My understanding is that there is more high volume use of RA4 in the volume printers in the EU.
When the scale is like that, RA4 is very economical. That is the biggest reason it is still around.
You and I, however, will be long dead before you find things like cereal boxes printed using inkjet. That would simply be plainly stupid to do. You cannot compare the throughput of offset printing - which is light speed - to inkjet - which is closer to donkey speed.
Yes. The market is vanishingly small and diminishing.
...
Of digitally produced RA-4s, the photograph is scanned (mostly drum scanning now). Sized and profiled, proofed and viewed, profiled then to printer. Then saved as a tif (150dpi), send to the chemically-dunked RA-4 printer and printed on (what was predominantly used as a rav-fav) to Kodak Endura Professional metallic, lustre, pearl or matte media (Fuji CA was sometimes requested, though I didn't fancy it).
You cannot compare the throughput of offset printing - which is light speed - to inkjet - which is closer to donkey speed.
Oh, well - there you go.It appears to be in the midst of change: https://www.kodak.com/en/print/page/packaging-and-printing/
The only reason why RA4 is still around is because it's still cost-competitive at this moment. This advantages erodes away since inkjet still has potential for further cost down and increase in productivity, while RA4 is pretty much a squeezed out lemon. This is why you see RA4 manufacturing volumes drop a little year over year while the global printing market grows.Interesting if that is the case in the EU, especially the mention of it being economical.
With the progressive dying out of machine-based RA-4 printing, giclée prints are what we are pretty much stuck with in the post-Ilfochrome Classic era. Casting a critical eye, I regard the printing (despite the wider gamut availability) as inferior to both Ilfochrome Classic (in a very big way!) and inferior again to RA-4. The only 'advantage' to giclée is easy and fast profiling variability and especially, repeatability of a set objective, on not just one but myriad different media finishes. Archival stability is not as good as Ilfochrome Classic, but likely on par with the best RA-4 prints (60-80 years). It is curious that the cost of giclée is now rising, as too, the media specifically designed for it.
The pro-level lab Canon — not a Pixma — I have my printing made on has 24 inks and able to run off 3 print jobs simultaneously. Their two RA-4 machines went to the tip in late 2022 when repair/reconditioning proved uneconomical/unviable with no spares available.
But yes, your Pixma can be described as giclée; being a French word it is not in wide English use outside knowledgeable circles; that is, not particularly in a supermarket that sells pillows, mince meat and batteries. Mention giclée in an office supplier for example, and you'll likely get a stunned mullet expression. People — mums, dads and kids, say what first comes to mind — "have you got any good inkjet printers I can look at?".
as soon as someone figures out it'd be nice to have individualized content on something a silly as a soup can
Back in 2018, I investigated the cost involved in changing my print minilab Frontier RA4 to a Frontier drylab (inkjet).
At the time, the material cost per print 6x4inch/10x15cm was RA4 €0.05 and Fuji inkjet (paper & ink) €0.15
There was a big saving in electricity consumption with a drylab. The Frontier RA4 in full running mode was 7kW, the Frontier dry lab (2 in tandem) was 2kW.
The reason for the big difference was the RA4 print dryer, it alone was 4kW.
I am sure the material price gap now (2025) is much smaller.
Probably the best thing I could do (I'm sure I'm not alone) is to calibrate my monitor/printer, use the proper print profiles for each paper, and experiment with different papers. I know I should but my current default-setting prints on Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss and Smooth Pearl look pretty good to me.
The enlargements from the digital machine didn't impress me particularly, despite the associated "wider gamut" promises.
In a very simple, straightforward approach (and this is what I do when pressed for time): if you're on a Windows PC, sRGB profile for viewing and printing (proofing); of it's a Mac, AdobeRGB. Differences between these two are not immediately evident on a screen (especially an uncalibrated monitor/laptop), but the differences will be meaningful to the printer! Profiles and calibration and print metrics...very much a "let's head down the rabbit hole" sort of topic!!
The printer you have may have profiles on the CD or the .zip files used to install it; otherwise ICC profiles for proofing and printing can be obtained from ICC organisation, or through a third party program e.g. GIMP. They can also be installed from either Windows or Mac machines (usually through the system area ==> monitor/colour setup portals.
Colour prints of yore do have staying power. We've got a few on Ilford colour paper from my Dad's discharge from the Australian Army in 1945.
My feelings exactly.
FWIW, based on what I've observed in the years since, I expect with a lot of re-learning - both for me and the lab people - I could probably obtain now prints that satisfy me just about as much as the RA4 prints satisfied me back then. But it would have required a lot of tweaking in order to be able to emulate the characteristics of RA4 prints I most appreciate. And those characteristics seem rarely favoured by the majority of colour print customers now.
used by the pretentious
Yeah, this. It's just an attempt at snobbery.
It's like the film veterans scanning their darkroom prints, sharing them on Facebook and going
"SILVER GELATINE print"
To distinguish themselves from the lowly plebs doing impure inkjet printing.
Is that why they do that? Are you saying people are not entitled to take pride in what they do?
From Hollywood and with a French name. Now it all makes sense.
French sounding names always sounded sophisticated.
Think of contre-jour. Sounds more artsy than backlighting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?