Everything you want to know about FUJIFILM color RA4 papers

[mshchem]

Thank you, Koraks, for interjecting that layering and topcoating distinction. But with respect to the Japan-Made Fujiflex, it's now labeled CAii, even though it hasn't changed since its official upgrade maybe 15 yrs ago. Just a labeling change, apparently, whereas before you had to check the batch code to know if it was the later or earlier type inside the box. So this CAii designation is relative to the category of product involved. And at the top tier of the support medium and expense and food chain, Fujiflex is obviously a very different animal than cut sheet CAii RC paper. Such ambiguity of labeling is nothing new, apparently. In this case, it either simply means "new and improved", and/or deliberately optical-exposure optimized as well as for laser exposure. But there's no doubt the dyes are top tier themselves at the same time. Best gamut of any RA4 medium I've ever worked with or even seen. But I would like to get ahold of some Maxima some day to compare with. The spec sheet color profiles look identical.

As per selling light-sealed pak individual rolls outside apart from a greater boxed quantity, that introduces the need to repackage it for shipment. What Fedex and UPS often seem to mean by "air shipment" is throwing the box out of a plane onto concrete from 6,000 feet above. The more protective layers the better, when it comes to shipping photosensitive products.

 

[BMbikerider]

Part of it is about layer thickness. Much of it is explained here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...importance-of-interlayers-in-ra4-color-paper/
Between the various Fuji papers, a notable difference is that the thickness of image-forming layers, interlayers and topcoat layers increases as you go upwards through the price range. The net effect of these differences is larger gamut / greater hue purity and better durability of the print.
There may also be additional chemical differences since plain Crystal Archive is coated with Fuji's 'amateur' emulsions (that's how they call it informally) and DPII uses their professional emulsion. I have yet to get an answer as to the exact differences between both emulsion sets. I do know that the dyes in the final print are exactly the same regardless if it's an 'amateur' or 'pro' paper. So all these papers are very closely related.

A little bit of good news for me. I CAN buy single rolls of Fuji Crystal Archive DP11 in the 12" wide rolls. It is double the price of the old Kodak version but as I mentioned before, it will a lot cheaper than buying the same number of pre cut sheets I can get out of the roll.

 

[koraks]

Awesome! That is good news indeed! Have fun printing

 

[mshchem]

Awesome! That is good news indeed! Have fun printing

Here's a question. What is the premium professional paper equivalent to Kodak Endura? Glossy or Lustre? Something that is a little heavier than crystal archive standard.

 

[koraks]

That would be DPII or Maxima. The former is available also in smaller rolls.

 

[Oggepogge]

Does anyone know how to digitally print and invert a file on Fuji supreme paper using a 4k projector?

 

[koraks]

I haven't done it, but in principle it should be possible provided you can make the exposure short enough and color balance it for the response curve of the paper. These are the two main concerns. Projectors generally generate some stray light even when set to display a "black" image, so you may need some sort of shutter. Also, I think most projectors are in practice only 8 bit devices and that may get you into trouble if you want super accurate color reproduction, as the balance between the R, G and B channels will have to be skewed quite dramatically (lots of R, much less G and only a small amount of B).

What kind of workflow, image size and requirements do you have in mind?

Btw, welcome to Photrio!

 

[DREW WILEY]

What all the local labs are using as a replacement to Endura is Fuji Supreme. Since it's engineered for high speed printers (either digital or optical), I don't know if are any repercussions to slowing it down to enlarger or projector times or not. It's only available up to 12 inch roll widths anyway. Maxima isn't even sold to RA4 minilab-style equipment; above their budget category anyway.

There still seems to be plenty of Super C around. But I'd make a very careful query into exactly how old any remaining inventory might be before ordering it. The ii version is just beginning to show up in this country. A fair amount of the lower contrast DPii is in stock. Europe is probably ahead of us in that respect, but I really don't know for sure. What I mostly use (Fujiflex) comes from Japan. Which reminds me .... gotta go now and print another one.

 

[koraks]

I don't know if are any repercussions to slowing it down to enlarger or projector times or not.

Up to about 10 seconds there should be no reciprocity failure issues according to the Fuji engineers I talked to.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks. Interesting. I could probably buy a roll off one of the local outfits and test. But 12 inch width is just not versatile enough for me. I need at least 20" width. I'm going to have to take a pause in color printing anyway once our coastal winds die down enough, to get some outdoor house painting done. Meanwhile, the selection of what's available in this country seems to be increasing. And I still have about a third of a roll of Fujiflex on hand, when its high gloss is suitable.

 

[Joakes]

The fact is, CAii cut sheet yields a much better DMax optically than digitally printed CA papers originally did. It has a lot to do with your negative itself too. For example, when I print internegs made from chrome originals, the evident DMax or depth of black is deeper than what I typically get from direct enlargement of color negs. And many people shoot traditional versions of color neg film with rather low overall contrast to begin with, designed to go easy on the shadows. Are you factoring any of those distinctions, Koraks, or just making a blanket statement irregardless of the specific film involved?

So Koraks - Don't accuse me of not noticing such things! Have you gone to such lengths or distinctions? I doubt it. And those who, in the past, have flashed film or paper relative to negs and internegs don't have the same degree of control in this respect as informed supplemental masking provides. No, CAii is not going to deliver the kind of DMax a premium product like Fuiflex can. But I have personally done some pretty bold work with it, and most certainly have mountains of experience of what serious DMax means in relation to black and white papers.
Anyone who sees mottled brown in the DMax of CAii must be doing something terribly wrong. Never once have I seen that effect. Yeah, it's one of the thinner papers, so you could hypothetically hold it up to strong window light unmounted and see through a bit, and something might appear off color in that respect. But it's not intended as a backlit product, or to be viewed under nuclear explosion levels of lumens. You could ultimately criticize ANY paper ever made on those grounds. Even the deepest blacks of Cibachrome, which go way deep down there compared to RA4 RC papers, exhibit a greenish tint if the light is bright enough. But anything that bright going to prematurely fade the print anyway. But mottled brown???? .... Ever look at how blacks are discontinuously rendered in color inkjet prints, and where mottling is often evident under normal lighting? CAii cut sheet is way better than that, at least. So it's all relative.

Sure, I wish we could have cut sheet convenience in a wider selection of Fuji papers; but one has to start somewhere. Very few are likely to secure a big heavy roll of my favorite, Fujiflex, and try to cut it down to size in the dark. And it's simply too glossy for many kinds of images. Previously I used big rolls of Super C, and even pre-cut 30X40 inch sheets of it, when they still offered that. Fine product. But at the moment, a full selection of paper types is still in short supply, and others like Maxima either aren't sold to amateurs in this country, or simply haven't arrived here again, post-pandemic. And Fuji claims Maxima achieves its intended DMax ONLY using a special tweak of their own RA4 chem lineup different from the standard chem, which is being sold only to those big labs doing high volume Maxima printing. And not everyone wants to be restricted to little postcard size prints. So what do you expect people to do, Koraks? Just give up trying RA4?

As far as different laser printer profiles ... All old hat to me. Just about every one of the major laseroptions was being used by some lab within walking distance of my office, even Chromira (the same outfit which made those made the feedback monitor for my big custom additive enlarger), and I knew the lab owners quite well, was quite familiar with the results and tech dev of these specific devices, and why papers had to be re-tweaked relative to what every lab owner and customer screamed about - the anemic blacks back then being the worst complaint. But the relative weakness of green lasers was another factor. Machine-gun speed snapshot printing lines are really a different category, and are naturally going to limit paper roll widths to to those automated parameters.

But go ahead, insult me with allegedly bringing "noise" to the conversation, or requiring a grain of salt to interpret. Experience is more like it. Everyone appreciates your interaction with the Fuji paper staff itself due to your proximity. But I interacted with engineers and chemists for many years, and understand how they think. A serious chemist knows how to make a good house paint, but might not themselves be a competent house painter at all. There are always two sides to the equation. And heads of major coating industries far bigger than Fuji's coating lines took my own color performance opinions quite seriously, and sometimes went out of their way to hear them in person. So I know how these things work, at least in principle. And I know what is involved in optimizing color paper performance in the darkroom. One has to start somewhere.

I see no need to make some kind of contest out of this, Koraks. Please to continue to inform us what you learn, from your side of things. But please also respect what some of us have solidly learned from our own perspective.

Drew can you recommend chems/dev for CAII? I have these mottled blacks which I don’t get from endura. I actually like CAII, in retrospect it is a good paper albeit a bit thin. At the time I was using Kodak chemistry. Here is a test

 

[koraks]

I have these mottled blacks which I don’t get from endura.

I keep saying it 'cause it's true: print on a higher end paper. Try DPII or even CA Supreme HD, which is just one step up but still better. The mottling on plain CA isn't going away with different chemistry. It's a little emphasized in your scans, but under very bright light, that is indeed what the 'blacks' of plain CA look like.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have NEVER gotten any kind of mottled blacks from CAII. Never, not even once, even in prints with a lot of deep black. And several different brands chemistry has been involved : Kodak Ra/Rt, Arista RA4 kits, and Silver Pixel kits (all of these seem chemically identical standardized RA4, and even interchangeable). In fact, I've never experienced mottling with any kind of Fuji paper in any size. And as per CAii cut sheet, I've used different boxes over several different years. It's not a bad product at all, but just limited in certain respects.

But don't expect a "knock your socks" off DMax like I get with expensive Fujiflex Supergloss, or that Maxima is allegedly capable of in a special dev tweak.

I'd be curious about the exact time/temp dev method involved in these alleged complaints. I dev in drums and never replenish or re-use the spent chemistry. It is mixed fresh per daily session, just enough for that day. 83F (30C), prewet 1 min / Dev 2 min / weak stop bath 1 min / plain water rinse 1 min / Blix 2 min / multiple washings in drum. Is your own chemistry fresh?

Just a hypothesis - but being a thin paper, you might also want to see if there is any possibility of back reflection during exposure. I never noticed any difference from test strips placed exposed in a yellow 8X10 Saunders easel and full sized 20X24 versions done on big black easels. Something just isn't adding up. I'm not doubting Koraks experience; nor should he be doubting mine. I've thrown out most of my old CAii boxes, so can't reliably compare the actual batch numbers at this point in time.

Unfortunately, once I've completed this season's work with Fujiflex, I doubt I'll have any more time for color printing this year, or opportunity to test these newer Fuji papers entering the US. The specific labeling for most of them seems to differ from the EU; and the most popular item in small local labs is CA Supreme, which has agreeably replaced Radiance, but is only available up to 12 inch width, or only 10 inch width in the case of gloss surface. But that's plenty big enough for 35mm shapshot work, and it's still specifically optical exposure compatible. But I no have idea what the specific distribution chain to Australia is offering. It's confusing enough here. What I'd really like to try is the new version of Super C in 30-inch roll size.

 

[1kgcoffee]

While it could be the paper, I've also found mottling from exhausted stop bath.

 

[koraks]

While it could be the paper, I've also found mottling from exhausted stop bath.

That's an interesting note, especially since RA4 does not technically require a stop bath due to the buffering of the blix (at around pH 6.5). Indeed, most larger RT machines do not have a stop bath, and also not always have effective squeeze rollers to limit developer carryover. It's therefore somewhat puzzling to me how an exhausted stop bath would cause mottled blacks, while I do sort of see how it could contribute to overall mottling and color problems - but it would still be a rather exceptional situation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Although I had a nice Thermaphot 20 inch roller processor on hand, I never used it, and eventually sold it. It did have a stop bath section. So I can't personally address potential replenishment, carry-over, and rapid process issues with regard to any of these papers. And even though I was offered an excellent 50-inch processor for free, I didn't want to mess around with that kind of chemistry volume, the extra space concerned, or the utility bill for the connected dryer. I have drum capability up to 30X40 inch prints, and the test strips in little 8X10 drums come out identical - all relatively low volume ONE SHOT chemistry. High-volume work is not my priority, but high quality. I'm not a commercial printer.

For those who do use automated roller processors, I wonder how often you open them up and scrub the components. I'm personally a bit allergic to RA4, so wisely decided to do my actual processing on a portable cart with the big roller device atop it, OUTDOORS during mild weather. That has allowed me to keep doing it with minimal risk of re-sensitization. That, plus a special portable fume hood directly over the bottles and graduates during mixing, which feeds into the main fume hood in the sink room via an in-line booster fan.

 

[koraks]

For those who do use automated roller processors, I wonder how often you open them up and scrub the components.

Most home-sized RT processors allow the racks to be taken out to be rinsed. No scrubbing or disassembly or 'opening up' is required; just take off the lid, pick up the rack, rinse, set to dry. This is true for all Termaphot-style machines which includes the Durst RCP series, and probably for the Fujimoto machines as well.

For some larger machines around 100cm size the same procedure works, but it takes two people to lift out the racks due to their volume and sometimes mass.

Circulation pumps can be rinsed by filling the bath with water, running the machine for a minute, and repeat once or twice as required until the water runs perfectly clear and free of any foam.

A home RT machine should be drained immediately after the printing session ends and the racks rinsed off and set to dry. That way they remain spotlessly clean for decades. For higher volume lab machines there's no other option but to periodically shut down for cleaning & maintenance.

These are all simple procedures; not more complicated than cleaning a set of drums or trays after use.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sure doesn't sound like the actual owners manual and maintenance manual I had. I was even left with a whole maintenance diary of the previous owner. Sure, you can simply pull out the innards - to get any grime buildup off ! - not necessarily just a simple rinse. Reminds me of dentists who only switch out their water lines every 15 years. Places to avoid. But I leave that to others. Drums are so much simpler, even if a lot slower when multiples of small prints are involved.

 

[Joakes]

I have NEVER gotten any kind of mottled blacks from CAII. Never, not even once, even in prints with a lot of deep black. And several different brands chemistry has been involved : Kodak Ra/Rt, Arista RA4 kits, and Silver Pixel kits (all of these seem chemically identical standardized RA4, and even interchangeable). In fact, I've never experienced mottling with any kind of Fuji paper in any size. And as per CAii cut sheet, I've used different boxes over several different years. It's not a bad product at all, but just limited in certain respects.

But don't expect a "knock your socks" off DMax like I get with expensive Fujiflex Supergloss, or that Maxima is allegedly capable of in a special dev tweak.

I'd be curious about the exact time/temp dev method involved in these alleged complaints. I dev in drums and never replenish or re-use the spent chemistry. It is mixed fresh per daily session, just enough for that day. 83F (30C), prewet 1 min / Dev 2 min / weak stop bath 1 min / plain water rinse 1 min / Blix 2 min / multiple washings in drum. Is your own chemistry fresh?

Just a hypothesis - but being a thin paper, you might also want to see if there is any possibility of back reflection during exposure. I never noticed any difference from test strips placed exposed in a yellow 8X10 Saunders easel and full sized 20X24 versions done on big black easels. Something just isn't adding up. I'm not doubting Koraks experience; nor should he be doubting mine. I've thrown out most of my old CAii boxes, so can't reliably compare the actual batch numbers at this point in time.

Unfortunately, once I've completed this season's work with Fujiflex, I doubt I'll have any more time for color printing this year, or opportunity to test these newer Fuji papers entering the US. The specific labeling for most of them seems to differ from the EU; and the most popular item in small local labs is CA Supreme, which has agreeably replaced Radiance, but is only available up to 12 inch width, or only 10 inch width in the case of gloss surface. But that's plenty big enough for 35mm shapshot work, and it's still specifically optical exposure compatible. But I no have idea what the specific distribution chain to Australia is offering. It's confusing enough here. What I'd really like to try is the new version of Super C in 30-inch roll size.

 

[Joakes]

I have NEVER gotten any kind of mottled blacks from CAII. Never, not even once, even in prints with a lot of deep black. And several different brands chemistry has been involved : Kodak Ra/Rt, Arista RA4 kits, and Silver Pixel kits (all of these seem chemically identical standardized RA4, and even interchangeable). In fact, I've never experienced mottling with any kind of Fuji paper in any size. And as per CAii cut sheet, I've used different boxes over several different years. It's not a bad product at all, but just limited in certain respects.

But don't expect a "knock your socks" off DMax like I get with expensive Fujiflex Supergloss, or that Maxima is allegedly capable of in a special dev tweak.

I'd be curious about the exact time/temp dev method involved in these alleged complaints. I dev in drums and never replenish or re-use the spent chemistry. It is mixed fresh per daily session, just enough for that day. 83F (30C), prewet 1 min / Dev 2 min / weak stop bath 1 min / plain water rinse 1 min / Blix 2 min / multiple washings in drum. Is your own chemistry fresh?

Just a hypothesis - but being a thin paper, you might also want to see if there is any possibility of back reflection during exposure. I never noticed any difference from test strips placed exposed in a yellow 8X10 Saunders easel and full sized 20X24 versions done on big black easels. Something just isn't adding up. I'm not doubting Koraks experience; nor should he be doubting mine. I've thrown out most of my old CAii boxes, so can't reliably compare the actual batch numbers at this point in time.

Unfortunately, once I've completed this season's work with Fujiflex, I doubt I'll have any more time for color printing this year, or opportunity to test these newer Fuji papers entering the US. The specific labeling for most of them seems to differ from the EU; and the most popular item in small local labs is CA Supreme, which has agreeably replaced Radiance, but is only available up to 12 inch width, or only 10 inch width in the case of gloss surface. But that's plenty big enough for 35mm shapshot work, and it's still specifically optical exposure compatible. But I no have idea what the specific distribution chain to Australia is offering. It's confusing enough here. What I'd really like to try is the new version of Super C in 30-inch roll size.

Something doesn’t add up. I’m not willing to accept that we have to live with this mottling just yet. I’ve seen a few people, mostly experienced printers say they do not get mottling. I tend to believe that this is the case as it would be strange to me if it was there they wouldn’t see it. Most people don’t even know that it exists, for whatever reason, so they will say no it’s fine. As I am quite fastidious and have a very keen eye I can see it, jumps right out. As far as I am aware chems are standardised so this is not the issue, clearly.

My process is almost identical to yours: Jobo drums, single shot chems, 30deg etc. I always use a LPL Saunders x4 blade easel, print times on my Beseler 45 dichro head are fairly orthodox 5-10 sec exposure (small amount of ND dialled in to increase exposure time). I have tried with and without stop bath has no effect. I first printed this image 5 yrs ago using Fuji hunt at room temp - same. I have done this side by side on the same day with endura and CAII with same chems etc.

It’s possible you may be onto something re paper thickness. The mottling looks like slightly uneven distribution of fibres in the paper itself. Put a piece of standard paper on a light box and you’ll see this. 12 months ago I was baffled by some strange green and blues showing up in a print, had never seen it before. What happened was I had made a custom dodge card out of an old box. It wasn’t ultra thick cardboard but thick enough. There were coloured images on the underside of the card so as I dodged the light went through the card and coloured the print. I taped up the card with black tape and problem solved.

If the paper is thin and light can pass through it and reflect off the easel back onto the paper can it do this to the print? Don’t know but that sounds possible for sure. I have never used a black easel, they are always white or yellow. The only dark grey/black easels I’ve ever seen are Kienzle and some older ones. If you are using a black easel that may be a clue? Very few would be using black easels. Maybe the test strips are to small and you are just not seeing or looking for it. The only way to test this would be to black out the easel so light was absorbed not reflected.

Regarding Endura vs CAII. Endura is designed for digital and for most prints, particularly with skin tones it is actually quite awful. Fantastic for certain density or color profile. It is contrasty, harsh. Although I haven’t used DPII I understand it is similar to endura. Not a fan at all. CAII is much nicer paper albeit blacks and thickness. I too would like to get my hands on the Fuji pro paper Super C or P type. This I understand this is the best (aside from the prem fujiflex, velvet etc). Although I can’t find it now, someone had compared these Fuji papers including DPII in darkroom and the super C and type P were clearly superior.

Attached is a test print of endura compared to CAII

 

[koraks]

Most people don’t even know that it exists

Many people never print low-key images with large patches of deep tones. When you print your average holiday snapshot, well-lit landscape etc., the problem is barely noticeable except if you know exactly where to look for it.

Btw, the mottling extends to large fields of even tone, like blue skies as well.

It’s possible you may be onto something re paper thickness.

No, it's not related to the thickness of the paper.

The problem is a combination of two aspects:

1: These papers are coated on a Schoeller base paper that's in turn laminated with PE layers top and bottom (this is done in-house by Fuji) and then the emulsion stack is coated on the top side. Part of the problem is in the Schoeller paper base, which isn't perfectly even. It's slightly wavy, like a hilly landscape - just with very, very subtle hills.

2: The cheaper papers have thinner image-forming layers in the emulsion stack, and also thinner inter-layers. Especially the thin image-forming layers limit the optical density attainable by the paper, and furthermore will exacerbate problems with unevenness of the paper base, since there's not enough optical density to hide the effects of slight variation in emulsion layer thickness as a result of the wavy paper base. This is why the problem also turns up in blue skies etc.

I'm nog second-guessing at this, I actually discussed this with the people who manufacture the paper. Earlier this year, I visited them and I brought some prints, one of which featured a large red area that was supposed to be fairly even, and it showed this same mottling. I brought this up with them and they explained the problem to me.

Coincidentally, the same mottling pattern can be reproduced on some B&W PE papers, since they apparently use the same kind of base material, or the material is at least manufactured in the same why (and by the same company; Schoeller is pretty much the sole supplier for photographic paper bases). Take a sheet of let's say Adox Easyprint, expose to room light, develop, fix, wash, and then start bleaching with a ferricyanide bleach. At some point you'll notice the same mottling pattern emerging. It also tends to be a problem if you reversal process B&W paper to make 'instant positives'.

Again, the solution is to move to a higher grade paper with thicker image-forming layers.

30deg

That's not right, but you'll get away with it alright if you adjust processing temperature. However, if you develop at 30C for 0:45 then you'll likely exacerbate the problem.

Endura is designed for digital

All contemporary RA4 paper are 'designed for digital'. There's a magenta/green crossover if you print optically onto these papers. Most people don't notice it until you try to replicate a (properly) digitally exposed print with an optical print. It'll take supplemental masking or at least filtered pre-flashing (with a lot of luck) to minimize the effect. The way it looks to most people, if you compare a digitally exposed RA4 print to an optical one, is that the digital print tends to look 'richer', or 'right', while the optical enlargement is somehow 'not quite right' or 'lackluster' by comparison. If you only print optically and never do strict side by side comparisons, there's a good change the problem will never bother you, since hordes of darkroom printers have merrily printed away for 2 decades now on their digital papers.

There are some stocks of old paper still floating around, heavily expired, that are not 'digital' papers. I still have some early-generaton Crystal Archive that printed fine the last time I used it, gave solid and deep blacks and (probably...) filtered correctly for optical enlargements. This was from the era when Fuji still manufactured their own base material (instead of sourcing it from Schoeller), the emulsion layers were coated thicker, and the actual emulsion mix was different and produced a more linear h/d curve that tracked better between the layers. The latter is not necessary with digital exposure since you can just make an ICC profile that corrects for the non-linearities and lack of tracking between the colors.

Again, not making stuff up here, but going by what the Fuji engineers told me. Interestingly, many darkroom printers are so conservative that they ignore, deny or ridicule what I relay from Fuji to them. With the exception of the handful pro/fine-art printers I also talk to face to face in my country, who understand, acknowledge and sometimes recognize the problems.

PS: Endura sure is a punchy paper, with high saturation and fairly high contrast. It can be nice for certain images. In your side by side comparison, there is also a fairly large difference in color balance which also contributes to the Endura looking somewhat garish. If you remove some yellow from the filter pack, the high-value skintones (e.g. the lady's forehead) will retain more tone since that's predominantly yellow, and it'll subdue the contrast in her face somewhat. This will make the Endura print look less harsh. The Endura print also has a bit of a cyan cast; if you filter that out by removing also some magenta from the filter pack, it's going to look a little more friendly. Still punchy and contrasty compared to the CAII though.

PPS: We call it 'CAII' here on the forum, but that's not an official Fuji product name. If you call up the plant and ask them about 'CAII', they won't know what the heck you're talking about, lol!

 

[Joakes]

Many people never print low-key images with large patches of deep tones. When you print your average holiday snapshot, well-lit landscape etc., the problem is barely noticeable except if you know exactly where to look for it.

Btw, the mottling extends to large fields of even tone, like blue skies as well.



No, it's not related to the thickness of the paper.

The problem is a combination of two aspects:

1: These papers are coated on a Schoeller base paper that's in turn laminated with PE layers top and bottom (this is done in-house by Fuji) and then the emulsion stack is coated on the top side. Part of the problem is in the Schoeller paper base, which isn't perfectly even. It's slightly wavy, like a hilly landscape - just with very, very subtle hills.

2: The cheaper papers have thinner image-forming layers in the emulsion stack, and also thinner inter-layers. Especially the thin image-forming layers limit the optical density attainable by the paper, and furthermore will exacerbate problems with unevenness of the paper base, since there's not enough optical density to hide the effects of slight variation in emulsion layer thickness as a result of the wavy paper base. This is why the problem also turns up in blue skies etc.

I'm nog second-guessing at this, I actually discussed this with the people who manufacture the paper. Earlier this year, I visited them and I brought some prints, one of which featured a large red area that was supposed to be fairly even, and it showed this same mottling. I brought this up with them and they explained the problem to me.

Coincidentally, the same mottling pattern can be reproduced on some B&W PE papers, since they apparently use the same kind of base material, or the material is at least manufactured in the same why (and by the same company; Schoeller is pretty much the sole supplier for photographic paper bases). Take a sheet of let's say Adox Easyprint, expose to room light, develop, fix, wash, and then start bleaching with a ferricyanide bleach. At some point you'll notice the same mottling pattern emerging. It also tends to be a problem if you reversal process B&W paper to make 'instant positives'.

Again, the solution is to move to a higher grade paper with thicker image-forming layers.




That's not right, but you'll get away with it alright if you adjust processing temperature. However, if you develop at 30C for 0:45 then you'll likely exacerbate the problem.



All contemporary RA4 paper are 'designed for digital'. There's a magenta/green crossover if you print optically onto these papers. Most people don't notice it until you try to replicate a (properly) digitally exposed print with an optical print. It'll take supplemental masking or at least filtered pre-flashing (with a lot of luck) to minimize the effect. The way it looks to most people, if you compare a digitally exposed RA4 print to an optical one, is that the digital print tends to look 'richer', or 'right', while the optical enlargement is somehow 'not quite right' or 'lackluster' by comparison. If you only print optically and never do strict side by side comparisons, there's a good change the problem will never bother you, since hordes of darkroom printers have merrily printed away for 2 decades now on their digital papers.

There are some stocks of old paper still floating around, heavily expired, that are not 'digital' papers. I still have some early-generaton Crystal Archive that printed fine the last time I used it, gave solid and deep blacks and (probably...) filtered correctly for optical enlargements. This was from the era when Fuji still manufactured their own base material (instead of sourcing it from Schoeller), the emulsion layers were coated thicker, and the actual emulsion mix was different and produced a more linear h/d curve that tracked better between the layers. The latter is not necessary with digital exposure since you can just make an ICC profile that corrects for the non-linearities and lack of tracking between the colors.

Again, not making stuff up here, but going by what the Fuji engineers told me. Interestingly, many darkroom printers are so conservative that they ignore, deny or ridicule what I relay from Fuji to them. With the exception of the handful pro/fine-art printers I also talk to face to face in my country, who understand, acknowledge and sometimes recognize the problems.

PS: Endura sure is a punchy paper, with high saturation and fairly high contrast. It can be nice for certain images. In your side by side comparison, there is also a fairly large difference in color balance which also contributes to the Endura looking somewhat garish. If you remove some yellow from the filter pack, the high-value skintones (e.g. the lady's forehead) will retain more tone since that's predominantly yellow, and it'll subdue the contrast in her face somewhat. This will make the Endura print look less harsh. The Endura print also has a bit of a cyan cast; if you filter that out by removing also some magenta from the filter pack, it's going to look a little more friendly. Still punchy and contrasty compared to the CAII though.

PPS: We call it 'CAII' here on the forum, but that's not an official Fuji product name. If you call up the plant and ask them about 'CAII', they won't know what the heck you're talking about, lol!

Thanks. Sounds like you are into this and what you say makes sense and is verified by engineers. It is consumer grade paper so it isnt high performing. Sounds like mottling is here to stay. For some images it is still good just not anything with large block colors. My understanding is that papers now are digital but others hybrid meaning both digital and optical? Have you discussed this with anyone? Yes, I’m not expecting any new pro papers to be traditional optical papers but more hybrid type.

Yeah these were test strips and colors were off but not far off. It is ektar so not great for skin tones and contrasty as hell. I’d use portra 160 with endura (still have 3 rolls) and get the neg right rather than paper. I might even “pull” the film a little reduce contrast. Still even with color balance the highlights are way off CAII. Typo I dev at 35deg not 30deg

PS: talking to Fuji here in AUS was as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike lol
This image on endura was perfect. On CAII it was dull https://www.dropbox.com/s/cg4ax687psd5xb7/img026.JPG?dl=0
This was the final print on endura because of the blacks. Flashed the print turned out pretty well

daph.jpg

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[koraks]

It is consumer grade paper

That's pretty much literally what they call it. I've noticed they distinguish consumer and professional emulsions. It's not entirely clear to me where the divide is, but apparently, Plain CA and CA Supreme are consumer grade, while CA Supreme HD, DPII, Velvet and Maxima are pro-grade emulsions. The main difference between the papers is the thickness of image-forming layers (color density/chroma), interlayers (crossover and thus chroma/saturation) and topcoat (physical and UV protection).

My understanding is that papers now are digital but others hybrid meaning both digital and optical? Have you discussed this with anyone?

What I know about this comes straight from Fuji engineers. I summarized what I know about the digital/optical thing here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...a4-paper-is-digital-and-why-this-matters-not/
I specifically had a Fuji engineer (working on color papers for 35+ years) verify what I wrote down and in particular the plot I included, and his response was that the essence of the article is spot on. There are some details that I may not have captured well; I expect e.g. the toe- and shoulder-areas of the curves, the exact gamma of each layer etc. They won't precisely fit the Fuji data. The plot where you see the green curve deviate strongly from the red and blue ones is one I recreated from memory after having been shown that plot by the same engineer, straight from their QA database. These are the kinds of plots they make to verify that manufactured paper performs to specification, so it's readily available data within the plant in question.

I also specifically asked him several times if it's correct that optical enlargement will result in color crossovers with today's digital papers. This was very explicitly confirmed. We also discussed the potential of using LED exposure for optical enlargement and agreed that this in itself does not fix the problem; the only way to fix it in the analog world would be supplemental masking, with pre- or post-flashing being a sort of stop-gap measure that might get you close.

So yes, I've discussed this and I took care to verify this issue because it's so fundamental.

Yes, I’m not expecting any new pro papers to be traditional optical papers but more hybrid type.

Sorry, but Fuji does not currently do any developments on 'hybrid' papers. They're 100% digitally-oriented. To the best of my knowledge they have also stopped manufacturing 'hybdrid' papers several years ago; probably about a decade ago, if not more. It is conceivable that there are a few exceptions. One would be the Japanese products, namely Fujiflex and Fujitrans. It's possible that these still employ the old emulsion sets, which were fit for optical enlargement. The other is that it's conceivable that the dwindling stocks of US-manufactured Fuji Papers (Super Type C) was also still optical-compatible. It's kind of a moot point though since that plant closed in September 2022 (or maybe earlier; this is the date I recall having heard). All paper production is now done in The Netherlands and that's digital-only. Some specialty products are still coated in Japan, namely Trans and Flex. So whatever Type C you can still get is likely production that was done before the US plant closed, and those stocks will gradually disappear and within about 18 months or so expire to the point of whites no longer being white. If you want to try that particular paper family, it's best to do it quickly.

I might even “pull” the film a little reduce contrast.

I experimented quite a bit with that, but currently, I think post-flashing is a better way to achieve the same thing, but with more flexibility. Here's what you do:
* Expose the print as you've done for your Endura example - so with slightly or even significantly underexposed highlights.
* Fit a diffusor under the lens; milky plexiglass works well.
* Give another exposure with the same filtration.
Then process as usual.

For the second exposure you'll have to determine how long it needs to be to get the desired effect. What will happen is that the low densities (highlights) get bumped in density, while the shadows remain barely affected, or not (visibly) at all. This can bring your Endura print exactly in line with the Fuji print.

The other neat thing you can do is change the filtration between the first and the second exposure. For instance, you could balance the first exposure a bit more blue/cyan and the second one more yellow/red. This will induce a sort of 'split toning' that looks quite natural. Or go crazy and do the opposite, or something different entirely. You'll find this opens up creative possibilities that you probably had never realized, and it's relatively easy. Just be prepared to go through a lot of test strips...

Also, you could do the second ('flash') exposure not through the negative and a diffusor, but on a different enlarger and through a clear piece of C41 (or ECN2) film. This will take out the influence of the color distribution of the original negative. May be useful especially if you're working on a series of prints that you want to make as consistent as possible. I personally don't bother and just swivel a frosted plexi diffuser under the lens and have at it.

Finally, you can experiment with doing the diffused exposure first (before the image exposure) or last (after it). There will be a difference. Give it a try.

PS: talking to Fuji here in AUS was as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike lol

I love that figure of speech

I lucked out and pretty much literally bumped into 'a guy who knew a guy' and that's how I ended up talking to some people at the Fuji plant. Really nice people with a massive passion for the product they make. They're also very level-headed - and super skeptical about lots of the mumbo-jumbo that is so pervasive in the analog domain. They're amused by the fact that we're still doing this in the darkroom, and sort of enthusiastic about it, too. It's probably partly a sentimental thing that takes them back to the old days, and partly just genuine enjoyment of people taking their products out of a financially-driven, industrial environment and having actual fun with it. That sort of thing inspires.

 

[Joakes]

That's pretty much literally what they call it. I've noticed they distinguish consumer and professional emulsions. It's not entirely clear to me where the divide is, but apparently, Plain CA and CA Supreme are consumer grade, while CA Supreme HD, DPII, Velvet and Maxima are pro-grade emulsions. The main difference between the papers is the thickness of image-forming layers (color density/chroma), interlayers (crossover and thus chroma/saturation) and topcoat (physical and UV protection).



What I know about this comes straight from Fuji engineers. I summarized what I know about the digital/optical thing here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...a4-paper-is-digital-and-why-this-matters-not/
I specifically had a Fuji engineer (working on color papers for 35+ years) verify what I wrote down and in particular the plot I included, and his response was that the essence of the article is spot on. There are some details that I may not have captured well; I expect e.g. the toe- and shoulder-areas of the curves, the exact gamma of each layer etc. They won't precisely fit the Fuji data. The plot where you see the green curve deviate strongly from the red and blue ones is one I recreated from memory after having been shown that plot by the same engineer, straight from their QA database. These are the kinds of plots they make to verify that manufactured paper performs to specification, so it's readily available data within the plant in question.

I also specifically asked him several times if it's correct that optical enlargement will result in color crossovers with today's digital papers. This was very explicitly confirmed. We also discussed the potential of using LED exposure for optical enlargement and agreed that this in itself does not fix the problem; the only way to fix it in the analog world would be supplemental masking, with pre- or post-flashing being a sort of stop-gap measure that might get you close.

So yes, I've discussed this and I took care to verify this issue because it's so fundamental.



Sorry, but Fuji does not currently do any developments on 'hybrid' papers. They're 100% digitally-oriented. To the best of my knowledge they have also stopped manufacturing 'hybdrid' papers several years ago; probably about a decade ago, if not more. It is conceivable that there are a few exceptions. One would be the Japanese products, namely Fujiflex and Fujitrans. It's possible that these still employ the old emulsion sets, which were fit for optical enlargement. The other is that it's conceivable that the dwindling stocks of US-manufactured Fuji Papers (Super Type C) was also still optical-compatible. It's kind of a moot point though since that plant closed in September 2022 (or maybe earlier; this is the date I recall having heard). All paper production is now done in The Netherlands and that's digital-only. Some specialty products are still coated in Japan, namely Trans and Flex. So whatever Type C you can still get is likely production that was done before the US plant closed, and those stocks will gradually disappear and within about 18 months or so expire to the point of whites no longer being white. If you want to try that particular paper family, it's best to do it quickly.



I experimented quite a bit with that, but currently, I think post-flashing is a better way to achieve the same thing, but with more flexibility. Here's what you do:
* Expose the print as you've done for your Endura example - so with slightly or even significantly underexposed highlights.
* Fit a diffusor under the lens; milky plexiglass works well.
* Give another exposure with the same filtration.
Then process as usual.

For the second exposure you'll have to determine how long it needs to be to get the desired effect. What will happen is that the low densities (highlights) get bumped in density, while the shadows remain barely affected, or not (visibly) at all. This can bring your Endura print exactly in line with the Fuji print.

The other neat thing you can do is change the filtration between the first and the second exposure. For instance, you could balance the first exposure a bit more blue/cyan and the second one more yellow/red. This will induce a sort of 'split toning' that looks quite natural. Or go crazy and do the opposite, or something different entirely. You'll find this opens up creative possibilities that you probably had never realized, and it's relatively easy. Just be prepared to go through a lot of test strips...

Also, you could do the second ('flash') exposure not through the negative and a diffusor, but on a different enlarger and through a clear piece of C41 (or ECN2) film. This will take out the influence of the color distribution of the original negative. May be useful especially if you're working on a series of prints that you want to make as consistent as possible. I personally don't bother and just swivel a frosted plexi diffuser under the lens and have at it.

Finally, you can experiment with doing the diffused exposure first (before the image exposure) or last (after it). There will be a difference. Give it a try.



I love that figure of speech

I lucked out and pretty much literally bumped into 'a guy who knew a guy' and that's how I ended up talking to some people at the Fuji plant. Really nice people with a massive passion for the product they make. They're also very level-headed - and super skeptical about lots of the mumbo-jumbo that is so pervasive in the analog domain. They're amused by the fact that we're still doing this in the darkroom, and sort of enthusiastic about it, too. It's probably partly a sentimental thing that takes them back to the old days, and partly just genuine enjoyment of people taking their products out of a financially-driven, industrial environment and having actual fun with it. That sort of thing inspires.

Great tips. So to post flash with the plexiglass under the lens (I actually do this with my timer/color analyser. I don’t use the analyser as it not accurate but it gets the time very close) and hit it with diffused light which affects the highlights mostly. Or, stick say a piece of unexposed neg from same roll in second enlarger and move the easel over and hit it again affecting highlights. Both producing similar results. Great ideas sound easier than pre flashing and certainly easier than masking! I will def use these techniques. I bought a second enlarger 3 months ago Omega D5 XL so this is entirely on the cards? Many thanks for this

 

[koraks]

Yeah, you got it. When using the analyser for determining exposure, keep in mind that you want the flash exposure to be a few stops underexposed. Otherwise you'll just end up with a big muddy mass of muted grey stuff. Well, you'll make that mistake sooner or later anyway, so you'll find out anyway No harm done it if happens; it makes it very visible what's actually happening, so it's even useful in a way.

Masking is of course far more selective and powerful, but it's also orders of magnitude more complicated and a much slower process. This pre/post flash thing is something you can try on a whim at little to no expense of materials and only a tiny time investment.