Color Photo papers.... Recomendations?

[Tayne]

I am a newbie and want input on color papers. I love landscapes and just purchased a 4x5 setup. I am shooting Ektar 100 and prefer glossy paper for sharpness. My goal is to make large prints of my best photos. What are do you recommend? I see Fuji, ColorTone and Aristacolor. Looks like Kodak only makes rolls. What do recommend and why? The largest I can find is 20x24.
Thanks in advance,
Tayne

[Drew Wiley]

I have been having excellent results with Fuji Crystal Archive Products, either the previous generation of Super C or the current CAII, in both the ordinary paper based products and the deluxe polyester Supergloss (avail only in big rolls). The Arista cut sheet product is apparently US Mfg Fuji, and slightly different in base color, but I have no experience with either it or the private label ColorTone product from B&H. Sadly, anything current and bigger than 20x24 you'll have to cut
from rolls yourself - a minor nuisance. Kodak doesn't seem to offer cut sheet at all at the moment. I really recommend taking your best guess and buying cut sheet
and sticking with a box of it until you get accustomed to color balancing Ektar and how to handle contrast control. One needs to pin down the basics first. Chem is
another subject. I personally develop in drums and use one shot Kodak RA/RT or the direct Arista generic replacement kits. Never cared much for "room temp" RA4.

[agregov]

I second the recommendation on buying cut paper. Fuji Super C was great (more contrasty with a bit more color punch) but is only available in rolls. But the Fuji Crystal Archive Type II is quite nice and you can get cut sheets up to 20x24. If you want to go bigger, you'll need to order a roll and cut it yourself. Are you planning on printing analog in a color darkroom (via something like a Colex processor)? Or process paper in a processor like a Jobo? I've never processed paper in a Jobo. The Jobo's main disadvantage is the paper needs to dry and doing serious color correction seems like it would be clunky (when you might have to print 5-10 sheets until you get to a color correct image--that seems a pain to do in a Jobo). If you can find a color darkroom with a processor (like a Colex or OmniPro), that would be ideal. For example, in San Fran you can print your own color work at Rayko (http://raykophotocenter.com). In the Seattle area you can print at Pratt (http://www.pratt.org) or Evergreen College (http://blogs.evergreen.edu/photo/). If you're new to printing in the darkroom, I'd suggest starting with a box of 8x10 paper. A box of 100 sheets is cheap and will give you some time to learn how to color correct your images. Once you understand how to use the color pack in the enlarger, moving up paper sizes is easy--easier IMO than B&W. As for glossy versus matte, before you settle on one direction, you might give matte a try at some point. Matte in color behaves differently than B&W. In B&W, glossy paper gives you the deepest blacks possible. That's not as much the case in color. I find the saturation too high in color glossy papers. Some believe color matte paper is more "painterly." But it's totally a personal thing. :) For B&W, I tend to print on glossy paper and color in matte.

I might be a minority, but I've had a lot of difficulty color correcting Ektar efficiently. If find the color casts it produces shift in very small (point) level color pack adjustments which (for me at least) means burning more paper to get to a color correct print. Personally, I mostly shoot Portra 160 for 4x5 and find it far easier to color correct. I can't speak to scanning and printing. I believe Ektar is equally great for scanning as Portra. But for analog printing I prefer Portra for its easier color correcting capability. I also process negs in a Jobo using a 3010 drum with a Tetenal C41 5lt kit. You get fantastic results with the Jobos and can mix only the amount of developer you need with the Tetenal kit.

[frotog]

I am a newbie and want input on color papers. I love landscapes and just purchased a 4x5 setup. I am shooting Ektar 100 and prefer glossy paper for sharpness. My goal is to make large prints of my best photos. What are do you recommend? I see Fuji, ColorTone and Aristacolor. Looks like Kodak only makes rolls. What do recommend and why? The largest I can find is 20x24.
Thanks in advance,
Tayne

Here's a list of what's currently available from Fuji USA… http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/photofinishing/paper_lab_products/color_papers_printing_materials/preferred_paper/
If you're serious about making large color prints with proper color balance then you'll quickly realize the limitations of these papers under an enlarger once you make a high rez scan and output digitally on Fuji's or Kodak's excellent professional digitally optimized papers. If you insist on staying analogue either for lack of resources or out of some bizarre sense of retro-grouchiness then you'll want to check out Fuji type CN. Type CN has the highest dmax of all Fuji papers. It's also the paper that any reputable lab will print on if you ask for an exhibition print. It is the contemporary, digitally optimized paper that replaced Super C in the line up. Stay away from the professional deep matt paper - the surface is beautiful but the dmax is almost as lousy as Crystal Archive II (1.7 - 1.9). It was meant to offer the look of a arches watercolor paper but for RA-4 - you might as well just make an inkjet if that's what you're after. CA II, while a favorite of many here (most likely due to the fact that it's the only paper still available in sheets coupled with a pollyannaish notion that Fuji, like ilford, cares about analogue-only photographers) is an utter abomination compared to the professional line. The stuff in cut sheets is the same as the minilab paper that walmart and costco use. Looks ok in 4x6" but expose an entire sheet, develop and you'll notice terrible mottling and a truly awful black. Fuji professional has openly acknowledged this aspect of their consumer paper, chalking it up to the inevitable consequences to the market niche it was designed to fill - minilab frontier machines, lowest cost per square inch, long chemistry life and easy heavy metal recovery (read low silver content). Plus, as you've noticed, it's only available up to 20x24" in cut sheets and 12" wide rolls.

Kodak has the Endura Premiere. It's ok but still suffers from wonky color and highlight to shadow crossover under an enlarger.

Keep in mind that if you insist on using digitally optimized papers under an enlarger you will need to account for latent image drift when dialing in your color pack for neutral otherwise you'll be chasing your tail trying to figure out why, despite having the same color pack, no two prints from the same neg. in an edition look alike. A fuji product tech told me that this, along with a few other nasty pips, is a necessary trade-off when designing a paper that's capable of reaching full dmax with the millisecond digital exposure of a laser light or led machine.

If you're not adept at color balancing and the concept of neutral color correction or prefer a more expressive, personal approach to color then disregard all of the above and just have fun. Ditto if you're working with anything other than an RT machine.

[Tayne]

I have been having excellent results with Fuji Crystal Archive Products, either the previous generation of Super C or the current CAII, in both the ordinary paper based products and the deluxe polyester Supergloss (avail only in big rolls). The Arista cut sheet product is apparently US Mfg Fuji, and slightly different in base color, but I have no experience with either it or the private label ColorTone product from B&H. Sadly, anything current and bigger than 20x24 you'll have to cut
from rolls yourself - a minor nuisance. Kodak doesn't seem to offer cut sheet at all at the moment. I really recommend taking your best guess and buying cut sheet
and sticking with a box of it until you get accustomed to color balancing Ektar and how to handle contrast control. One needs to pin down the basics first. Chem is
another subject. I personally develop in drums and use one shot Kodak RA/RT or the direct Arista generic replacement kits. Never cared much for "room temp" RA4.
Thanks for the input. I have ordered Kodak RA/RT some colortone 16x20, Fujicolor Crystal Archive Super Type II 16x20 and 20x24 colortone. I just reviewed my order thought I got some 8x10 guess I should get some fuji 8x10 to play with and use the others for the good stuff.

[Tayne]

I second the recommendation on buying cut paper. Fuji Super C was great (more contrasty with a bit more color punch) but is only available in rolls. But the Fuji Crystal Archive Type II is quite nice and you can get cut sheets up to 20x24. If you want to go bigger, you'll need to order a roll and cut it yourself. Are you planning on printing analog in a color darkroom (via something like a Colex processor)? Or process paper in a processor like a Jobo? I've never processed paper in a Jobo. The Jobo's main disadvantage is the paper needs to dry and doing serious color correction seems like it would be clunky (when you might have to print 5-10 sheets until you get to a color correct image--that seems a pain to do in a Jobo). If you can find a color darkroom with a processor (like a Colex or OmniPro), that would be ideal. For example, in San Fran you can print your own color work at Rayko (http://raykophotocenter.com). In the Seattle area you can print at Pratt (http://www.pratt.org) or Evergreen College (http://blogs.evergreen.edu/photo/). If you're new to printing in the darkroom, I'd suggest starting with a box of 8x10 paper. A box of 100 sheets is cheap and will give you some time to learn how to color correct your images. Once you understand how to use the color pack in the enlarger, moving up paper sizes is easy--easier IMO than B&W. As for glossy versus matte, before you settle on one direction, you might give matte a try at some point. Matte in color behaves differently than B&W. In B&W, glossy paper gives you the deepest blacks possible. That's not as much the case in color. I find the saturation too high in color glossy papers. Some believe color matte paper is more "painterly." But it's totally a personal thing. :) For B&W, I tend to print on glossy paper and color in matte.

I might be a minority, but I've had a lot of difficulty color correcting Ektar efficiently. If find the color casts it produces shift in very small (point) level color pack adjustments which (for me at least) means burning more paper to get to a color correct print. Personally, I mostly shoot Portra 160 for 4x5 and find it far easier to color correct. I can't speak to scanning and printing. I believe Ektar is equally great for scanning as Portra. But for analog printing I prefer Portra for its easier color correcting capability. I also process negs in a Jobo using a 3010 drum with a Tetenal C41 5lt kit. You get fantastic results with the Jobos and can mix only the amount of developer you need with the Tetenal kit.
Thanks for your imput. I don't know of any color labs in Salt lake with a 4x5 enlarger. I bought a 4x5 color omega enlarger for $50!!! I converted a spare bedroom into a darkroom. I have zero plumbing in the bedroon so will be using paper tanks. I have a beseler motor base and a couple of tanks (8x10, 16x20, 20x24 (i think no markings). I also bought a CPP2 Jobo and have a couple of tanks. I plan on shooting the paper in my bedroom/darkrrom load the paper in the tank and process it on the kitchen counter. I expect this will be alot of work getting the color right. I also bought a beseler PM3L color analyizer (which I have no clue how to use yet).
I whish I could use Fujichrome for my film. I like the color saturation which is very nice for landscapes, however no way to enlarge and print analog. So I am using EKtar which sounded like the best color saturation for landscapes. How good is Portra for landscapes? So far I have only done a few shots in my 4x5. haven't processed them yet.

[Tayne]

Here's a list of what's currently available from Fuji USA… http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/photofinishing/paper_lab_products/color_papers_printing_materials/preferred_paper/
If you're serious about making large color prints with proper color balance then you'll quickly realize the limitations of these papers under an enlarger once you make a high rez scan and output digitally on Fuji's or Kodak's excellent professional digitally optimized papers. If you insist on staying analogue either for lack of resources or out of some bizarre sense of retro-grouchiness then you'll want to check out Fuji type CN. Type CN has the highest dmax of all Fuji papers. It's also the paper that any reputable lab will print on if you ask for an exhibition print. It is the contemporary, digitally optimized paper that replaced Super C in the line up. Stay away from the professional deep matt paper - the surface is beautiful but the dmax is almost as lousy as Crystal Archive II (1.7 - 1.9). It was meant to offer the look of a arches watercolor paper but for RA-4 - you might as well just make an inkjet if that's what you're after. CA II, while a favorite of many here (most likely due to the fact that it's the only paper still available in sheets coupled with a pollyannaish notion that Fuji, like ilford, cares about analogue-only photographers) is an utter abomination compared to the professional line. The stuff in cut sheets is the same as the minilab paper that walmart and costco use. Looks ok in 4x6" but expose an entire sheet, develop and you'll notice terrible mottling and a truly awful black. Fuji professional has openly acknowledged this aspect of their consumer paper, chalking it up to the inevitable consequences to the market niche it was designed to fill - minilab frontier machines, lowest cost per square inch, long chemistry life and easy heavy metal recovery (read low silver content). Plus, as you've noticed, it's only available up to 20x24" in cut sheets and 12" wide rolls.

Kodak has the Endura Premiere. It's ok but still suffers from wonky color and highlight to shadow crossover under an enlarger.

Keep in mind that if you insist on using digitally optimized papers under an enlarger you will need to account for latent image drift when dialing in your color pack for neutral otherwise you'll be chasing your tail trying to figure out why, despite having the same color pack, no two prints from the same neg. in an edition look alike. A fuji product tech told me that this, along with a few other nasty pips, is a necessary trade-off when designing a paper that's capable of reaching full dmax with the millisecond digital exposure of a laser light or led machine.

If you're not adept at color balancing and the concept of neutral color correction or prefer a more expressive, personal approach to color then disregard all of the above and just have fun. Ditto if you're working with anything other than an RT machine.
I wasn't aware you could use the paper designed for digital under an enlarger. I did a little bit of color printing as a teenage and never had great success, so I have a lot to learn "latent image drift" no clue. "Neutral color correction" Not sure, does it have to due with neutral gray card? I have a 24 MB digital camera Sony A65. I visited a gallery in Vegas which inspired me to use large format. So I am following my heart learning and will make a lot of mistakes along the way, but enjoying the process of learning to creat Art. I have considered scanning 4x5 film. I read a few reviews it sounds like drum scanning is the best option, but the cost per scan is very high. I expect when I have a couple of really good images I will pay the price for a drum scan. Till them I will play with analog.

[Drew Wiley]

A couple of tips. Jobo drums fill and drain rather slowly due to the tiny opening. So you'll want to standardize on at least 2 min dev times and nothing shorter. Kodak
gives a temp/temp chart for this. I use 84F at 2min with Kodak RA/RT (after fill, but including 10 sec for drain, though my drum fill and drain much faster than Jobo's.) The second tip concerns Ektar, which I have addressed elsewhere, under film topics per se. It is very important to correctly color balance it to begin with
for any serious color temp anomalies. Then, in the darkroom, once you get close to a proper colorpack or colorhead setting, fine-tuning the result is a lot like power
steering in a car. Very small differences have a more significant effect than with most other color films. But once you've got it dialed in, you can achieve superb
results with Ektar (provided its suitable for your subject matter to begin with). Fine-tuning contrast is a lot more like working with chromes in the darkroom than
most color neg films. If you want precise results, you'll need to learn unsharp masking. That is a basic skill set many of us acquired printing chromes, but it can
be transferred over to RA4 printing as well using the same equipment, but with some distinct modifications in mask dev technique. Learn the basics first, then
a step at a time. Start with a perfectly exposed master neg of a MacBeath color checker chart. Use a color temp meter if necessary, because everything will
depend on getting this right. It's like practicing the chords on a piano - a bit monotonous, but worth the initial effort. Once you can get every patch of color on
that chart to print reasonably accurately on your paper, and still have complete neutrality and gradation on all the gray patches at the same time, you're on your
way. I happen to enjoy these darkroom challenges, so have spent a lot of time ironing out the potential wrinkles. My biggest headache now is simply replacing a
couple of burnt out bulbs in the colorhead.

[agregov]

I don't use a color analyzer in my workflow for color analog printing. Here are my steps:

1. Start with a test strip print to preview density
2. Print several full images to nail density. I evaluate prints dry on a light board.
3. Once I get a density I want, I start on isolating color casts (working magenta or yellow in the filter pack)
4. Again, I judge various adjusted color versions, dry on a light board.

For me at least, if I couldn't do my color work using one of the print processors, honestly, I'd move to scanning my negs and printing on a inkjet for work prints and send out exhibition quality work for digital C printing (via a light jet). Note, I have complete access to a wet darkroom and everything I need to print color at home. But I think I would find it too hard to work with judging color on wet prints and the time to print them using a drum based setup. That said, I have no experience using a color analyzer. Perhaps they may lessen the need for making lots of versions to get to a color correct image? Your Jobo is phenomenal for film. It's more clunky for prints IMO. But by all means, go for it! Only you can know what you want out of your workflow. :)

You might consider some color print filters to help evaluate color casts. http://www.adorama.com/LEVK3.html

As for Portra, it's definitely more neutral than Ektar. I used to shoot with the Portra VC variant which was great for saturation and better behaving than Ektar for me. But it's discontinued. I'd stick with the Ektar for now as you like more saturated colors. If you find you're having difficulty controlling colors when printing, maybe try a box of Portra.

[Drew Wiley]

If you could print Portra 160VC it's not that hard a move into Ektar, which is indeed a little more fussy, but cleaner, and obviously more contrasty. Portra NC or the
new 160 will be easier to print for those accustomed to traditional color neg materials. I haven't had a chance to work with the new Portra 400 yet, but allegedly
it's close to the characteristics of the old VC except for the ASA speed. I really consider Ektar to have a more accurate palette than 160VC, esp when differentiating closely related green, oranges, etc - things that were characteristically out of whack with portrait films. Also truer shadow renditon IF you know how to appropriately
balance for color temp to begin with. Mixed lighting ... well, that's a trickier subject, and you might want to stay with Portra. Thankfully, we still have choices.

[sanking]

Is the "base" of Fuji Crystal Archive paper similar or identical to that of the discontinued Kodak Super Endura color and VC papers? Would appreciate any potential links to information regarding the archival qualities of these bases.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

They use a variety of base papers, Sandy, plus the distinct polyester supergloss base. They have thin and thicker premium bases for photofinishers. But with respect to analog/digi dual-use papers, the new papers being made in the Carolinas are a slightly yellowish paper reminiscent of Super C, while the CAII paper made in the Netherlands is a very clean white. Slight anomalies in RA4 temp can affect yellowness of the finished product in either case, kinda like fbf issues; but I'm referring to the ideal. I even have to use slightly different matboards to look neutral "bright" white against the two respective papers. Supergloss is a tad yellowish inherently, but strangely, seems to deliver a truer white in actual developed image highlights. I can't explain this. But it too differs from its predecessor product, with cleanermore vibrant colors. Other than the polyester glossy stuff, these are all basically RC papers. I surmise you want them as transfer papers? Otherwise, "archivability" is a dye fade topic. But if you do plan carbon transfer use, realize these different papers handle differently, depending on thickness.

[sanking]

They use a variety of base papers, Sandy, plus the distinct polyester supergloss base. They have thin and thicker premium bases for photofinishers. But with respect to analog/digi dual-use papers, the new papers being made in the Carolinas are a slightly yellowish paper reminiscent of Super C, while the CAII paper made in the Netherlands is a very clean white. Slight anomalies in RA4 temp can affect yellowness of the finished product in either case, kinda like fbf issues; but I'm referring to the ideal. I even have to use slightly different matboards to look neutral "bright" white against the two respective papers. Supergloss is a tad yellowish inherently, but strangely, seems to deliver a truer white in actual developed image highlights. I can't explain this. But it too differs from its predecessor product, with cleanermore vibrant colors. Other than the polyester glossy stuff, these are all basically RC papers. I surmise you want them as transfer papers? Otherwise, "archivability" is a dye fade topic. But if you do plan carbon transfer use, realize these different papers handle differently, depending on thickness.

Drew,

Yes, I am interested in the possible use of these papers in carbon transfer. So they are all basically RC papers except for the polyester glossy material? I would be curious to know which papers are polyester?

Sandy

[spacegoose]

I also wanted to do RA-4 printing of enlarged C-41 negatives. I tried with drums first too, and while it was very cool to get something resembling a print, it was also very time consuming, and for me, it became very tedious in short order.

A lot of filling and draining of unwieldy drums, timing, trying to get wet prints out of drums, waiting for drums to completely dry, to develop the next 2 attempts at hopefully better color balance, exposure, etc. Drying the print, etc.

And if you want large prints, that adds more difficulty to fill, drain, time, and maneuver such drums. I scoured around for a tabletop RA-4 processor and finally found a Fujimoto CP-31. It can only print up to 11x14, but I'm OK with that for D.I.Y. at home RA-4 printing.

I project the focused negative onto the paper via my enlarger in the dark, and feed the exposed paper into the processing machine, I can turn on the lights, and shortly thereafter, out comes a dry, hopefully lovely print (up to 11x14)! If not, I do it over, and over... ( but without using a drum :) ).

Maintaining the machine and setting it up, or draining it to put it away, can be a lot of work, but once setup for a session, it's smooth sailing.

If you want to do this process with any ease, I suggest you also look for a dedicated RA-4 processor. But they can be expensive, take up a lot of space, be hard to maintain, find parts for, or - require 220V or plumbing considerations.

Here's an idea of what a processor might look like - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVIynFj9fQ

If I wanted a large C print, larger than say 16x20, I'd have a lab make a digital C print (e.g. Lambda, Lightjet, or Chromira), it would probably be better than anything traditionally enlarged.

I wouldn't want to do anything larger than 8x10 or 11x14 in a drum, and for me that's pushing it, but that's just me.

For D.I.Y. RA-4 at home, unless you already have paper, I'd only buy new Fuji Crystal Archive cut sheet paper. I prefer the luster finish.

Bill

[Drew Wiley]

The Supergloss is also called Fujiflex. It's less fragile and static prone than Cibachrome was. Currently only availiable in 32 and 40 inch wide rolls. But for your purposes, you might hunt around for older cut sheet product, if you are simply fixing it out anyway. There was a dealer in Canada who claimed to have a big inventory of post-date cut sheet. You know how those things go - websites are often not updated. But no sense paying full price. Might check with Bob Carnie
on this forum about such rumors, since he's in that area. And since you're not worried about the dyes, the base material would certainly be more legitimately
archival than any RC paper. It sits fairly flat in a frame only up to a certain size, then you have to use acrylic mounts. It doesn't static mount nicely like Ciba.
But I'm assuming your carbon surface will not itself have a very high gloss final rendition, so it might not be an issue at all.

[Drew Wiley]

Spacegoose - I prefer drums myself, and use them up to 30x40 inch prints, and could easily design one even bigger. I have a nice 20" roller transport processor,
but haven't even bothered to plug it in. In my way now. And I've been offered a fifty-inch wide Kreonite for free, but am allergic to RA4, so only do the actual
processing outdoors in mild weather, after loading the drums in the darkroom. I consider drum processing of RA4 to be about as easy as it gets when it comes to
color processing of any kind. Just takes some practice and decent temp control. I mix the chem fresh each session from concentrate. Never keep it mixed overnite,
though it can be done, obviously. One shot. No need to fiddle with replenishment. It's cheap enough.

[sanking]

Drew,

I would certainly like to explore the "look" of a carbon transfer print on the Supergloss/Fujiflex polyester base. Was this the only base ever made by Fuji on polyester? And no other surfaces beside glossy? If you or anyone knows where I could acquire a few small sheets to try it I would appreciate the information.

Sandy

[frotog]

In the US the paper you're interested in is labeled Fujiflex (not Supergloss). It's manufactured and packaged at the Greenwood, S.C. factory where all the US marketed papers are manufactured (the sole exception being CAII in cut sheets, their most niche product and the only paper imported from the NL factory - this is due to the lack of demand here in the states as compared to EU). Fujiflex is available only in glossy surface. With the exception of the trans materials, it's the only paper on poly. It's available in rolls as small as 4". See here… http://www.fujifilmusa.com/support/ServiceSupportProduct.do?prodcat=238729

Try calling fuji professional at the number listed in the link. They are very knowledgable concerning their product line and eager to help out. I would not be surprised if they provide you with a small sample of the Fujiflex.

[frotog]

I wasn't aware you could use the paper designed for digital under an enlarger. I did a little bit of color printing as a teenage and never had great success, so I have a lot to learn "latent image drift" no clue. "Neutral color correction" Not sure, does it have to due with neutral gray card? I have a 24 MB digital camera Sony A65. I visited a gallery in Vegas which inspired me to use large format. So I am following my heart learning and will make a lot of mistakes along the way, but enjoying the process of learning to creat Art. I have considered scanning 4x5 film. I read a few reviews it sounds like drum scanning is the best option, but the cost per scan is very high. I expect when I have a couple of really good images I will pay the price for a drum scan. Till them I will play with analog.

As far as analogue RA printing goes, I hate to say it but you missed the boat. Not that it can't be done, it just can't be done as easily as it could before the digital revolution. This is not only due to the lack of cut sheet papers available (all the digital exposure devices take rolls, not sheets) but more as a result of digitally optimized papers. When LED and laser light exposure hit the scene, the big paper manufacturers were scrambling to adjust their emulsions for the extremely short exposure times and peculiar spectrum's qualities of the new exposing standard. The classic RA papers simply didn't work well. Conversely, now that all papers are designed for digital exposure, results pale compared to what came before. This is a somewhat tender topic on these forums most likely due to the fierce allegiance that some practitioners have to all things analogue coupled with an unwillingness to change with the times not to mention the lack of DIY and high cost of jobbing out a digital print.

Nonetheless, I still have an RT machine set up for inexpensive proofing. It's not good for much more than that though. Among the current crop of RA papers, the least offensive under an enlarger is kodak premiere but it too suffers from too much saturation, highlight to shadow crossover (meaning that the highlights are cold when the shadows are warm) and egregious amounts of contrast. But for contact sheets and for contiguous archiving with older work, it suits my needs just fine. Like spacegoose, I go to the lab when I need a properly outputted RA print.

Latent image drift is just one among the many strange quirks of these new-fangled, digitally optimized papers. Fuji professional recommends a two minute delay before development after exposure. Without this delay, color calibration is an exercise in futility at the very best. This is vexing because traditionally analogue color correction is a process of trial and error - making a print, viewing the dry print on the viewing board, adjusting the color pack sometimes as little a 1/2 pt. CC and then doing it again. If you're not working with a proper roller transport machine, this process becomes very time consuming - you have to wait for the print to dry before viewing it, make sure your drum is dry before loading it again, check and double check the temp of your chem to make sure it's within 1/2 degree farenheit of the target temp. of 35 degrees C, etc. This sort of time-consuming laborious process is typical of alt processing, not RA-4. A RT machine with a built in dryer will increase your output ten fold - no joke. But perhaps more importantly, time and temperature are automatically monitored to a degree that's virtually impossible with drums or trays. Good color correction in analogue printing demands repeatability and repeatability depends entirely on holding these values constant. Without this you're counting on luck.

If you were only interested in seeing results from 35mm snapshots and did not have high expectations of color accuracy, none of this would be worth mentioning. But you've invested in large format, which is not inexpensive, and so you should be aware of what you're getting into.

Another option is to go hybrid and purchase an inexpensive epson 750 scanner and a small epson inkjet printer. This is the rig that most here use when they want to DIY color print with large format. From a 4x5 neg. you can expect excellent results with true color up to 16x20 or even larger. Lots of info on the 750 on this forum. Anything larger would have to be jobbed out.

[tgtaylor]

I also wanted to do RA-4 printing of enlarged C-41 negatives. I tried with drums first too, and while it was very cool to get something resembling a print, it was also very time consuming, and for me, it became very tedious in short order.

A lot of filling and draining of unwieldy drums, timing, trying to get wet prints out of drums, waiting for drums to completely dry, to develop the next 2 attempts at hopefully better color balance, exposure, etc. Drying the print, etc.

Spacegoose,

I have a CPA-2 and process RA-4 in drums. For determining the density and filter pack I use 2 8x10 test drums (a 1520 and 1530 mounted together). On the last wash cycle I walk back and turn the Arkay 1100 dryer on and then remove the print and squeeze it and bring it to the dryer. While its going thru the dryer I rinse the tank and lid out with the hottest water my sink can produce and dry the interior of the drum with a paper towel and shake the water from the lid and dry it also and place booth in a rack. The I retrieve the print which is now dry and cooled from the dryer and place it on a viewing station to determine the density and color and decide if any changes are to be made to the next test print. If so, then I get the first drum and check that there are no spots of water remaining in the tank and no water comes from the lid when shaken (there usually isn't) and proceed to make the 2d test print. If you use two drums like that you don't have to wait for one to dry before the 2d run. Once the density and FP is determined you can switch to a larger drum for running more than one print through at a time. I have processed RA-4 up 16x20 without any problem other than the Arkay only goes up to 11x14. I have a Premier 16x20 dual sided dryer with canvas that I used before the Arkay but it has a tendency to leave small fibers from the canvass on the print. I bought it new but never removed the canvass to clean it so maybe that it the reason for that. The Arkay is perfect.

Thomas

[frotog]

Spacegoose,

I have a CPA-2 and process RA-4 in drums. For determining the density and filter pack I use 2 8x10 test drums (a 1520 and 1530 mounted together). On the last wash cycle I walk back and turn the Arkay 1100 dryer on and then remove the print and squeeze it and bring it to the dryer. While its going thru the dryer I rinse the tank and lid out with the hottest water my sink can produce and dry the interior of the drum with a paper towel and shake the water from the lid and dry it also and place booth in a rack. The I retrieve the print which is now dry and cooled from the dryer and place it on a viewing station to determine the density and color and decide if any changes are to be made to the next test print. If so, then I get the first drum and check that there are no spots of water remaining in the tank and no water comes from the lid when shaken (there usually isn't) and proceed to make the 2d test print. If you use two drums like that you don't have to wait for one to dry before the 2d run. Once the density and FP is determined you can switch to a larger drum for running more than one print through at a time. I have processed RA-4 up 16x20 without any problem other than the Arkay only goes up to 11x14. I have a Premier 16x20 dual sided dryer with canvas that I used before the Arkay but it has a tendency to leave small fibers from the canvass on the print. I bought it new but never removed the canvass to clean it so maybe that it the reason for that. The Arkay is perfect.

Thomas

I have a spare 20" fujimoto RT machine that'll make color printing much more enjoyable for you. PM me if interested.

[Tayne]

A couple of tips. Jobo drums fill and drain rather slowly due to the tiny opening. So you'll want to standardize on at least 2 min dev times and nothing shorter. Kodak
gives a temp/temp chart for this. I use 84F at 2min with Kodak RA/RT (after fill, but including 10 sec for drain, though my drum fill and drain much faster than Jobo's.) The second tip concerns Ektar, which I have addressed elsewhere, under film topics per se. It is very important to correctly color balance it to begin with
for any serious color temp anomalies. Then, in the darkroom, once you get close to a proper colorpack or colorhead setting, fine-tuning the result is a lot like power
steering in a car. Very small differences have a more significant effect than with most other color films. But once you've got it dialed in, you can achieve superb
results with Ektar (provided its suitable for your subject matter to begin with). Fine-tuning contrast is a lot more like working with chromes in the darkroom than
most color neg films. If you want precise results, you'll need to learn unsharp masking. That is a basic skill set many of us acquired printing chromes, but it can
be transferred over to RA4 printing as well using the same equipment, but with some distinct modifications in mask dev technique. Learn the basics first, then
a step at a time. Start with a perfectly exposed master neg of a MacBeath color checker chart. Use a color temp meter if necessary, because everything will
depend on getting this right. It's like practicing the chords on a piano - a bit monotonous, but worth the initial effort. Once you can get every patch of color on
that chart to print reasonably accurately on your paper, and still have complete neutrality and gradation on all the gray patches at the same time, you're on your
way. I happen to enjoy these darkroom challenges, so have spent a lot of time ironing out the potential wrinkles. My biggest headache now is simply replacing a
couple of burnt out bulbs in the colorhead.

Sounds like an art form unto its self. Thanks for the input. The 2min for dev time sounds like a good idea. I will look up your post for color tuning. I am unfamiliar with unsharp masking or mask Dev techniques. As far as the macBeath color checker chart I assume I will need to take a picture of it with my camera using the same box of film, paper and chemicals, than balance the colors and exposure to get the correct grey and color scale. I expect this will take a far amount of time to get it right. Then hopefully make minor changes when paper and film boxed change. I have a lot to learn. Currently building my enlarger stand for my Omega D5XL 4x5 enlarger. Almost done.

[Tayne]

I don't use a color analyzer in my workflow for color analog printing. Here are my steps:

1. Start with a test strip print to preview density
2. Print several full images to nail density. I evaluate prints dry on a light board.
3. Once I get a density I want, I start on isolating color casts (working magenta or yellow in the filter pack)
4. Again, I judge various adjusted color versions, dry on a light board.

For me at least, if I couldn't do my color work using one of the print processors, honestly, I'd move to scanning my negs and printing on a inkjet for work prints and send out exhibition quality work for digital C printing (via a light jet). Note, I have complete access to a wet darkroom and everything I need to print color at home. But I think I would find it too hard to work with judging color on wet prints and the time to print them using a drum based setup. That said, I have no experience using a color analyzer. Perhaps they may lessen the need for making lots of versions to get to a color correct image? Your Jobo is phenomenal for film. It's more clunky for prints IMO. But by all means, go for it! Only you can know what you want out of your workflow. :)

You might consider some color print filters to help evaluate color casts. http://www.adorama.com/LEVK3.html

As for Portra, it's definitely more neutral than Ektar. I used to shoot with the Portra VC variant which was great for saturation and better behaving than Ektar for me. But it's discontinued. I'd stick with the Ektar for now as you like more saturated colors. If you find you're having difficulty controlling colors when printing, maybe try a box of Portra.

Thanks for the input. What is a light board? At some point I expect I will get a scanner, but for now I want to try my hand in the darkroom.

[agregov]

Sorry, I use the term light board simply to refer to a wall with gallery lighting. The wall could be a cork board so you can easily put up prints and evaluate them for color casts. A metal board is even better as you can use magnets to pin the print up--nicer than pinning to a cork board. But either work. Once on the board, I look through color filters to help me judge how many points of color to adjust an image. For example, if an image shows a small magenta cast, I might add a few points of magenta (effectively adding green to the image). Then I run another print, lay it side by side with the first to compare, and continue adjusting as needed. Ideally, the better quality your lights, the easier it is to see color casts. I've seen some gallery lights throw some nasty color casts. My lights run around an EV 10 off a grey card off the wall. Good quality lighting is more important for reviewing color images than b&w. John Caponigro has a nice write up on choosing lights for print review. http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/5095/review-solux-lighting/

[tgtaylor]

I have a spare 20" fujimoto RT machine that'll make color printing much more enjoyable for you. PM me if interested.


Thanks frotog. I'd take you up on it if I was printing a lot of color negative but my usage at this point wouldn't justify the upkeep. I've used a processor in the past and it's nice to just load the print in one end and have it do the processing with a dry print emerging at the other end. With the Jobo you have to wait for the drum to come up to processing temperature and manually walking it through the processing steps. Time consuming. Which reminds me, I have several Porta 160 negatives that need printing.

Thomas