How To Improve The Archival Qualities of a C-Print?

[LFLarry]

Thanks Drew. I knew this would probably be a complex topic and possibly no clear guidance, but I have learned a lot so far. I appreciate the info and help.

Other than proper mounting, display, and storage methods ... NO. These papers themselves have significantly improved in display permanence characteristics in recent decades, especially the Fuji Crystal Archive line, though not even all of that selection is created equal. It is also dependent upon correct processing. Due to the almost endless potential variables in all the above, it is very pretentious to offer any kind of longevity warrantly. Mfg published estimates are to be taken in a relative sense at best. Gallery and lab claims about so many decades or whatever should always be held in suspicion. It all depends - always. Don't believe any of that talk about inkjet prints lasting 200 years either, unless you know someone who already owns a 200 year old inkjet print!

I won't live long enough to give an assessment relative to my own chromogenic work and how it's been displayed and stored. But out of curiosity, I did allow a quantity a my own big framed Fuji Super-C prints to be displayed in an architecturally stunning law office complex until that was sold - 15 years of definitely less than ideal lighting for 18 hrs a day - relatively high-UV lamps, plus overhead skylight UV during daytime hours. I slightly overprinted them for sake or a bit of inevitable fading; and now, after those 15 yrs, they look just about ideal, and should do even better now under far less UV, so an overall life before annoying fading of perhaps 30-35 yrs. So that's pretty damn good relative to those abusive lighting conditions, and pretty much in line with Fuji's general estimate at the time of around 70 yrs under reasonably controlled, versus abusive, display conditions.

But the top-end Fuji "papers" like my favorite, Fujiflex (not an RC paper at all, but polyester sheet base), should do even better; and as usual, Fuji cryptically hints at that, but isn't so stupid as to make any ironclad guarantees. Likewise, their alleged premium newer RC paper, Maxima, seems to be a very similar improved emulsion, but on RC paper base. Besides better dyes, another important feature with these two products is better resistance to base yellowing over time, which with older papers by both Kodak and Fuji was often a worse issue than the fading itself.

LF Larry - note that those specs apply (or did apply) to ideal print storage -i.e., literally hermetically sealed and frozen if possible! But common sense display circumstances need to minimize strong diurnal day to night temp swings, overall hot temps, and especially pay attention to the types of display lighting involved. Modern CFL bulbs, most overhead fluorescents, low-voltage track lighting and other halogen bulbs, are all very high in damaging UV, as is obviously direct sunlight. Premium bulb supply houses can offer hard specs about all this; but of course, all of that applies to high quality bulbs which cost more. Don't expect a grain of truth to be on the package of a cheap bulb in any big box outlet. You get what you pay for.

Prints need to be properly washed. I do drum processing and wash them 3 times longer than specified for automated processors, along with multiple water changes. Some speedy processing facilities don't wash em at all, and just "stablize" em, or do it via recycled contaminated water.

[koraks]

But the top-end Fuji "papers" like my favorite, Fujiflex (not an RC paper at all, but polyester sheet base), should do even better; and as usual, Fuji cryptically hints at that, but isn't so stupid as to make any ironclad guarantees. Likewise, their alleged premium newer RC paper, Maxima, seems to be a very similar improved emulsion, but on RC paper base. Besides better dyes, another important feature with these two products is better resistance to base yellowing over time, which with older papers by both Kodak and Fuji was often a worse issue than the fading itself.

I'll remember to check next time when I speak to the Fuji people, but AFAIK the following applies:
* The dyes across all FUJIFILM CA papers and RA4 transparencies (Flex, Trans) are the same. The last dye change was the cyan dye and that was probably around 20 years ago give or take a few.
* Maxima uses the same emulsions as DP II and the other 'professional' line papers. The differences between the papers are layer thickness of both the emulsion layers and interlayers. This has influence on gamut, and perhaps a very slight (negligible, in practice) influence on longevity of the magenta and yellow images. At least in Europe, only two emulsion sets are produced and coated: an 'amateur' set and a 'professional' set. The amateur set is used for Type CA, Crystal Archive Supreme. I'm not 100% sure on Supreme HD - this may be a professional emulsion or the amateur one; my sources contradict on this, but it's a marginal issue. DPII, Digital Pearl, Maxima and Velvet Type H are coated using the professional emulsion set. Differences between the products are in the base, topcoat and layer thickness (color & emulsion layers). I assume the album papers all use the 'amateur' emulsion.
* I don't know about base yellowing, but I do know that there has been a major change in the paper base years ago. It used to be made by FUJIFILM in house, but this is no longer the case. I think the change coincided with the shift from the old product range and the 'original' Fuji Crystal Archive to the current product line that starts with 'Type CA' (which I've always called 'Chrystal Archive II', but Fuji don't call it that). Photographic paper base manufacturing (and probably inkjet, too) in the EU is virtually a monopoly at this point, at least in the volume market. Furthermore, what may be confusing here is that Fujiflex is coated on a clear base, while Fujitrans (which has been around for much longer) was always (and still is) coated on a slightly yellow base. This is not an aging problem; it's a deliberate decision that echoes the requirements of the market at the time Fujitrans was first introduced. Again, this is not a matter of yellowing - it's an inherent difference between the products.
* All these papers can undergo minor changes without this being visible in different product names etc. Many changes are/have been made mostly to keep production costs low. The reality of this market is one of consolidation and the RA4 materials are a cash cow for Fuji, as they literally state in their annual reports.

Since the dyes between the RA4 papers are identical and have been for many years, the longevity of the prints is mostly influenced by other parameters such as the topcoat layer. I don't know how profound this influence is. I do think that one of the two top layers (I think it's the second one from the top) contains a UV filter which should increase longevity of the print. This layer is present in all their papers, but the thickness may vary.

Keep in mind that fading is a complex topic. Fuji (and I assume Kodak, too) has always aimed not just at low fading, but mostly at a rate of fading that's equal across the color layers. The rationale is that a faded print is less bothersome than a print that has color shifted. Since the color dyes are chemically dissimilar and the cyan dye just happens to be on top, this is kind of a tricky proposition, though. It's of course impossible to guarantee a completely equal rate of fading.

I've taken a note to bring up the issues above with Fuji on my next visit. I'm sure they can offer some useful comments, but it'll take some time. In the meantime, if anyone has further questions about these papers, feel free to reach out. Some people at Fuji are actually very interested in what we're doing with their products. Not with a direct commercial interest, since people like us represent a negligible market share and Fuji knows that perfectly well, but the people who make these products are just as fascinated about them as we are.

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji has always been cryptic about certain things. And it doesn't help that marketing names for certain products differ in the US than in the EU. Most of their RC papers appear to be made in the Netherlands. Fujiflex comes from Japan; and in that case, the nature of the base itself changes certain characteristics, for example, its ability to wash out much better, yellowing over time etc. Its hue gamut repro and DMax are superior to any
RC RA4 paper I've ever seen.

Crystal Archive II seems to simply imply any recent tweak or improvement per a given category of paper, not necessary the same improvement between them all. CAii labeling occurs on both certain products and their retail cut sheet line. Fujiflex underwent it's major alteration about 15 years ago with no label change on the box whatsoever, just a hard to find notice of their international website stating at which batch number this began. The current labeling of it as CAII Fujiflex simply seems to be a marketing coordination with other current pro product being sold with laser printing specifications. I enlarge optically; but I can't detect a bit of difference in current "CAII" Fujiflex from my prior batch not so labeled. The new label simply seems to be for sake of US marketing consistency. In other words, labeling for sake of target end users is not necessarily in line with actual product changes. DPii is Europe is labeled something else here, and in a smaller selection of roll widths.

Even more confusing is that fact that you need to have access to the actual wholesale price lists to see what is or is not available in a given country. The official website here does not correspond. And of course, there's yet another variable of distributors wanting to get rid of older label product before there's adequate demand to replace it with the "latest and greatest". Getting firm answers out of anyone is hell, especially Fujifilm USA.

The overall tweak toward "Digital" Crystal Archive was mainly just a sliightly improved green response (since green laser diodes are weaker than the other two), and a steeper curve for sake of better DMax. In the case of Maxima, the claim a special version of RA4 developer is needed to attain the greatest DMax, and here they will sell the product only directly to certain labs via their own sales Rep, not by ordinary distribution channels. Since it's so difficult to even get ahold of any of this to test, I don't know if the alleged limitation applies to optical enlargement or not. I doubt that it does. Anyway, I can easily fine-tune contrast and DMax using plus or minus supplemental contrast masking if needed.

I have a long background dealing with non-photographic coatings manufacturers, and the story is pretty much the same. To get firm answers you needed to talk to chemists directly. Marketing and website people were a different species entirely, who often knew far less about their own products as I already did.

[koraks]

Drew, there's nothing roundabout in what the Fuji people told me yesterday. Also, the digital change has been far more fundamental than you or I suspected. I'll follow up on this but the conclusion is that these RA4 papers are no longer fit for optical enlargement without additional masking. Yes, you get colors and for me they're good enough, but for actually accurate color reproduction from C41 film a supplementary mask is required.

[LFLarry]

I would love to know more about this because my use case is 100% optical enlargements from my large format C-41 negatives.

Drew, there's nothing roundabout in what the Fuji people told me yesterday. Also, the digital change has been far more fundamental than you or I suspected. I'll follow up on this but the conclusion is that these RA4 papers are no longer fit for optical enlargement without additional masking. Yes, you get colors and for Mex they're good enough, but for actually accurate color reproduction from C41 film a supplementary mask is required.

[koraks]

I'm in the process of writing a brief blog on this, LFLarry. I'll post a link as soon as I'm done, but the conclusion is pretty much what I said above. With optical enlargement, the current FUJIFILM papers will produce green/magenta crossover. In a digital workflow, this is corrected entirely through e.g. ICC profiles, so it's not a problem. This is also not something new; it has been this way for several years already. I'll be sure to check if any optical-enlargement compatible papers are left in their portfolio, but piecing together what I already know suggests that this is simply not the case.
What the current situation is for Kodak Premier Endura, I don't know. It's still indicated as being compatible for optical enlargements by Alaris, but we all know that Alaris hasn't been making this paper for years and supply from Sinopromise is spotty at best. Moreover, the odds are infinitesimally small that they (Sinopromise and Kodak before them) haven't been making the same kinds of changes Fuji has.

This doesn't mean you can't get nice/beautiful/satisfactory colors from these papers in the darkroom. You can, of course. But accuracy is a different matter.

Edit: here's the blog post I promised: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography...s-matters-not/

[Drew Wiley]

?????????? Green-Magenta crossover when optically printed? NEVER, ever even once with ANY of the recent Fuji (or older)papers I've printed on. And I use three different colorheads on three different enlargers, two of them custom RGB additive, and one a traditonal Durst CMY one. I can get AT LEAST AS GOOD color accuracy as laser printing, probably even better. And the change in settings before and after "digital" re-tweaking of the papers is just a few CC's, 5 at most.

You've got some other kind problem you need to identify, perhaps with development itself, cause it sure ain't due to the paper!

[LFLarry]

Thanks for sharing your article. My takeaway is that I will keep making RA4 prints from my color negatives and enjoy it while I can.

I'm in the process of writing a brief blog on this, LFLarry. I'll post a link as soon as I'm done, but the conclusion is pretty much what I said above. With optical enlargement, the current FUJIFILM papers will produce green/magenta crossover. In a digital workflow, this is corrected entirely through e.g. ICC profiles, so it's not a problem. This is also not something new; it has been this way for several years already. I'll be sure to check if any optical-enlargement compatible papers are left in their portfolio, but piecing together what I already know suggests that this is simply not the case.
What the current situation is for Kodak Premier Endura, I don't know. It's still indicated as being compatible for optical enlargements by Alaris, but we all know that Alaris hasn't been making this paper for years and supply from Sinopromise is spotty at best. Moreover, the odds are infinitesimally small that they (Sinopromise and Kodak before them) haven't been making the same kinds of changes Fuji has.

This doesn't mean you can't get nice/beautiful/satisfactory colors from these papers in the darkroom. You can, of course. But accuracy is a different matter.

Edit: here's the blog post I promised: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography...s-matters-not/

[LFLarry]

Hey Drew, I just got the Heiland LED splitgrade system with the optional RGB color controller. I will be doing additive printing with this setup, which is new for me. I am excited to learn and make some new color prints. I will be printing on Fuji Crystal Archive II Luster paper to begin with.

?????????? Green-Magenta crossover when optically printed? NEVER, ever even once with ANY of the recent Fuji (or older)papers I've printed on. And I use three different colorheads on three different enlargers, two of them custom RGB additive, and one a traditonal Durst CMY one. I can get AT LEAST AS GOOD color accuracy as laser printing, probably even better. And the change in settings before and after "digital" re-tweaking of the papers is just a few CC's, 5 at most.

You've got some other kind problem you need to identify, perhaps with development itself, cause it sure ain't due to the paper!

[Drew Wiley]

Congratulations! And let us know how it goes. It will be interesting to see how large you can print - that is, how powerful or not the LED head is, as well as how clean a color as the result. CAII luster will be fine for that purpose. Of course, make sure your chemisty is fresh. I only mix enough from the concentrates at a time for a single day's usage. Others might contradict that advice; but in terms of getting your initial parameters right to begin with, it sure makes sense not to stretch any potential variable more than you need to.