Kodak Professional Endura Premier Paper

[Drew Wiley]

Doesn't seem to be any issue with the labs here. ... and I am referring to full-service pro labs who do pricey work. And as far as sales reps are concerned, you've
got about an 80% chance with any of them that they're bullshitting. That's what a lot of these guys do. They sell encyclopedias one month, cars the next, film the next, rarely do their homework. I deal with all kinds of product salesmen, and the first thing I tell them is that if they BS me even once, they get the boot. If you don't know something, just say you don't know, and I'll pursue the question further up the line". I've had the same kind of BS issues with Fuji Customer Service reps;
but with many manufacturers, customer service is an entry level job, and nowadays, often filled by temps, so the odds of getting a valid answer is pretty dicey.

[mups]

I'm talking about pro labs too.
And the guy isn't a sales rep but a chemical technician. Who naturally prefers that I use his company's products...

[Drew Wiley]

That's probably the case. But Fuji chem seems a little more widely distributed anyway. Here they use it for both Kodak and Fuji papers. I doubt there's anything
proprietary about any of these formulas.

[agregov]

Interesting findings on color shifts. Thanks for sharing. For kicks, I looked up Kodak's recommendation on processing film. For Portra 400 they specify:

Processing
Process PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 400 Film in KODAK FLEXICOLOR Chemicals for Process C-41...

Optical Printing
This film is optimized for printing on KODAK PROFESSIONAL SUPRA ENDURA VC Digital and ULTRA ENDURA High Definition Papers...

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4050/e4050.pdf

I used to just gloss over this sort of stuff figuring manufacturers just want you to use their product. But when you think about it, it makes sense that manufacturers would spend a lot of time testing their materials using their chemistry/film/papers and less time testing on others. From that perspective, it seems plausible that strange occurrences mixing film/chemistry/paper can happen.

That said, I haven't experienced strange color shifts in my own printing. The Colex I print on has gone through Kodak and Fuji chemistry changes and I've noticed no problems with my prints (usually printing Kodak negs on Fuji Type II and C). If there is some magenta drift, is it uncorrectable in the darkroom? Seems to me you just fix the problem in the color pack. Though, I'm not a pro printer so I've never been after precise repeatable results for printing negs over again.

Where I have had challenges color correcting is when printing Ektar negs optically. Portra (NC, VC, new version) color correct very straightforward. Whenever I print Ektar negs I find even 1 point changes can cause pretty dramatic color changes. Have you done any experiments with the negatives you're printing? Are you sure they've been processed well? Some pro labs are seeing less and less color processing work and chemistry might not be monitored or changed as frequently as in the past. I noticed a marked increase in contrast with my own negs when I started processing myself in a Jobo versus sending to a lab. I attributed the increase to using fresh chemistry (though who knows, could have been the chemistry--Tetenal).

[Drew Wiley]

The Ektar issues have zero to due with the RA4 chemistry (if properly run), and everything to do with the inherent tradeoff between a film engineering for contrast, saturation, and hue accuracy reminiscent of the "look" of chrome films (vs low contrast portraiture). I can explain all this at length, but yes, you do need to be spot
on my color balance with printing, and even more, to expose for correct color temperature to begin with. Once you understand this film, it is a spectacular performer,
and will print superbly on your C or CAII papers. I shoot a lot of it, and now am pegging down one of the last idiosycratic hurdles, namely mixed color temp - part of
the scene in warm open sun, part in deep blue north light shadow. This can be fixed with very precise pre-flashing, but CANNOT be post-corrected in PS. But that's a long topic.

[mups]

That said, I haven't experienced strange color shifts in my own printing. The Colex I print on has gone through Kodak and Fuji chemistry changes and I've noticed no problems with my prints (usually printing Kodak negs on Fuji Type II and C). If there is some magenta drift, is it uncorrectable in the darkroom?

My original post mentionned two distinct problems: one is the magenta drift (about 2CC) that I get when I process Kodak Premier immediately, instead of after a 10mn wait. That, I can deal with...
The other one isn't a simple drift that I can correct, it's what we call in french a "bascule", more like a twisted shift... It's a magenta (also) haze plaguing the medium and low lights when I process FUJI CA in Kodak RA4 chemicals, especially noticeable in the medium tones. The tires and the tar in strip tests 2 and 4 (the ones labeled Mups Kodak and Rainbow Fuji) clearly show that difference. Even though the two other strips (Picto and Publi, both Kodak) drift in color overall, they also have the same problem. To be clear for lesser experienced printers, if I added green to tame the magenta on my test, I completely ruin the wall and the sky.

Where I have had challenges color correcting is when printing Ektar negs optically. Portra (NC, VC, new version) color correct very straightforward. Whenever I print Ektar negs I find even 1 point changes can cause pretty dramatic color changes. Have you done any experiments with the negatives you're printing?

Funny you mention this... In France in the 80-90's, we had a Kodak "old school" neg film called VPS 160 (VPH was the 400) that often called for that kind of micro-adjustments. Then came GPX and GPY that were way less touchy... So I've always thought that the softer the film, the smaller the correction, and the harder the film, the more you had to hit it hard. What I know about printing comes from professional working experience and I have too little theorical-technical background to provide another explanation...
So although I haven't seen this in years, I worked a few days ago on a Portra NC 400 neg, not especially soft, subtle or underexposed, that pushed me to divide the amounts of my corrections by 5. Compared to what I'm used to, a 0,2CC had the effect of 1CC.

Are you sure they've been processed well? Some pro labs are seeing less and less color processing work and chemistry might not be monitored or changed as frequently as in the past. I noticed a marked increase in contrast with my own negs when I started processing myself in a Jobo versus sending to a lab. I attributed the increase to using fresh chemistry (though who knows, could have been the chemistry--Tetenal)

The labs that process my client's films are big enough to have a constant production (I wouldn't work we them otherwise). Besides, I know those guys well enough to chat about their sensitometry and even take a look at the control strip analysis software (I ran a C41 processor in a pro lab years ago). Also, my most frequent client's proof-sheets are done with roughly the same color settings for a few years. All that makes me rather confident about quality consistancy...

[frotog]

My experience regarding the seeming anomalous behavior of contemporary RA-4 in an analogue environment points to the inherent incompatibility of today's materials with exposures under the enlarger. I feel that this is at the root of the problem documented here and largely explains the quirks of cross-brand processing, latent image drift, excessive contrast etc. (shitty dmax and generally abhorrent colors on CAii being the exception since it is low-silver minilab stock and not a professional paper). To claim that there is essentially no difference between pre-digitally optimized RA materials and digitally optimized RA is to either ignore the problem altogether or to not favor neutral-balanced color prints (or, perhaps not know what it means to balance for neutral).

Think about it (for those of you who were deep enough into this to witness the change)... The problem used to be the other way around - all the new-fangled digital guys who were experimenting with light jet in the early oughts complained about cross-over (more like the "bascule" that mups refers to than a simple, linear change of cast from high to low) and weak dmax. But the writing was already on the wall and digital printing was here to stay as more and more photographers came to the labs with files instead of negs. It wasn't long before the two big players responded and changed their emulsions to solve the incompatibility problems. Now that 99.999% of all the RA-4 processed the world over comes from digital files exposed to paper via laser or led. Compatibility with the old analogue techniques is simply not a concern for the tech guys who engineered these solutions (labeling some of these products as both analogue/digital compatible is simply a marketing strategy).

I spoke to my pro lab in nyc about this topic the other day and he reminded me of the reasons why he switched over from kodak chem to fuji chem nearly ten years ago - the fuji RA at the time had just been optimized for digital RA which resulted in better dmax and a more faithful gamut with the lambda and chromira machines he was using (the Dursts had already been gathering dust for several years even before this change happened). Fuji had just come out with this... http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/...-ra/index.html and the labs responded accordingly. Now, I don't know of a single pro-lab in nyc running kodak/cpac/champion/russell ra-4 chemistry. Kodak responded not by changing their chemistry but rather by making their emulsions better suited for digital exposure in their RA chemistry (which has not changed). I suspect that this decision had more to do with Kodak's CEO's desire to transition out of analogue with as little fuss as possible - change one product instead of introducing two new products. As everybody knows, preserving their analogue heritage is not a priority over there.

While I've always relied on being able to make micro-adjustments to perfectly dial in a neutral color pack, it wasn't always necessary. With the new materials, using my old closed loop color head is out of the question as stepless adjustments are absolutely necessary to balance the color. Even then, I find the results always involving some sort of compromise - either too contrasty or exhibiting strangely biased gamut, color crossover, etc. These are compromises that I've learned to live with when entering the color darkroom these days as I'm well aware of the shortcomings due to the incompatibility issues inherent in digitally optimized analogue materials and I don't expect results as good as those from the high classical period of analogue in the late '90's. Do you recall how Portra emulsions laid down on the various endura papers without any fuss at all (what a big improvement over VPS and VPH that was!)?

So now I use the color darkroom primarily to proof. For a while I was holding out, primarily to save production expenses with my own work and partly from fear of change. But then I got myself a Creo Eversmart and an Epson 7900 to proof with. Now with several years working with both processes, making a finished RA print in analogue is just not worth it considering the advantages of a high res scan, judicious PS and quality laser/led output. I could understand doing it for a stunt/sales/conceptual reasons (e.g. "a real analogue print from this 1992 negative using a historically correct process!") But if I had a client wanting to match an analogue print from the nineties, I choose to scan, PS and output on a chromira. Besides, I despise sentimentality.

So for me at least, the old way, while fun and hands-on, is just too fetishistic and offers no real advantages at this point in the game other than retro-grouch bragging rights.

[Drew Wiley]

Once again, Frotog and I seem to be living on completely different planets. I've found the new Fuji papers to be better than ever in Kodak RA4 chem and printed
optically. No crossover. No blaah shadows (though DMax is always a function of paper surface - a high gloss poly base will inherently render a deeper black than an
RC matte finish), no significant latent image drift. None of that. Ektar film per se does introduce some opportunities for learning new tricks to fine-tune the results,
but the rewards are also significant. But even it's a piece of cake compared to printing chromes. Now I will admit I use all my chem one-shot, mixed fresh daily, and
haven't even bothered to hook up my automated processor yet. So I don't have to worry about machine variables.

[mups]

Very interesting...
Figure this, it just so happens that I describe myself as a retro-grouch ! Term I found in 1991 in a Bridgestone bicycle catalogue.
I stick to traditional printing (or not using sample instruments in music) because my form of creativity is fueled by limits, not by their absence or the unlimited possibilities offered by digital. I find more pride in working with a process that, at every stage, implies skill, knowledge, experience, attention, and mainly, strong artistic decisions, with no going back, that all leave their print on the final result.
In music, I've never played bass as well as when fucking up was so costly...
But I know that there are lots of people who have such a strong vision of what they want that technical limitations or imprint are untolerable for them...

[frotog]

I hear you mups. However I respectfully disagree with you regarding "unlimited possibilities offered by digital". Just to be clear, I'm limiting my discussion to color balancing and proper exposure to express the full potential of what the individual neg holds on the finished print (changing content is a whole other ball of wax). The limitations are still there with digital printing and ignoring them will yield results just as awful as some extremely biased cibachromes I've seen from certain contributors here.

My workflow starts with a color negative, just like you. Digital exposure allows me to fulfill all the promise that the negative holds without the problems that have been discussed here. The fact is that the current crop of materials is not designed for traditional exposure. Kodak premier is simply not as good as the old endura supra under an enlarger, an opinion shared by every single professional printmaker that I know who has transitioned from analogue to digital. If these problems did not exist, I'd have never transitioned and neither would most other printmakers for fine art photography (after all, most are still shooting film and scanning). But once the digitally optimized papers are used as intended, all of their quirks magically disappear - no more wrestling with weird gamut, crossover, excessive contrast,etc... and it's actual intended potential can be fully realized.

The same degree of skill, knowledge, experience yadda yadda is applicable to the digital arts as it is analogue. And just as in the darkroom, if you over correct or make a mistake, you do it again. I'm not sure where this "no going back" Snake Plisskin attitude comes in - we're making c-prints, not japanese calligraphy. The final result is more about the print maker's understanding of what the print should look like, not the process of getting there. Process might be something artists and craftsmen can get misty-eyed about but in the end what does it matter if the results are inferior? For this reason, your analogy to music misses the mark - in printmaking your audience sees your final print, not all the work it took you to get there. So fucking up is par for the course. In fact the whole process is empirical trial and error - make a test, assess what is wrong, make your changes and repeat until you decide you got what you want. Same thing in digital, except you can preview your adjustments before committing to paper. In the performing arts, you make a mistake and it's heard by everyone there to witness it, bringing down the entire performance.

Still, kudos to you for finding a niche in Paris. Here in the states, while there is still nostalgia surrounding traditional b/w and labs that specialize solely in that, there is no mystique surrounding analogue color and so no labs exclusively devoted to the practice of analogue RA-4 - collectors just don't give a shit.

BTW, I'm a big Grant fan as well and ride a 1988 miyata 1000. But I use indexed shifting - oh the horror!