koraks]

But when I asked why, this is the answer I got that it is better than a scan.

Define 'better'.
More true to life?
Nicer looking?
By what standard?
You see, that's never specified. People just say "it's better" and leave you with that.

I had virtually the same conversation with someone yesterday. He told me that at the darkroom he does some of his printing, there are fashion photographers printing their proofs directly from negatives to RA4 paper, optically. I told him about the digital crossover issue and of course he was surprised. So I asked him, do you think these fashion people make a point of comparing the actual fabrics they shoot with the prints they make, or do you think they just print the way they do because they prefer how it looks? "Clearly the latter," he said. Well, that's great, isn't it? For them, that's "better". But it's a different flavor of "better" than the engineer who needs to carefully match a real world hue to a printed hue. Comparing those 'betters' only makes sense if you operationalize them. For some reason, that rarely happens.

 

[adamlugi]

Define 'better'.
More true to life?
Nicer looking?
By what standard?
You see, that's never specified. People just say "it's better" and leave you with that.

I had virtually the same conversation with someone yesterday. He told me that at the darkroom he does some of his printing, there are fashion photographers printing their proofs directly from negatives to RA4 paper, optically. I told him about the digital crossover issue and of course he was surprised. So I asked him, do you think these fashion people make a point of comparing the actual fabrics they shoot with the prints they make, or do you think they just print the way they do because they prefer how it looks? "Clearly the latter," he said. Well, that's great, isn't it? For them, that's "better". But it's a different flavor of "better" than the engineer who needs to carefully match a real world hue to a printed hue. Comparing those 'betters' only makes sense if you operationalize them. For some reason, that rarely happens.

I agree with you. I have a lot of discussions that develop themselves. I ask them about quality control and they get surprised. I always control the PH, measure stripy ect. Colleagues know it's good , but I don't. Sometimes I have the dubious pleasure of magnifying or scanning from such home labs and I can see the difference.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No color film ever invented "sees" all colors correctly, nor does any output medium ever invented do justice to all hues. You either learn to dance with your preferred medium, and let it lead, or else you are pretending. I was once in frequent contact with the head of the International Color Council, and they'd often ask me to test their latest spectrophometers. The most accurate ones were huge IBM continuous spectrum machines; but today they are more convenient devices which interpolate reading using multiple flash bursts. Doesn't matter. I made a game of it bringing in various fabric dyes, fluorescent colors, iridescent patterns which totally bamboozled those expensive sophisticated devices. Even our own brains fool with what are eyes are physiologically seeing; so the whole game of color matching and theory is just as much about the psychology of vision as the physiology.

And in context of forums like this one, where all kinds of people are deliberately fooling around with the wrong film for the wrong thing to begin with, just because they like the effect, just like color photographers have been doing all along, getting nitpicky about a bit of crossover risk with certain papers sounds a bit out of character. If you're a professional scientific photographer, or
involved in color quality control per se, it's a somewhat different subject.

But if anyone thinks they're going to evade these same kind of issues going all-digital workflow, they're really naive. The most popular digital output media, inkjet, has way worse gamut issues than anything we're talking about with respect to RA44 papers.

 

[pentaxuser]

The story I heard 'on the shop floor' at Fuji wasn't quite as alarming, but it's no secret to anyone that this particular industry has only one direction it's been developing into.

That's also one of the reasons I'm knocking at their door - by sharing what we know about making and using these materials, we can prevent some things from being lost forever.

Can you give us some idea of where your knocking at their door will prevent somethings being lost forever?

In asking this question I take it you mean something being lost for we analogue printers who use enlargers?

Presumably your contact at Fuji accepts that you are representing us here on Photrio, at least those of us who fit the definition of analogue printers but even if he does accept that it is we on Photrio for whom you act as a conduit, I wonder how many that is? I certainly have no idea and even were we to be several hundred strong then my worry is how we influence what you believe rightly to be the situation as stated in the first sentence of your quote

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Any one user of a large scale laser printer probably goes through more RA4 paper per year than all the rest of us combined. Even the little shop which does C41 processing for me, which doesn't have any large width RA4 capacity at all, has more fresh stacks of narrow rolls of Fuji paper on the floor of RA4 paper per month than the cumulative square footage of big rolls I use in ten years; and most of the in-house printing they do is actually inkjet instead. So if money talks, we have damn little of a voice.
But like I said several times already - no big deal - just adapt to what is out there; it will probably come out better than inkjet anyway!

 

[koraks]

Can you give us some idea of where your knocking at their door will prevent somethings being lost forever?

In asking this question I take it you mean something being lost for we analogue printers who use enlargers?

Not just that; in general. If we don't share and record this kind of information, it literally dies out.
I'm talking about any kind of information as it applies to the use of this paper, but also how it's made. For instance, at some point, nobody will remember that Fuji used to coat materials in a slightly different way than Kodak does. Or why Fuji's paper is blue before you toss it into developer. Or why there's some mottling in certain prints. That a wide range of papers in fact used the exact same set of dyes and only a handful of emulsions. The list is endless. They're the kind of things that we currently don't even realize someone in the future is going to be puzzled over.

You might have noticed that one of the things I also do is carbon transfer and other alt. process prints. You'd be surprised how little we know about e.g. carbon transfer tissue that used to be commercially available a century ago. Nobody ever bothered to document manufacturing processes or recipes, for the most part. Today, carbon printers would certainly be interested (even if only academically) how these materials used to be made back then. The same for a host of other processes. Or perhaps an even better example: the autochrome process. Sure, some people have managed to recreate it, sort of - but most of that has been experimental work relying on very scant notes that left out just about every relevant detail.

Presumably your contact at Fuji accepts that you are representing us here on Photrio

I think they're realistic enough to realize that I'm just one guy who at best manages to talk to some other people. If not, I'll be sure to emphasize it. But for them, that might already be worthwhile.
Furthermore, if there's a valid reason and an efficient way to organize it, perhaps they're also willing to engage more directly with some of us. That's the kind of thing I'd like to explore with them - perhaps even more so than the technical questions.

I wonder how many that is?

That's one question we're virtually guaranteed to never get an answer to

 

[adamlugi]

Not just that; in general. If we don't share and record this kind of information, it literally dies out.
I'm talking about any kind of information as it applies to the use of this paper, but also how it's made. For instance, at some point, nobody will remember that Fuji used to coat materials in a slightly different way than Kodak does. Or why Fuji's paper is blue before you toss it into developer. Or why there's some mottling in certain prints. That a wide range of papers in fact used the exact same set of dyes and only a handful of emulsions. The list is endless. They're the kind of things that we currently don't even realize someone in the future is going to be puzzled over.

You might have noticed that one of the things I also do is carbon transfer and other alt. process prints. You'd be surprised how little we know about e.g. carbon transfer tissue that used to be commercially available a century ago. Nobody ever bothered to document manufacturing processes or recipes, for the most part. Today, carbon printers would certainly be interested (even if only academically) how these materials used to be made back then. The same for a host of other processes. Or perhaps an even better example: the autochrome process. Sure, some people have managed to recreate it, sort of - but most of that has been experimental work relying on very scant notes that left out just about every relevant detail.



I think they're realistic enough to realize that I'm just one guy who at best manages to talk to some other people. If not, I'll be sure to emphasize it. But for them, that might already be worthwhile.
Furthermore, if there's a valid reason and an efficient way to organize it, perhaps they're also willing to engage more directly with some of us. That's the kind of thing I'd like to explore with them - perhaps even more so than the technical questions.



That's one question we're virtually guaranteed to never get an answer to

It is worth archiving everything . In the Polish branch of Fuji there was a man who described the entire Ra4 process with all the details , from the structure of the paper through all the known and unknown possibilities of working with paper with chemistry . All the problems encountered and solutions . I received the file , but lost all the mail . I called Fuji and colleagues of the author , who retired and no one has the materials anymore and can not solve some of the problems .

 

[DREW WILEY]

hmmm. All kinds of books have been written about carbon printing. I'm not even a carbon printer and have a couple of them. There was an entire forum dedicated to it not long ago. All the commercial ventures in the past 40 years relied on halftone scans, with the exception of the old Fresson system, which has pretty much stayed the same since the 1940's. I do know how some of these later tissues were made, and even know the exact machine being used to coat a small-batch commercial operation now. There is plenty on the web concerning it. But just like dye transfer printing, the are just soooo many ways to do it that almost everyone has the opportunity to become some kind of pioneer. I just don't have the time for either, and am generally happy with my RA4 results now that Cibachrome is gone.

 

[Jimskelton]

I always get confused when thinking about the colour process, but I'm thinking that from the above spectral sensitivity curves, the reason the cyan forming (red sensitive) layer is less sensitive is because of the cyan/bluish coloured dye on the paper. Maybe that's another question you could ask--where that cyan forming (red sensitive) curve would be without that dye layer. I presume it would move up a bunch without it, maybe be near the same level as the others.