RA-4/color darkroom printing in 2021

[cirwin2010]

I'm going to try to ask this question without sounding like I'm trying to start an argument. Its something I've been curious about for a while but I couldn't find an answer to without making a post.

Are there any technical or aesthetic reasons to choose color darkroom printing in 2021 over a digital or hybrid workflow?

Obviously many of the reasons why someone would wet print color are going to be the same as why I wet print black and white:
-They like the process, are a purist, or never wanted to move away from process to begin with.
-Better sharpness than a film scan could produce (short of a drum scan)
-The novelty of an analog workflow in a now digital world

From the sounds of it, cibachrome/ilfochrome prints were something to behold. I imagine that direct positive images made from slide film can look quiet special given that slide film, in my option, is pretty special looking as is. Unfortunately that stuff has been long gone since before I got into photography. Do modern RA-4 prints retain any of those qualities or is there something else special about them? My only experience with RA-4 prints is a lightjet print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper from a lab, but the colors came out wrong on that print and the results were overall pretty lack luster so that may be a poor reference point.

For some context, I really like the results I get with my black and white darkroom. A good print has some "sparkle" that I can't objectively put into words. I have made pigment inkjet prints at home for a while on fine art paper, but they haven't really stood up to the results of some of my better wet prints. Though I am sure a proper lab could make something better than I could digitally. Side note: Canson makes some awesome matt cotton rag paper if you are into that look.

[Drew Wiley]

Hell yes. It's direct, for one thing. No intermediate scanning or software whatevers. Probably overall faster and less expensive, that is, once you get through the basic learning curve and are properly equipped. And once that is optimized (if one is patient enough to go that far), you can attain more nuanced and finer detailed prints than possible digitally, especially from large format originals. If you like tactility rather than sitting on your sore butt longer than needed (like I'm doing now, posting this), darkroom workflow has its appeal. But there's also chemicals to deal with, so you have to also learn how to safely handle the fumes and so forth.

One can not only replicate the Ciba look, but improve upon it. The secret is Fujiflex Supergloss medium. And you enlarge directly from color negatives onto that, and develop conventionally, RA4. But that's distinctly down the line somewhat in terms of the learning curve and degree of investment. Start with something less expensive like cut sheet Fuji CAii glossy RC paper. It takes time to fine tune the proper skills. But the theory and basic process itself is simple. Over time you can ask more specific questions. But overall, if you're willing to commit to color darkroom workflow, there simply ain't no cookin' as good as home cookin'.

[Michael R]

I would say no. The remaining reason to do darkroom work, in my opinion, is really just that you enjoy it more than working digitally.


I'm going to try to ask this question without sounding like I'm trying to start an argument. Its something I've been curious about for a while but I couldn't find an answer to without making a post.

Are there any technical or aesthetic reasons to choose color darkroom printing in 2021 over a digital or hybrid workflow?

Obviously many of the reasons why someone would wet print color are going to be the same as why I wet print black and white:
-They like the process, are a purist, or never wanted to move away from process to begin with.
-Better sharpness than a film scan could produce (short of a drum scan)
-The novelty of an analog workflow in a now digital world

From the sounds of it, cibachrome/ilfochrome prints were something to behold. I imagine that direct positive images made from slide film can look quiet special given that slide film, in my option, is pretty special looking as is. Unfortunately that stuff has been long gone since before I got into photography. Do modern RA-4 prints retain any of those qualities or is there something else special about them? My only experience with RA-4 prints is a lightjet print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper from a lab, but the colors came out wrong on that print and the results were overall pretty lack luster so that may be a poor reference point.

For some context, I really like the results I get with my black and white darkroom. A good print has some "sparkle" that I can't objectively put into words. I have made pigment inkjet prints at home for a while on fine art paper, but they haven't really stood up to the results of some of my better wet prints. Though I am sure a proper lab could make something better than I could digitally. Side note: Canson makes some awesome matt cotton rag paper if you are into that look.

[Corran]

Darkroom printing (be it b&w or color) is a handmade, directly involved process, and digital prints of any sort are simply not.

Also I never want to have to deal with an inkjet printer again and any non-inkjet process is not generally available to the home user. Whilst I still make (order) digital prints for some applications I don't particularly care for it.

[Oren Grad]

Are there any technical or aesthetic reasons to choose color darkroom printing in 2021 over a digital or hybrid workflow?

Just as with B&W: the prints have a distinctive look and feel compared to inkjet or to commercial laser printing to silver halide paper. Either you care about the difference or you don't. That's up to you.

[Ironage]

Thanks for asking!

The digital images being made today are amazingly perfect. The are ideal, but not more real. I prefer straight shooting.

I’ve been dabbling in color since the early 80’s and have old work to print since I finally have a decent darkroom to print color. I gave color scanning and digital cameras a try for several years. Digital was frustrating and makes me literally angry. Every time you get something to work right, they update the system and you have to work the bugs again! Not having a deep pocket, the gear I could afford didn’t give results that came close to wet prints I can make myself using classic tools.

As a hobbiest, the enjoyment factor is primary.

I was recently at an historical event using a simple classic Nikonos III to shoot while a professional came and stood in front of me right in my anticipated image with two heavy digital cameras with huge lenses. I felt sorry for the poor beast of burden, I know I had fun, and I heard the angry spectators whose view was blocked. The people around me found my gear interesting and I had positive personal interactions with lose around me.

Simple, don’t get angry and don’t anger others, shoot film. Especially if its a hobby.

[bob carnie]

Reflecting on this question I have to say that if I decided to go back to RA4 printing I would get the equipment I used in college - Chromega enlarger with good lens and a K16 processor. Simplicity , hands on , totally reliable. I have spent my whole career printing for others since I graduated from photo school in 1976 and I have grown up with colour C prints.

I must admit I will never allow another automatic roller transport into my life, as Drew points out it is another learning curve and C type process requires paper to run through it to keep the balance proper. Not the case with a K16 machine which is one shot, much like a Jobo.

I do like the look of C print , it has a tonal value that is distinctive but I must say now that I have printed on a modern Canon pigment printer I would not favour any one print over the other. When I hear people dissing inkjet prints I am sure that they have never seen good quality inkjet prints.

I do not like the FACT that C prints are dyes and will fade , for some the immediate reality of the print is satisfaction enough, as a professional printer I want to know my prints last therefore I moved to BW fibre and now tri colour gum over palladium.


So in my view OP should consider this as I can say with knowledge that printing colour negatives on an enlarger using a wet process is IMO one of most satisfactory experiences I have ever had in my life and would encourage anyone to give it a go.
But I must admit I get the same satisfaction today printing the way I do , got to go downstairs right now I have layers of cyan to put on my prints.

[Ironage]

Bob, you are to be admired for using such a handcrafted archival process. Maybe someday when I get my color correction down on c prints I will venture into this.

[bob carnie]

Bob, you are to be admired for using such a handcrafted archival process. Maybe someday when I get my color correction down on c prints I will venture into this.

It is well worth heading down the wormhole.

[tgtaylor]

Once you get the knack for it RA4 printing is routine: The first step is to obtain the correct density - which is the key to the success or failure of the image – and the second is color correction. I use a Jobo which means that I wash drums between prints. I have 2 8x10 test drums for that purpose with one drum drying while I'm exposing for the 2d. Once you have the correct print density then you color correct. To do this correctly you need a print viewing station and print viewing kit:

https://shop.leefiltersusa.com/Viewing-Kit-for-Color-Prints-9-Density-VK.htm
https://www.gtilite.com/products/desktop-color-viewing-stations/pdv-professional-desktop-color-viewers/

The viewing stations are still made although they went-up considerably in price since I bought mine. I don't think the viewing kits are made anymore so you'll have to purchase used usually at a premium of what they were new. Here's an example of what's possible with a 4x5 C-41 negative and an 11x14 RA4 print:


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51479601153_26b5c5c466_z.jpg

It doesn't look quite like that in person. The white dome is dirty and the colors of the stone have faded somewhat with time. However the correct filter pack cleaned-up the dome and brought back the colors.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

It's like any other relatively basic darkroom process, including regular silver-gelatin printing black and white printing. You can make it either as simple or challenging as you wish. It takes a bit of time to get on first base, correctly matching your colorhead setting to a standardized reference negative and specific batch of paper - perhaps a few days at first, but now for me, just minutes. You therefore need a reliable colorhead, a means to keep the chemicals at constant temperature like a water jacket or tempering box, reasonably fresh RA4 chemistry itself, plus some basic means of processing like simple drums.

It takes some experience actually shooting color neg film specifically for sake of darkroom printing, and jockeying that back and forth with your results themselves, to understand the best film and paper combination for your personal needs. A lot has to do with contrast and hue saturation. You can't just fool around with grades like in VC black and white printing. You do have available a modest selection of softer or more contrasty papers, and less or more saturated color films to choose from. That's often sufficient for many people and nearly all commercial purposes. Going past that into more serious control options does involve either digital curve tweaks or supplementary black and white film masking, a whole topic unto itself, which I often use. Very high levels of color quality reproduction are possible with sufficient experience. Anyone who still has old punch and register gear for past Ciba or dye transfer applications can repurpose it for chromogenic printing, though with some distinct modifications in the mask exposure and development protocol, which I won't outline here.

Permanence is a very complex and controversial topic. But there is consensus that chromogenic papers have dramatically improved in recent years, especially the Fuji Crystal Archive series. Exactly how much I dare not say because I probably won't live long enough to find out. I continue to both pamper my archived prints, and to deliberately torture other samples to see how they hold up over time. I've watched how Ciba prints behave under certain storage and display condition for over 40 years now, know what older C prints didn't do over that same time, but likely don't have another 40 years left on me to see how present chromogenic results hold up.

I did recently reclaim a large installation of earlier large Crystal Archive Super C prints displayed under far less than ideal commercial display conditions - 18 hrs per day somewhat UV-rich artificial lighting, plus a fair amount of overhead skylight exposure. Fifteen years and they show just a tiny bit of fading, and zero yellowing yet. In fact, knowing in advance that the owners wanted to retire and sell that big building right around now, which they did, I deliberately overprinted them a bit so that they'd look ideal right around now. So if still left under similarly not ideal display conditions, that would equate to maybe 30 years of display life. But now rescued under far better circumstances, they might look nice to me a lot longer. Take the UV out of the equation, and factor in continuing improvements in the paper dyes themselves, and the scenario looks pretty optimistic.

Comparing this to how inkjet colorants perform over time is a crap shoot. Those are complex cocktails of all kinds of DIFFERENTIALLY behaving colorants - dyes, dyed inert particles (lakes), and very finely ground pigments. It's misleading when labs and galleries market those as "pigment prints". They're not. If you want real pigment prints, they can't be done inkjet, but only by layered "assembly" processes like Bob uses. Of course, those more involved hand processes have their own kinds of inherent looks, and are not ideal for replicating the look of chromogenic prints if that is what you're after. I have seen some of Bob's commercial inkjet work, and it's very well done; he's a real pro at it. Still hope to see his color gum printing work someday. Every medium takes dedication and a lot of experience to really master. And I personally prefer what can be achieved in a color darkroom without any intervening digital steps at all.

[PRJ]

I print these days with an inkjet but that isn't because I think it is better. I just don't have the gear to do color. I did it in tubes way back in the 90s and it was fun but I never liked the smell of the chems. I have been printing with inkjets since 1997 or so. Lightjet prints to me are kinds meh too. I keep a few color enlargements around just to remind myself how good they can be. Where you really notice it is in the sharpness. And I don't mean to say that inkjets can't be sharp, but it is different since the sharpness is artificial. You need good negs though if you want "traditionally" good prints, but if you have the inclination to do it, go for it.

[brucetaylor]

Maybe one reason to try RA4 printing now is because you can. Years ago I enjoyed shooting Kodachrome and making reversal prints in my darkroom- but that is of course no longer possible. I find printing RA4 enjoyable. I am not interested in spending more time in front of a screen than I already do! If you’re already doing B&W it is inexpensive to buy a few drums and some chemistry to try it out.

[Deepblue]

HI, I'm new here and looking for an answer to a big question. I can't reach in the darkroom the look of color photos from the 90s from analog labs, when the exposure was only from the negative, not the digital scan. I do not know if the problem is in chemistry, paper, or in me :) Thank you for any inspiration. Good light!

[Drew Wiley]

One just has to iron out and optimize each step at a time. RA4 processing itself is fairly easy, but you still have to pay attention to reasonably fresh chemistry, learn how to assess the color balance (improves with experience), and find the right marriage between a particular RA4 paper and a particular color neg film. Obtaining BETTER results than olden commercial C-prints? - entirely realistic. Surpassing inkjet results? - no problem. Just like anything else; depends on your level of commitment. Nothing beats real home cookin'.

There is only a limited selection of cut-sheet paper sizes; so you might have to resort to cutting from professional rolls; and like many other things at the moment, pandemic distribution shortages might take some patience. Cut sheet Fuji CA II RC paper is available in 3 surface options and up to 20X24 inch size; it's a decent middle of the road product in terms of mid-level contrast and color punch, and suitable for learning purposes. Kodak roll papers are almost nonexistent at the moment until their new manufacture plant in China is fully up and running again; but there are numerous good roll options from Fuji. I get my chemistry from Freestyle in LA, but there are other sources for that too.

I won't repeat what I already posted before. But I recently finally got in a fresh roll 30-inch roll of Fuji Supergloss, which will keep me busy this summer. It's a better product than Cibachrome ever was, and responds superbly to true optical enlargement. It's a marriage made in heaven with large format Ektar, PROVIDED you learn to correctly color temp balance your subject right at the time of the shot itself, if needed, which is very easy to do with just two or three filters on hand, like a 1B skylight and 81A or KR1.5 warming filter. Otherwise, Ektar often suffers from a bit of cyan crossover which is difficult or impossible to post-correct.

[Deepblue]

Thank you very much for the encouragement. I look at old photos from the photo lab and although it is commercial, they have a nice color and atmosphere for me. I am glad that there is hope in the darkroom to achieve these results. Let China hurry :) Thanks, good light.

[agregov]

Agree with much in the thread on enjoyment for RA4 color darkroom printing. I love it and it's the only color printing I do (Fujimoto CP-31). One thing not mentioned about analog color which I appreciate is it provides constraints in which to produce to work. For example, shooting Portra negs offer a different color palette than Ektar. Printing on Fuji C papers give you a different color palette than Kodak papers. Combining the two provide even more palettes. I like choosing from different color materials and then work within those boundaries. In the digital world, there are no boundaries. You can make your image look like anything you want. But if your image can look like anything, where do you start? I believe that color inkjet prints can look great. But it takes a very good printer to make exceptional inkjet prints. An average color darkroom printer can produce excellent C prints. Working digitally at a high level of craftsmanship is hard IMO. I find working in the analog darkroom far more straightforward than working in Photoshop. Nail your density and then adjust your color casts (yellow/blue, magenta/green, red/cyan your only dials) and boom, you're done. Simple and elegant way to work.

[Ironage]

Agregov. You are really on to something. I was taught in art college that the creative process need limits or boundaries in order to foster greater creativity. The teachers said that we must set our own boundaries and then push the limits of our selected materials. The choice of materials is setting boundries. In my current work, I am finding b&w too flexible and confuses my vision. I am beginning to find RA-4 drawing me more and more.

I like the results better than cibachrome, and it is good to hear that RA4 may be as perminent.

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji can be a bit cryptic with what they publish, and things have to be revised from time to time. But it appears that some of their Crystal Archive products have better display stability than Ciba; but you still have to be wise about any kind of display illumination containing UV. Dark storage longevity is an unknown; and I won't be around long enough to comment on that. But at the moment, they're claiming very long dark storage life on their top tier CA products, namely, Maxima and Fujiflex (which appear to be the same or nearly identical emulsions on different substrates), provided the storage environment remains reasonably cool, dry, and chemical-free. The expensive polyester base of Fujiflex would seem to give it an added edge. That's what I'm printing on this afternoon. It can be somewhat over the top for certain images, but is absolutely stunning for others. It achieves higher contrast and better hue saturation than RC color papers.

Much easier to handle than Ciba, and without the color idiosyncrasies. I marry it mainly with LF Ektar shots, and am now getting to the point these surpass most of my former Ciba work. I still mask the originals sometimes, but not routinely like with Ciba. Masking can be used for both reduced contrast or a contrast boost; but actual color correction masking is rarely needed like it was for Ciba. Sometimes I print using precise contact internegs from old LF chromes; but that is a more difficult skill to get right, a lot of fussy work, and I seem to either get a home-run, clear out of the ballpark print that way, or else a downright bellyflop sometimes. Printing directly from color neg originals is a lot easier.

[Deepblue]

[QUOTE=Deepblue;1648715]Howdy. Figure 1 - commercial analog photo lab 90 years. Figure 2 - my print darkroom, Fuji CA New. I can't get a photo like from a commercial photo lab. There is always some color prevailing veil. Maybe another paper to use, maybe it's commercial RGB printing, where the colors are more separated. Hi, good light:)228493228494

[bob carnie]

Fuji can be a bit cryptic with what they publish, and things have to be revised from time to time. But it appears that some of their Crystal Archive products have better display stability than Ciba; but you still have to be wise about any kind of display illumination containing UV. Dark storage longevity is an unknown; and I won't be around long enough to comment on that. But at the moment, they're claiming very long dark storage life on their top tier CA products, namely, Maxima and Fujiflex (which appear to be the same or nearly identical emulsions on different substrates), provided the storage environment remains reasonably cool, dry, and chemical-free. The expensive polyester base of Fujiflex would seem to give it an added edge. That's what I'm printing on this afternoon. It can be somewhat over the top for certain images, but is absolutely stunning for others. It achieves higher contrast and better hue saturation than RC color papers.

Much easier to handle than Ciba, and without the color idiosyncrasies. I marry it mainly with LF Ektar shots, and am now getting to the point these surpass most of my former Ciba work. I still mask the originals sometimes, but not routinely like with Ciba. Masking can be used for both reduced contrast or a contrast boost; but actual color correction masking is rarely needed like it was for Ciba. Sometimes I print using precise contact internegs from old LF chromes; but that is a more difficult skill to get right, a lot of fussy work, and I seem to either get a home-run, clear out of the ballpark print that way, or else a downright bellyflop sometimes. Printing directly from color neg originals is a lot easier.

Hi Drew.. its still a dye coupler process, what kind of dye stability improvements do you think they have made, I am kind of a doubting Thomas on this.. Ciba was dye as well but rather dye destruction processl.

[Drew Wiley]

Deep Blue - your issue looks like weak chemical activity. How long do you keep chem around after mixture? Do you replenish? Trays or drums. Wash time? Or else the paper itself could be on the old side. Some suppliers seem to have turned over their inventory rather slowly. Unexposed aper does degrade, especially under hot or humid conditions. There is no advantage at all in commercial use of RA4 except that any competent lab carefully monitors the chemical activity.

Bob - Fuji is mum as per specific dyes etc. But they've been steadily refining things and it's apparent by the result. Over the years I've farmed out all kinds of prints to deliberately abusive display conditions just to see for myself. A large official complex sold last year which displayed a quantity of my large framed Super-C prints under 18 hrs a day of abusive CFL lighting plus direct sunlight from numerous very large overhead skylights during the day. After 15 years of that, there is just a little bit of evident fading that nobody but me would notice.

No Ciba print would hold up as well to that kind of steady UV exposure. I've done plenty of comparison tests. Sure, I've got all kinds of Ciba prints in storage, many over 40 yrs old, that look like they were made yesterday, along with others which were only display nearly as long in INDIRECT sunlight, but no serious UV, and still are attractive, though certainly not pristine. And there is now a new generation of Fuji CA products, namely, Maxima and second-generation Fujiflex which they claim to be more resistant to both light fading and redidual coupler yellowing than their previous offerings. I think it's foolish to make direct extrapolations of print life etc, but have no reason to doubt the improvement in quality and permanence is real, especially with the polyester based version.

But the same common sense rules apply to just about any kind of framed art. Artist's pigments sure aren't all created equal when it comes to UV tolerance. Many are quite poor.
This has been known for centuries, probably millennia. And with the hodge-podge of all kinds of ingredients in inkjet prints, one to another, that would hardly give me confidence. But I do give the manufacturers of those inks credit for putting a real degree of focus on permanence R&D, within the constraints of those tiny nozzles, that is. They can't choose just any kind of colorant. I've seen color carbon prints using real pigments fail by layer blistering or de-bonding; or else they resorted to coarse screen halftone technique that compromised the photographic look. There is no silver bullet out there.

[Deepblue]

Drew Wiley - It's good to know that a commercial lab has nothing special. I thought the old color process was better, more colorful, and also better analog papers. Today, everything is digital paper. But I have a stock of Fuji CA Type II and it shows better results. I'll keep trying. Thanks, good light :)

[Drew Wiley]

Today's color neg films and RA4 chromogenic papers are way, way better than previous versions. The designation, "digital paper" with respect to RA4 basically means two things: 1) since green lasers are not as strong as red or blue, the paper has been given a little bit more green sensitivity (equivalent to about 5 cc in colorhead terms); 2) it's difficult to achieve a deep black with most laser printers, so some of these papers have a steeper curve in that portion. They caution against optical printing on the presumption that soft portrait images are in mind. But for me, having a higher contrast paper option is a real advantage. And if necessary, I can fine-tune the contrast via supplemental masking.

CAII cut sheet RC paper is sorta middle-of-the-road, contrast and color saturation wise. It you need more punch, use a film like Ektar instead of Portra. It is a bit thin for a paper, so you need to handle the bigger sizes carefully to avoid kink marks. I've never had any issues mounting that thinner paper.

Additive RGB halogen versus ordinary CMY subtractive printing? I have both kinds of colorheads, even for 8x10 film enlargement. The difference in result is real, but generally subtle, unless you are comparing some quite old CMY colorhead where the filters have partially failed due to gradual coating loss. But my own additive optical system is actually more effective in terms of color purity than expensive RGB lasers. Big additive enlargers are certainly a lot fussier in terms of electronics headaches. It's premature to discuss RGB LED designs, at least with respect to serious color printing. It's going to be difficult to get past the tried-and-true reliability and simplicity of halogen CMY.

[Deepblue]

Yeah, thanks. That said, the only problem is me:) I am not a machine and I have to find it difficult to find a way to a good color. To monitor the chemistry, the age of the paper, to have the negatives correctly developed, that's a lot of variations. Too bad I didn't buy the old analog lab, but no one would fix it anymore. Today's scans from film and laser on paper are not pleasing to the eye. Thanks, good light :)

[letchhausen]

For myself, the biggest stumbling block to RA-4 printing is the demise of public color darkrooms. I rent and don't have the space for a color enlarger and don't see myself using drums. I was going to ContactLA since I flew down to Los Angeles fairly often, but post-pandemic they've tripled their prices so I can't afford that. I love RA-4 printing because of it's simplicity and I love working in a darkroom more than looking at a damn screen for hours on end. And it's cheap. I can knock out prints way faster than messing around at a computer. And inkjet paper and ink is crazy expensive. I do have some stuff scanned and do appreciate that I can make prints at home, but it's definitely not the love affair that I had when I started working in B&W and color darkrooms. Those are magical. Inkjet is a chore.

A friend of mine started verbalizing some technical mumbo-jumbo about dmax and inkjet blah, blah, blah, but I told him to zip it. My RA-4 prints from my Portra negatives look exactly how I want my work to look. That's all that matters.

[Drew Wiley]

Drums are very convenient in a cramped space like a decently-ventilated bathroom or garage. But I do even large color prints in drums. Yeah, it's somewhat slower that way, but capable of excellent consistency print to print, that is, using freshly mixed chem one-shot and not replenished. I know some of best inkjet printers around, the real gurus; but frankly, I think they did better color work back in their darkroom days.

[Duolab123]

I can print color negatives, it's a somewhat involved process but it's pretty straightforward 20th century technology. Scanning color negatives is more voodoo to my brain.
I can take nice pictures with my digital cameras, I can make nice inkjet prints, but I've yet to print an inkjet print that I've framed. Seems ephemeral.

[Duolab123]

I miss Cibachrome. ��

[Deepblue]

229100 I work at home in a chamber with a drum. I put the paper and everything is already done in the light. I experiment a lot. Now I'm trying a combination of Durst Neonon 50, Lucky Chinese papers and RA-4 lab chemistry. Very rich pictures come out :) The greatest miracle is a picture directly from the negative. No scans, ink, digi:) Good light!.)

[Mark Sampson]

Deepblue, very nice. Keep up the good work.

[Drew Wiley]

Cibachrome was nice in the respect you could just look at a chrome atop a lightbox and have a good idea of where to go from there. But Supergloss is a better color balanced medium and a lot easier to handle (that is, once you've cut it down from a big heavy roll - quite a chore in the dark with my painful hands). Just as stunning, and way faster printing speed than Ciba. More affordable, but not like chromogenic RA4 RC papers per se; definitely something deluxe instead, worthy of a significantly higher price point. Overall, printing from color negs is easier than Ciba was, unless one starts with a chrome and needs to generate a precision interneg first, which can involve a lot of work. I've got a couple of those in enlargers right now for this afternoon's session - a 4x5 as well as an 8x10.

I've set aside numerous images more appropriate for a lower sheen RA4 paper. Perhaps there will be better paper availability next year. I've used Super C in the past in various sheens for large prints; but I need to make some small ones too. I'd like to try Fuji Maxima, but can't get straight answers about it at the moment. No problem. I have plenty on my plate already.

[Deepblue]

Mark Sampson - Thanks to. There is no longer any analogue lab in the world. Only in our darkrooms :) Exposure directly from the negative:) Good light!

[Drew Wiley]

There are quite a few "analog" optical enlarger labs in the world; they just might not be where you expect them. Not everyone can afford to drop a couple million dollars on a big thru-put scan to Xy cutter to laser printer to big automated RA printer-dryer, plus all the other requisite features. And chromognic RA44 prints are still a lot more cost efficient in large sizes and multiple quantities. I'm not going to elaborate or argue about this. But I do have an idea what countries many of the last real commercial enlargers went to, and for top dollar. So it's not surprising to see Fuji revise some of their printing paper brochures to make it more plain that even some of their really big roll products are fully compatible with both laser digital printers and traditional optical systems. They wouldn't do that if there wasn't a real market for it overall somewhere. We personal darkroom printers are just a tiny portion.

[Deepblue]

Yes, there will definitely be an analog lab somewhere. But you will not see them on the street anymore. I have not yet found a single public analogue lab here in Europe. At home, surely someone has it, but for public operation does not have financial coverage. It never occurred to me that there would be no real photograph of the optical-chemical process on the street anywhere. Good light :)

[Roger Cole]

One thing digital did is give me "permission" as it were to concentrate on black and white. I did color darkroom work before there WAS viable digital, because it was the only way to make color images. But I never actually enjoyed it. I enjoy black and white darkroom. So I happily punted the occasional color over to digital and reserved the darkroom for the black and white processes I always enjoyed and loved anyway. YMMV. I'm a complete amateur hobbyist. I only do it for myself and I have only myself to please and to answer to.

[Deepblue]

Autumn at Kodachrome is fantastic! I'm just on film color :) BW I make barite paper.

[Drew Wiley]

The good news is that high volumes of RA4 papers are being consumed by laser-printing devices which are in routine commercial use, keeping up paper demand, and that most of those same papers are excellent for standard optical enlargement as well. So the necessary supplies and chem should still be available for quite awhile.

[koraks]

Autumn at Kodachrome is fantastic!
I'm afraid Kodachrome is way past winter now, and there's no spring behind it.

@Drew, yeah, we still ride the wave of large photofinishers keeping up demand with their high-throughput digital imagers. Until those turn to inkjet as well. It may take a few years, but it's bound to happen. Throughput isn't the argument anymore; them waterfall printheads go way fast. It's a matter of time before the business case flips over to all digital and then the RA4 party will be done.

[Drew Wiley]

Large size inkjet printing is more a small corporation thing for limited advertising or display projects, or as a niche service to photographers unable to do their own color printing. Anything in volume is just too expensive that way. The manufacturers of inks and receiver papers put a gigantic markup on those expendables. There's nothing particularly affordable about inkjet printing. And some clients don't like its look either. Therefore the two systems are likely to coexist in parallel for quite awhile, along with dye printers for office and casual home use. i'm not worried. Throughput with big automated laser printing connected directly to the processor is also quite a bit faster than inkjet; but the initial equipment investment is a lot higher.

A bigger factor is the proliferation of digital cameras, including studio usage of digital capture backs. That could hypothetically be input to laser printers too, but would seem like a fancy detour around the native software which relatively few know how to do. Locally, there's quite an uptick in actual film usage, especially among amateurs, and from there to scan and both output options. And certain studios are still shooting large format chromes, up to 8x10. It makes sense if especially precise color control is involved. And for quite a few portrait pros, there simply is no substitute for the combination of color neg film and chromogenic prints; a stunning amount of R&D has gone into that marriage.

i just picked up a roll of film from a niche lab that does high quality C41 in house, as well as offering scanning, small laser prints on Fuji RA4 paper, and up to quite large inkjet prints. A different outfit just two doors away specializes in Lambda laser color prints in fairly large sizes. It's all Fuji paper now, at least until Kodak is fully back on the horse again with their own RA4 papers. But my gosh, the hue output of inkjet, and especially the blacks, is soooo disappointing. Maybe certain people who write their own custom software and endlessly slither and dither the color corrections do a way better job at it, but don't tell me it's less work than optical enlarging.

[koraks]

You're wrong about inkjet vs laser. Laser isn't going to make it in the end; it's all going to be inkjet, most likely pigment based. About markups...toner has massive markup so probably has RA4 paper although I doubt it is as attractive as ink. For now, the only firm we get RA4 paper from is Fuji. Guess who's one of the few major players in industrial inks and print heads? That's right. Fuji... The moment RA4 becomes less attractive to them, they'll push it out and continue with the other horse.

You focus on the highest-end quality part of the market, but the other 99.95% is where the money's being made. They mostly think those measly blacks are plenty black enough.

Anyway, I don't have to convince you. I know what I saw in the industry, and the future of color printing had no silver in it at all.

[Drew Wiley]

Inkjet does NOT = pigment printing!! Very few actual pigments can fit through those tiny nozzles. Dyes are necessarily involved as well, especially in the form of "lakes" (derived from the term "lac), which are dyed inert particles, analogous to eggplant taking on various flavors. It's either misleading marketing hype or downright false advertising to equate inkjet printing to real pigment prints; but is a commonly used expression to convey a false sense of security in the permanence of those colorants, which are unequal in that respect. In other words, color shifts over time are inevitable.

But yeah, given the huge R&D investment in inkjet and related dye printers, I think we've approached a plateau where "good enough" will reign for awhile. There are still all kinds of patents out there which will probably never see the light of day. But chromogenic printing has now gone beyond its plateau season and distinctly improved. Did you miss the fact that Fuji has also entered the laser printer era, and can bundle the whole system together. So they've got a vested interest in that too, along with the high volumes of paper and RA4 chem those commercial systems demand.

I probably won't be around long enough - perhaps - but I think the odds are, that current inkjet tech is going to go obsolete sooner than relatively mature chemical-based printing. And the reason is that something else, no doubt digital, will be such an improvement, that current inkjet tech will seem fuddy-duddy by comparison. A basic optical enlarger, however, might be fully functional for another hundred years, just like view camera will be. You never know. Turtles and crocodiles were around before all the glitzy big dinosaurs, and are still around. Some designs just make sense. One never knows. Another world war could end it all. Then we go back to cave painting, or at least painting the walls inside bomb shelters, hoping some species less reckless than us will discover and appreciate our art someday.

[koraks]

Drew, not all inkjet is dye based. I can't say what the percentage of pigment inkjet is at this point, but I expect it has already taken over dye by a mile, especially if you keep in mind that just about anything is being inkjet printer these days, from bathroom tiles to floorboards, sofa cushions, bedsheets, wallpaper, milk cartons...and yes, also booksz posters and large transparencies. Many of these applications require light-fastness that dyes just don't give, even in lowly applications far removed from graphic arts. I'm not sure where you got the notion that pigments would be too big to jet; maybe that was the case 2 decades ago. Pigment dispersions (again, Fuji is a big one here but by far not the only) have come a long way and so has piezo technology. Yes, dyes may be added to pigments to solve e.g. the problems you note with inkjet black which always fails to be neutral. I don't think this happens to the same extent with C, M and Y though and I wonder how common it is even with black today. I really think this picture is far bigger than what you're aware of; RA4 is a couple of applications, but inkjet is an entire universe. It's also highly unlikely to be taken over by clumsy toner-based. I'm going to leave at at this as some things aren't mine to share with the general public. My distinct impression (let's out it that way) is that inkjet has a substantial future ahead of it and part of that future is going to come at the cost of laser, RA4 and offset printing, evidently in a range of market segments. If you argue that for very high end, large-format graphic arts RA4 will hold ground relatively long, then you may be right, although I'm not even so sure of that anymore today than I once might have been. Will you love to see the demise of RA4? Well, it would be nice to have you around for a long time still, Drew.

[Drew Wiley]

Koraks - you're not getting it. There are dye printers, and there are ink printers; but those inks themselves, used in inkjet printers per se, are not necessarily all pigments. Dyes and lakes are equally involved. There are all kinds of technical limitations preventing them all being pigments. Where do I get that notion? First, just look up the patents and ingredients behind those colorants. Second, I've been closely following the development of this technology in the industrial sector before it ever became a photographic application. Third, due to my career connections, I was frequently in touch with leading international figures trying to find the holy grail of what I'll term nano pigments. And a suitable true process set doesn't even exists at this state of technology. I've personally dealt with the two finest pigment grinding industries on earth fro many years, learned all kinds of analogous issues right from the start which are still a real factor in inkjet printing itself. You're arguing with the wrong guy. Doesn't matter; all this is very very well known in the industry itself.

Inkjet obviously doesn't employ any kind of CMYK process set, but is entirely patterned after industrial pigment programmable systems whereby complex blends of ingredients can be matched to 4-axis analytic geometry color mapping. It's really remarkable in how far its come along and become available to almost anyone in some practical form. But color per se is a huge industry of its own going well beyond the scope of that. I'd even color inkjet printing a minor category of the bigger whole. All kinds of R&D and trend forecasting is constantly going on. And part of that is the hunt for entirely new kinds of colorants which solve some of these inherent problems.

So please don't keep perpetuating the sheer myth and mis-identification of inkjet printing with "pigment prints". They're not. That is a simple fact known by everyone who has done a bit of real homework.

[koraks]

You're arguing with the wrong guy.
This is certainly true, but perhaps not for the reason you meant. That's OK; in your particular way you can be inspiring sometimes!

[Drew Wiley]

I was a color specialist, Koraks. And like I said, inkjet printing is just a spinoff of something of much larger industrial scale. The really big money and R&D incentive is elsewhere. And you'd be amazed at how many people are trying to get a piece of the action by grasping at the shorter straw. Myriads of patents are out there which are never going to see the light of day because, just like I already hinted, photo inkjet printing has reached a semi-plateau where the priority is now to recoup their R&D investment and turn a real profit. That's not the case with, say, automotive or marine coatings, where intense interest in developing new actual nano-pigments exists, but alas, where there is no need for actual process colors. And everyone knows that there is still no way to get around organic dyes in certain colorant categories, at least on a practical level. If you happen to be PopeLeo X and are willing to loot all of Germany and take out a second mortgage on the Vatican, well, then maybe you can afford to supply vivid non-organic reds and blues to Michelangelo; but those pigments would be rare, horrendously expensive, somewhat or distinctly toxic, and never fit through tiny inkjet nozzles anyway.

But if you know the answer, while major corporations with massive R&D infrastructure, who have been at it for over a century, do not, then I assume you are posting your own remarks from aboard your 200 ft yacht.

[koraks]

Drew, point is, you seem to believe that the arguments you make for inkjet being technically inferior to RA4 will somehow save the latter. I doubt that, even if you're right, which I'm fully willing to accept. Mind you, I never made a case for inkjet being technically or artistically superior to RA4. I just don't think that's the set of parameters that's going to matter the most at the end of the line. But - only time will tell. Neither I from my 200ft yacht nor you from your 400ft one know exactly which technology will supply which market segment at any particular moment in time.

PS: To be honest, the marine world never appealed that much to me, so no yacht here.

[Drew Wiley]

No, I don't even own a rowboat. But I did consult on the world's biggest most-expensive yachts as far as certain materials, nano-pigment finishes, and techniques were involved. Even supplied certain critical machinery. Mainly surface issues (certainly not structural design or actual engineering). Some of the workmen became lifetime friends. But you are right in terms or all this being profit driven. It's even the same reason only perhaps three companies in the world still make a decent pair of pliers that don't break or go dull in a few weeks; there's far more money to be made producing junk versions which need to be repeatedly replaced. Consumer electronics and its software also are designed around rather short lifespans. Resource intensive, but everyone wants the latest and greatest. I should say, however, that true process nano-pigments are being sought, because that would revolutionize the printing trade and photographic printing itself; but it's not your inkjet companies behind that. No one has the magic wand yet; but if they do eventually get there, most of the previous inkjet industry will be doomed. ... Or they might just buy up the patents themselves if they can, and table them, so that nobody has access to it. That kind of thing happens a lot too.

[bob carnie]

This argument regarding laser printing and inkjet printing is of interest to me, spoiler alert. I own a lambda which is capable of RA4 printing, I own two Inkjet machines that I work with daily, but in the last 9 years
have been researching digital negatives to Pt Pd, digital negs to Gum Bichromate over Palladium, digital negatives to Silver Print. It has been a long road and at my stage of life I am at a bit of a crossroads.

We have been doing more silvers lately via inkjet negs to any silver paper, in fact this is one of the fastest growing services of the last three years. I now teach full colour gum printing and it too is remarkable that
we are very busy with this. ( all of my personal work is done this way)
I have approx. 2000 sq. ft of work space in a long narrow formation, which means my lambda takes up a good percentage of the printing workspace , I also frame and have a small gallery so every sq ft is precious.

Pre Covid I was using the Lambda only for direct silver prints, mainly for one Magnum Photographer and people who like this style of print.. Neutral BW Silver Gelatin.

Since Covid I have not turned on the Lambda and am now debating primarily with my self the future of this unit and my workflow.

I have done extensive tests on this machine to compare direct silver negatives off the lambda vs direct inkjet negatives off the Epson. There are distinct Pros and Cons
of each method.

Cons -Lambda Negs and Prints - very hard to get material, need technical support which is not cheap, big platform of space in a large expensive city, Slow to make and requires immense attention to detail, quite expensive,
and quite smelly.
Cons - Inkjet Negatives - very flimsy, only last for a few sessions of printing, not archivable ,

Pros- -Lambda Negs and Prints - ability to work from digital files and cameras, very high resolution , very stable and historically much like large format negs, Incredible detail when making prints
Pros - Inkjet Negs and Prints - ability to work from digital files and cameras, excellent resolution , easy to work with much like large format negs, with Pt Pd and matt papers distinctly like silver


I moved to inkjet over RA4 printing over 8 years ago , mainly because the market was shrinking, the machine smelled , technicians on this old tech were all retiring and I am not a technician. Frankly
I love RA4 but I also love Inkjet, the material availability , technicians, and inks made the decision an easy one.

I do not harbour any loyalty to C prints, In my career I believe I have made over 100,000 c print either via enlarger or Lambda. The dye coupler technology is amazing but highly prone to fading and
the first half of my career is now a cyan mess.
I can not say that my inkjet's will last any longer, I am not sure anyone here can answer that question, time will tell- though I must say working with pigment paste and also working with two different print head types (Canon and Epson) I feel that pure pigment or crushed stone would have a hard time getting through the system.

To this point I moved the bulk of my colour work to Blue Wool Scale 8 pigments saturated in gum which is hardened by Sunlight (UV) and washed out with water. - This is all done
by hand and quite exhilarating, in fact I highly encourage this method of working to any artist who likes making prints.

I have decided for me this is the way to go. If Fuji or another player comes up with a RA4 process that is more advanced regarding permanence then I will be all ears, I am still on the fence
whether to keep the Lambda or scrap it.

[koraks]

I do not harbour any loyalty to C prints, In my career I believe I have made over 100,000 c print either via enlarger or Lambda. The dye coupler technology is amazing but highly prone to fading and
the first half of my career is now a cyan mess.
I can not say that my inkjet's will last any longer, I am not sure anyone here can answer that question, time will tell- though I must say working with pigment paste and also working with two different print head types (Canon and Epson) I feel that pure pigment or crushed stone would have a hard time getting through the system.

To this point I moved the bulk of my colour work to Blue Wool Scale 8 pigments saturated in gum which is hardened by Sunlight (UV) and washed out with water. - This is all done
by hand and quite exhilarating, in fact I highly encourage this method of working to any artist who likes making prints.

Bob, you might be surprised to learn that the pigments used in inkjet may overlap significantly with the kind of pigments that you're using for gum bichromate. Evidently I don't know which pigments you're using specifically, but let me give an example: PB15:3 is a popular choice for Cyan regardless of (pigment) process. Calvin Grier uses it for gum and color carbon; I'm using it for my feeble attempts at color carbon presently myself. And guess what? It's the go-to cyan pigment of the inkjet industry. Same story with quinacridone magenta, PR122. With yellow, there's a bit more choice, but again you end up with the same kind of options, such as the family of benzimidazolone yellows (PY154 for instance).

Keep in mind that pigments don't equate 'crushed rocks'. Only very few people actually work with naturally occurring pigments in printing processes. The vast majority of pigment use, also in fine art printing (painting may be different) consists of synthetic pigments. The degree of milling, i.e. particle size, of course does play a role in dispersal stability and as a result as a cause of nozzle clogging etc. in printers - or sedimentation in carbon glop as it outgasses over a period of an hour or more.

Long story short - there's not necessarily a reason to be more concerned about inkjet pigment stability than about gum bichromate pigment stability. Of course, it all depends on the specific pigments used and environmental conditions. In your position, I'd be in touch (if you aren't already) with the ink supplier and try to obtain good information about the actual pigments used in the inks you consume. You're not the average home or office users and you have valid reasons to know a couple of things that they shield off from other parties. Probably not much luck at Epson, but I bet businesses like InkjetMall would be willing to have a chat and share their views on pigment selection and its myriad ins and outs.

PS: I have no hopes for an improved, more archival RA4 dye set. I don't think anyone is putting in the R&D to make this happen. While current volumes in RA4 consumables may still be significant, my argument remains that other processes will take over from RA4 for very much the same reasons you abandoned it. Firms like Fuji are perfectly aware of this and I'd be highly surprised if they put in any more effort than that needed to milk out the business as it is.

[bob carnie]

Bob, you might be surprised to learn that the pigments used in inkjet may overlap significantly with the kind of pigments that you're using for gum bichromate. Evidently I don't know which pigments you're using specifically, but let me give an example: PB15:3 is a popular choice for Cyan regardless of (pigment) process. Calvin Grier uses it for gum and color carbon; I'm using it for my feeble attempts at color carbon presently myself. And guess what? It's the go-to cyan pigment of the inkjet industry. Same story with quinacridone magenta, PR122. With yellow, there's a bit more choice, but again you end up with the same kind of options, such as the family of benzimidazolone yellows (PY154 for instance).

Keep in mind that pigments don't equate 'crushed rocks'. Only very few people actually work with naturally occurring pigments in printing processes. The vast majority of pigment use, also in fine art printing (painting may be different) consists of synthetic pigments. The degree of milling, i.e. particle size, of course does play a role in dispersal stability and as a result as a cause of nozzle clogging etc. in printers - or sedimentation in carbon glop as it outgasses over a period of an hour or more.

Long story short - there's not necessarily a reason to be more concerned about inkjet pigment stability than about gum bichromate pigment stability. Of course, it all depends on the specific pigments used and environmental conditions. In your position, I'd be in touch (if you aren't already) with the ink supplier and try to obtain good information about the actual pigments used in the inks you consume. You're not the average home or office users and you have valid reasons to know a couple of things that they shield off from other parties. Probably not much luck at Epson, but I bet businesses like InkjetMall would be willing to have a chat and share their views on pigment selection and its myriad ins and outs.

PS: I have no hopes for an improved, more archival RA4 dye set. I don't think anyone is putting in the R&D to make this happen. While current volumes in RA4 consumables may still be significant, my argument remains that other processes will take over from RA4 for very much the same reasons you abandoned it. Firms like Fuji are perfectly aware of this and I'd be highly surprised if they put in any more effort than that needed to milk out the business as it is.

Sadly I think you are right about the Fuji situation , I have hope though for the silver gelatin BW business, there seems to be a huge resurgence and I know that I can get Ortho 25 film in 30inch by 100 ft rolls from two sources to make silver negatives off my Lambda, the paper seems to be set on Galerie grade 4, but I do know that Agfa Classic works on a Lambda from personal printing in 2002 , apparently Adox is the current holder of this patent and one of their papers is this emulsion.

regarding the pigment issue, I kind of think of the chocolate chip cookie . for my gum prints the chip is saturated with chocolate whereas the inkjets have some chocolate but its hard to find.. Remember the scene in Casino when DeNiro goes into the kitchen complaining about the dispersion of berries in the cupcakes.

Regarding Manufacturers , I do not trust them to give me any real info, I had one of the last production model Cibachrome machines that were ever made, a thing of beauty I must say, at that time Ilford was giving us stickers with a 200year
promise on not fading.. I was dubious as dye prints of any kind were fading at an alarming rate and Wilhelm just released his book.

[koraks]

Can't and won't argue with you on the pigment loading issue, Bob. Firstly, you're the master here, especially when it comes to gum, secondly, even though my experience so far with color carbon is limited, it does suggest you're simply right. There's no way inkjet can handle with the pigment loads that gum or carbon will manage with relative ease. The range of compatible pigments is way larger than with inkjet. With gum it's perfectly feasible to load up an emulsion with a pigment with a poor tinting strength and/or coarse grind and still get a good saturation and feasible printing mechanics. Inkjet wouldn't stand a fighting chance. That alone has an appeal to it.

Ah, inkjet. I never enjoyed it much and currently in my color carbon experiments, it's the single one thing that annoys me the most. I'm spending too much time to my liking ironing out issues that stem directly or indirectly from the peculiarities of (ab)using an inkjet printer for something it wasn't meant to do in the first place. Pizza wheels, clogged nozzles, media incompatibility with carbon tissue - you name it. Yes, there are alternatives, but realistically, I'm stuck with inkjet so I'll have to deal with it or give up. Not yet ready to do the latter, hah!

[bob carnie]

Can't and won't argue with you on the pigment loading issue, Bob. Firstly, you're the master here, especially when it comes to gum, secondly, even though my experience so far with color carbon is limited, it does suggest you're simply right. There's no way inkjet can handle with the pigment loads that gum or carbon will manage with relative ease. The range of compatible pigments is way larger than with inkjet. With gum it's perfectly feasible to load up an emulsion with a pigment with a poor tinting strength and/or coarse grind and still get a good saturation and feasible printing mechanics. Inkjet wouldn't stand a fighting chance. That alone has an appeal to it.

Ah, inkjet. I never enjoyed it much and currently in my color carbon experiments, it's the single one thing that annoys me the most. I'm spending too much time to my liking ironing out issues that stem directly or indirectly from the peculiarities of (ab)using an inkjet printer for something it wasn't meant to do in the first place. Pizza wheels, clogged nozzles, media incompatibility with carbon tissue - you name it. Yes, there are alternatives, but realistically, I'm stuck with inkjet so I'll have to deal with it or give up. Not yet ready to do the latter, hah!

hi Koraks

I moved to Gum after about 9 years of research, I did go down the carbon route, one of my friends is John Bentley who does amazing work, and I am on quite friendly terms with Calvin, I helped him during his writing of the gum
book by giving my 2 cents on each chapter. I found carbon to be too Technical , to make a good print with too many steps to create a fantastic print. With gum the application is directly on the paper which I like and I have learned tricks to make the pigment hold within 8 minutes of exposure in warm water and frankly I love the process. The pigments are the same as carbon just different methodology.

Regarding gum I think the simple fact that UV light hardens gum which then if the pigments are transparent are held in mass in place to then mix with subsequent layers of cmyk pigments. Most people think that Gum Bichromate printing
is a photographic change like lets say silver or pt pd, but in fact it goes back to the Shroud of Turin thinking of the tannin hardening effect harden and hold things in place, I love Gordon Hutchings for pointing this out in his groundbreaking book on Pyro and I believe Gum printing is the closest thing to PMK process in our bag of tricks.
Sometimes the most simplest of reactions is overlooked and I can say all my thoughts of PMK superiority is based on the hardening of the gelatin, as well the wash on (gum and pigment) and wash off (unwanted gum pigment) with warm water is really , really overlooked by the printing world at large.


I will say this , there is nothing wrong with inkjet, its incredible and I use it every day for my clients, I have nothing but amazement with this technology and have an Epson and Canon printer.
but the hands on approach to gum (after all the PS separations, film output , paper prep and film stripping ) is done well its simply magical and I love the fact that I can change the look of a print very simply, or correct a colour very simply, and then the added bonus of being able to retouch the print with the same pigments.

My photography is all based on the final print, taking of the image for me is basically inventory capture, then the magic starts with film solarization via chemicals, then scanning, then PS hue , curve flipping , and exclusion techniques to create various outcomes. The possibilities are quite endless and that is where I place myself, a printmaker, not a photographer.

Today we are finishing up my new website, the one listed here has been dead for about 12 years, I finally have enough images in different categories to put out in a webplatform. I will post in on this forum within the month and change my address below.

[Drew Wiley]

Koraks - there is actually quite a disparity between the colorants used in inkjet (which are only partially actual pigments) and the much wider range potentially available for true assembly style pigment printing. For one thing, those colorants have to pass through really tiny nozzles; for another, they have to be consistently programmable. That fact inherently disqualifies most pigments.
When you're talking about quinacridone reds, nearly all cadmium-free true yellows, etc, those are actually lakes - inert pigment particles dyed with organic dyes. How well will they hold up over time and UV? Complex topic; and I certainly don't trust marketing claims dependent at best on brief accelerated-aging torture tests. I have way too much background with pigments myself to be swayed by that kind of talk. It all depends on the many many variables of display and storage, climate, etc. Then you've got potential substrate issues, with so many options, yet so little comparative study.

Yet the biggest issue in this respect with inkjet is that there are just so many different inks involved that they cannot be created equal, and will most certainly age at differential rates from one another, and therefore the prints colors will shift relative to one another. With the basic CMYK options of true carbon or carbro, that issue can be hypothetically balanced better; but there still remains the issue of best color balance to begin with, compatability to given techniquel, etc. What Bob is doing with gum is a somewhat different story because he can select pigments for certain creative applications rather than strict "realistic" color usage. NOBODY can afford to work with the very highest quality natural pigments like Michelangelo did. The highest grades of mineral azure blue and chrysolite green are more expensive per ounce than gold. Some of those things are toxic too, especially cinnabar reds. Cadmium yellow can be coated with clear titanium via vacuum deposition, making it physiologically inert; but there are now huge legal hurdles to acquiring and handling it in the necessary volume to make that commercially realistic.

In the meantime, C-prints have dramatically improved with respect to both repro characteristics and display permanence, especially from Fuji. And I'm simply not going to be around long enough to either see mine fade or give any authoritative answer to the permanence question based on my own experience. I have seen true pigment prints fail, not only due to fading, but inter-layer bonding failure. I've seen the very best of artist pigments fade in paintings over time due to sunlight exposure. Very few colorants survive UV well, although there's an abundant source for them on the surface of Mars. One more reason to send spacecraft there, if you especially like the color pallet of yellow ochre and red oxide. Anything else, with a few exceptions - don't claim it is truly permanent; nothing is.

[koraks]

Thanks once more Bob, your words are inspiring, they really are. I think I spotted your name in Calvin's Gum book. I read it and enjoyed it, and I apply many of the concepts in there to my color carbon journey.

Yes, carbon is technical, especially color carbon. There's little room for error, you can't just overlay another layer to fix a color or contrast issue - you get one go at one print, it takes a lot of time and if it's not as intended, you get to do it all over again. And again. It's also decidedly less hands on than gum, agreed. Back when I tried my hand at gum, I knew even less than I do today and I guess I wast too impatient for it. Maybe I'll give it another go, but first I want to see how far I can get on the color carbon front. Despite its being so technical, or perhaps thanks to it, it also has a somewhat clinical look while remaining firmly in the hand-made/analog corner, if you know what I mean.

Your comment on being a printer more than a photographer resonates strongly with me. I like to press the button alright, and I sure enjoy the process of imagemaking from start to end. But printing is quite another thing; we get to play with paper and colorants! This is also what drives me to processes like color carbon; color is essential to me and I do quite a bit of RA4 printing, but the one thing that I don't quite like with RA4 is the paper base. Having access to such a wide range of interesting textures, weights, surface finishes in the etching, watercolor and general printmaking corners has always been tantalizing for me. To be able to combine that with color, somehow, is just magic. Carbon and gum are candidates; I briefly tried my hand at photopolymer intaglio, but ended up abandoning it and selling off the etching press. I never did any color with it (apart from toned B&W); I decided a like a photochemical process more than a photomechanical one.

Very much looking forward to the website! I noticed the recent YT videos already, good job!

[Drew Wiley]

Koraks - probably not the direction you personally want to go, but there is an RA4 option to paper-based; and that's Fujiflex Supergloss, probably their very highest quality product per both hue gamut and current permanence. Great for those who wish for the ole Cibachrome look, but even better in certain respects. "Texture" it ain't.

And Bob - I've got many Ciba prints going back to its formal inception, and not any have noticeably faded at all except those which were displayed in direct sunlight (or hypothetically displayed in other high-UV lighting, which I've never personally used). They look like they were made yesterday. Even the works of many famous painters has faded miserably due to improper lighting. Of course, anyone talking 200 years is spinning unproven BS. Ask them to reply back after another 200 years to get the truth.

[koraks]

Drew, thanks for your posts and sorry I overlooked your prior one. I agree with what you've said and indeed it's what I also realized from my own research and connecting the dots. I'm also aware of Fujiflex, and while I'd love to print on it, I'm afraid it's just too impractical given the roll sizes. I print small, having to deal with 50cm and bigger rolls would create serious logistical problems in my small workspace.
Besides, I really like paper. As in real, fibrous paper. It's not a technical or even an objective preference. I think that for mechanical reasons, RA4 from my hands would probably be more archival than anything I can cobble together with another process, even if their pigments may (or may not!) be more stable. Hence the carbon adventure, and who knows a gum adventure sometime soon as well.

Anyway, keep your thoughts coming. There's just too much knowledge out there that will fade unless we talk about it.

PS: concerning the quinacridone etc - yes, I'm aware they're really dyes clumped to a carrier, and that this raises concerns. It seems that in the world of pigments, you can have high chroma, or good stability, but it's rare to have both. Drew, if you were pressed to come up with a practical, affordable CMY set, what would it be? Out of curiosity - for now, I'll stick with pb15:3, pr122 and py150 or py154 and see if I can get a halfway decent print with those.

[Drew Wiley]

I have a specific answer, but not the product numbers off the top of my head. They are ideal in the sense of being the finest ground available, making them reasonably transparent in use, and already dispersed in industrial volumes rather than art store pricing; probably way better batch control too, since the batch volumes are comparatively huge. True water based dispersal. Gennex is the R&D brand. Distributed in quart containers. I don't know about EU availability. There is a decently lightfast quinacridone magenta lake. Two yellows to choose from, the brighter being less suitable in terms of permanence, but brighter, and at least far better than Hansa yellow; nontoxic (no cadmium). Process cyan requires a blend of their Thalo Green and Thalo Blue at an approximate ratio of 3:1 as I recall, and is a little less transparent than the others, so might best serve as the base layer to the final.

If you need a K printer, their product is a mineral black with a slightly green bias, so should only be used in high strength for the deepest shadows, and not toned down to gray. Not a perfect set in terms of ideal CMY purity, but what is? - and it's way way better in terms of both permanence and chromaticity than the classic old Chromium oxide, Cadmium Yellow, Alizaron Crimson combination, where only the yellow was reasonably on point. Note that these are architectural paint pigments, so well tested for outdoor sunlight. A five or ten year lifespan in an architectural yellow before showing signs of significant fading are like a century for an indoor art piece protected from UV. Just a relative comparison; so no, I'm not making any marketing predictions myself. I do have mountains of personal experience with these, however, including the hypothetical process set I just mentioned, having tested it for transparency and color wheel compatibility, and easy dispersal, but not with actual carbon printing.

Both me and my prime EU contact retired not long after I checked up on the advances in truly permanent nano-pigment R&D. No process set on the horizon there yet, however, but maybe a decent process cyan, but only if you can afford a minimum order of it in metric tons. Otherwise, one waits for leftovers from some giant automotive or ship paint application. Don't hold your breath. What might show up is some breakthrough exception to the EU rules, allowing Cad yellow to be titanium coated in bulk, making it commercially viable. I haven't followed through on that question.