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

[LFLarry]

Hi, I am hopeful the group here can help me identify some options for improving the archival attributes of RA-4 C-prints.

We have fiber paper and toners for black and white silver gelatin prints (e.g., sepia, selenium, etc.).

What options do we have for RA-4 chromogenic prints?

I am using Fuji Crystal Archive Type II paper.

About the only option that I can think of is Sistan, but not sure that applies to the RC types of papers or not? (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1626177-REG/adox_65140_adostab_ii_500ml.html)

Thank you

[Larry Gebhardt]

Sistan protects the silver in a print. The silver in a chromogenic print has been removed and only dyes remain. The main guidance I’ve seen is for storing prints in the dark at relatively low humidity, and of course properly washing them as part of processing.

[ic-racer]

235402


ISO 18920 Imaging materials—Processed photo- graphic reflection prints—Storage practices (Geneva: International Organization for Standardization), 2000.

[LFLarry]

Hi, you are absolutely correct.... I wasn't quite awake when I wrote my question apparently! Thank you.



Sistan protects the silver in a print. The silver in a chromogenic print has been removed and only dyes remain. The main guidance I’ve seen is for storing prints in the dark at relatively low humidity, and of course properly washing them as part of processing.

[LFLarry]

This is very interesting. Thank you for sharing this.

It appears that washing and cool storage conditions with proper RH is museum/curator guidance, etc.

For ordinary people and photographers that want to display their c prints, any idea where to find information about life expectancy under these normal use conditions?



235402

[Drew Wiley]

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

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

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

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

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

[ic-racer]

This is very interesting. Thank you for sharing this.

It appears that washing and cool storage conditions with proper RH is museum/curator guidance, etc.

For ordinary people and photographers that want to display their c prints, any idea where to find information about life expectancy under these normal use conditions?

235412

The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs--Henry Wilhelm, Preservation Publishing Company, Grinnell, Iowa.

[Drew Wiley]

So so much of that Wilhelm book predates many of these chromogenic print improvements, along with significant changes in typical display lighting (not necessarily for the better). But the general storage guidelines are still relevant if you happen to be a museum conservator with adequate facilities, which most folks can't afford to be. So avoid hanging prints on poorly insulated perimeter walls,
or in offices where it's too warm during the day, and too cold at night. If you happen to live in Hawaii, relocate uphill in the cooler coffee zone; if you live in Florida ... well ...

I've actually hermetically sealed certain pictures for long-term high humidity display conditions, pretty much a thousand dollar up-charge to the entire framing job, plus the price of the print itself. Had my own proprietary method; the handful of others who offered an analogous service charged even more, way more. I can understand the Declaration of Independence being displayed hermetically in its own version of a transparent-topped lead-soldered coffin, but just another danged picture that might get switched out once the color of the sofa itself fades?

[xkaes]

Drew beat me to the punch -- those instructions are for storage of unexposed paper -- but they should work equally well if you don't mind your prints being in a freezer for eternity.

Similar to Drew, I have some old prints that have hung in horrible places for years and still look fine. Whatever those dyes are seem to be pretty stable.

[Oren Grad]

The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs--Henry Wilhelm, Preservation Publishing Company, Grinnell, Iowa.

Wilhelm has made the book available as a free download:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

The specific materials for which test results are presented in Wilhelm's book are long gone, but the general discussion remains very informative, especially valuable for those who are new to the topic.

[LFLarry]

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



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

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

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

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

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

[koraks]

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

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

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

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

[Drew Wiley]

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

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

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

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

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

[koraks]

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

[LFLarry]

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



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

[koraks]

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

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

Edit: here's the blog post I promised: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/pixels-not-grains-why-ra4-paper-is-digital-and-why-this-matters-not/

[Drew Wiley]

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

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

[LFLarry]

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



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

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

Edit: here's the blog post I promised: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/pixels-not-grains-why-ra4-paper-is-digital-and-why-this-matters-not/

[LFLarry]

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



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

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

[Drew Wiley]

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

[Drew Wiley]

KorAKS - Thanks for linking you're article. But here's an example of proof why it's fundamentally flawed : 1) My RGB are enlarger are true narrow-band cutoff, and better RGB balanced than any laser system, so results at least as good as commercial laser printers are logical. BUT, 2) my pro Durst CMY head can achieve nearly identical results, just a tiny bit less saturated - no hint of crossover either way; and both with nearly the same typical starter settings as with older Fuji papers.

Results are of course going to be somewhat different with very old colorhead where the dichroic filter coatings have spalled off somewhat, allowing more white light contamination overall to pass through, or if those old style filters just weren't as adequate to begin with.

I have no experience with narrow roll papers designed specifically for quickie automated Drugstore-stye snapshots rather than wide-roll optical/large laser systems.

[LFLarry]

My plans for right now are to just print 8x10 for my personal enjoyment. I plan to put the prints in an archival binder and hopefully enjoy them for many years to come. I have a jobo and drums that could allow me to print up to 20x24, but I don't honestly ever see that happening for me. My plan to use all chemistry as one-shot on demand. I have the Kodak 10 liter kit and my plan is to mix up 1 liter at a time which should be plenty for a printing session. It looks like I can use about 100ml or less for each 8x10 print, so that should give me at least 10 tries. I do plan on doing smaller 4x5 tests and getting the density and color looking good before trying to make the 8x10 print. I will be happy with one good 8x10 print per session. Tomorrow morning is my first day with RA4, so I am looking forward to the experience. More to follow.



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

[Drew Wiley]

Well, could you at least expose and process a small 8x10 section of an image enlarged from 20X24 height, so that the relative power of that LED head can be surmised, along with your exposure time, cc settings and lens aperture? Just curious, since there's so little user info available per color printing per se; and I assume it's a 4x5 LED head? Good luck with it! But one advantage of a big halogen light colorhead instead is that you don't need much extra heating in the same room in winter!

[koraks]

KorAKS - Thanks for linking you're article. But here's an example of proof why it's fundamentally flawed : 1) My RGB are enlarger are true narrow-band cutoff, and better RGB balanced than any laser system, so results at least as good as commercial laser printers are logical. BUT, 2) my pro Durst CMY head can achieve nearly identical results, just a tiny bit less saturated - no hint of crossover either way; and both with nearly the same typical starter settings as with older Fuji papers.

Results are of course going to be somewhat different with very old colorhead where the dichroic filter coatings have spalled off somewhat, allowing more white light contamination overall to pass through, or if those old style filters just weren't as adequate to begin with.

I have no experience with narrow roll papers designed specifically for quickie automated Drugstore-stye snapshots rather than wide-roll optical/large laser systems.

Your experiment of your RGB enlarger vs. the Durst CMY head demonstrates that both light sources are fairly closely matched. It doesn't say anything about the suitability of a color paper to an optical enlargement method.

When RA4 came around, the reproduction method was the way we still do it: the negative is projected all in one go onto the paper. The dye density in the final print was therefore directly proportional to the dye density in the C41 negative used. The only way to deviate from this was/is through additional color masking. In a volume workflow, which virtually all the paper was and still is used for, this additional masking never happened, as it was simply too labor intensive. Hence, the paper's response needed to closely match the 'ideal' C41 negative.

About 20 years ago, the industry moved to digital - a fairly fast transition that was also virtually complete. In these digital exposure systems, there's no more negative (of course) and the image is also no longer projected in one go. Instead, it's imaged on a per-pixel basis. In doing so, the ratio between red, green and blue in each individual pixel can be adjusted to match the paper. So currently, the paper no longer needs to match the negative (there is none), and instead, the digital input is made to match the paper.

Since the need for a match between a negative and the paper is no longer necessary, Fuji simply let go of that requirement. A color response that back in the old days would have created an inherent crossover (and still does if you use the paper for something it's not intended to, i.e. under an enlarger) is not a problem, because it's simply corrected on the digital input side, and hence, it's not a problem for the product in its intended application. As darkroom printers, we are no longer part of that intended application domain, however.

Regardless of how closely your RGB light source matches existing CMY ones, neither of those types (nor the Heiland LED ones etc.) are capable of matching image densities to the response of the paper. After all, the matching involves a density-dependent adjustment, and the light source in an enlarger projects the full image field in one go. Hence, what you said about the light source is just not relevant to the problem. It's also not related to things like the state of dichroic filters, the width of a paper roll or the type of photos being printed. The technique that can bring today's papers back in line with optical printing, is supplemental masking. You've written about this often, and you appear to be capable (and willing) of doing this. It's an essential technique, today, for perfectly accurate color matching in this way of working. The rest of us will have to live with what we get within the best process control we're capable of.

Again, if you're capable of making satisfying prints by optically enlarging C41 negs onto RA4 paper, with or without masking, that's great. Enjoy it - so do I, and Larry will, too, no doubt.

If/when I learn more details about this, I'll update and add. As I offered before, any questions are welcome. I've got a follow up meeting planned with Fuji and with a bit of luck, we can fill in the gaps in our collective knowledge. Remember that in optically printing with this material, we're way off the beaten path and in terrain where in a way, we're not 'supposed' to be. That means that things that we may take for granted because they were once true, 30 years ago, may no longer apply.

[Drew Wiley]

Again, Koraks, the proof is in the pudding. I can still make every bit as good (in terms of hue gamut and repro) a print optically as anyone doing it digitally, probably even better. These papers are highly evolved. Yes, one needs to understand the dye curves; and sometimes (certainly not always), supplemental masking is needed for best results. But that's been the case as long as color printing has ever existed, and was standard in the graphics industry all along.

But BY FAR the biggest problem with hue repro lies with remaining idiosyncrasies in color neg films themselves, which themselves differ somewhat form one another in that regard. Some of my very best repro results are actually from chrome films via precise color internegatives. But that's a whole complicated subject of its own.

And as far as some of these Fuji papers being re-tweaked for automated small-roll digital printers, well, these engineers must know what they are doing. But in terms of actual results targeted to instant-everything consumers, we have all heard complaints just how bad many of those snapshot prints look, regardless of all the fancy software involved. Pay more, and you get better quality; pay way more and you might or might not get way better quality; slow TLC (tender loving care) cook it at home yourself, and it tastes the best of all.

I think you'd agree with me, that for all practical purposes on this forum, extant Fuji papers are perfectly capable of producing superb color prints in the darkroom. If something is a little off, try a different film or different paper. If one needs to go more advanced, learn some basic masking tricks. There's no need to scare of discourage anyone. Every dye curve in existence strays out of bounds at some point. Digital printers try to wrangle it in Photoshop. Back in Cibachrome days, we had to routinely beat that medium into submission with heavy-handed masking. It had far more gamut problems than any current color neg paper. In color neg applications, masking is more like gentle power steering - it doesn't take much; but you do need to be aware of how the specifics do differ from dye transfer masking, Ciba masking, and black-and-white imagery masking as described in older literature. The equipment is the same.

Just dive in folks! Sure, new technology like LED colorheads will require something of a new learning curve. So what. Sharks aren't going to eat you. Aliens aren't going to abduct you. Just have fun with it, make some mistakes, learn from those, step by step. RA4 printing is even more affordable than printing on FB black and white papers.

[koraks]

> And as far as some of these Fuji papers being re-tweaked for automated small-roll digital printers
Small roll, big roll - it's all digital now. I'll be sure to verify with Fuji if optical enlargement still plays a role of any significance, but frankly, I already know the answer. It's gone.

> I think you'd agree with me, that for all practical purposes on this forum, extant Fuji papers are perfectly capable of producing superb color prints in the darkroom.
'Superb' is a subjective term. I enjoy RA4 printing, and I like at least some of the prints I produce. But I don't have the requirement to perfectly reproduce real-world hues. This makes all the difference. We have liberties that Fuji can't rely on all their customers having.

[Michael R]

Interesting write-up, Koraks.

[Drew Wiley]

Koraks - no combination of color film or print media ever invented can accurately handle the range of hues any halfway decent watercolorist can mix in minutes. I'm especially interested in complex neutrals as the ballast to clean hues. That's a tall order. But I have been working with a latest generation Fuji pro product this past year, and I can attest that's it's never been easier to get excellent optical printing results than now. My definition of superb isn't necessarily reality - all photography is slight of hand, smoke and mirrors, in one manner or another. It just has to look convincing. But by superb, I do mean distinctly BETTER than any pro lab is going to print something. The best labs can be remarkable at what they do - taking less than ideal exposures one after another and coming up with acceptable results quickly. But like I already stated, take away the rush, "need it yesterday" factor, and real home cookin' can always do it best, given some patience and experience.

[koraks]

I'll remember to check next time when I speak to the Fuji people, but AFAIK the following applies:
Ok, I was in a position to do some checking on this.


* The dyes across all FUJIFILM CA papers and RA4 transparencies (Flex, Trans) are the same. The last dye change was the cyan dye and that was probably around 20 years ago give or take a few.
Verified. The last dye change were cyan and yellow, about 2 decades ago. All dyes in the Fuji paper & transparency lineup are identical across the materials. Hence, a pro paper like Maxima or DPII contains the exact same dyes (but not the same amount!) as entry-level papers like Crystal Archive (Supreme).


Since the dyes between the RA4 papers are identical and have been for many years, the longevity of the prints is mostly influenced by other parameters such as the topcoat layer. I don't know how profound this influence is. I do think that one of the two top layers (I think it's the second one from the top) contains a UV filter which should increase longevity of the print. This layer is present in all their papers, but the thickness may vary.
I verified the above.
The topcoat in RA4 papers plays a big role in longevity of the dyes, since the topcoat contains UV blockers, which prevent dye degeneration when the print is exposed to light. UV blockers are also present in lower layers, and there are sacrificial radical scavengers in the actual emulsion that counter chemical degradation.

Transparency materials (FujiFlex, FujiTrans) contain also UV blockers in the backcoat because they're likely exposed to UV from both sides.

Washing remains crucial to remove residual silver-thiosulfate complexes, which in time will turn into yellow/tan silver sulfide.

A final stabilizer bath can be used to limit degradation, and is complementary to the protection embedded into the paper.

What the longevity of a print is, depends on many factors, not in the least in how it's measured and what kind of degradation is deemed acceptable. Fuji test their materials based on a 450 lux for 12 hours per day typical light exposure for prints exposed to daylight. They cited on-display lifetimes under cited conditions with acceptable degradation ranging from 25-30 years for amateur papers (like Crystal Archive, CA Supreme etc) and up to 45 years for pro papers like DPII and Maxima. The difference is mostly explained by the larger UV-blocking capacity of the pro papers. For properly processed prints in dark storage, Fuji gave a ballpark figure of 200-400 years of useful lifetime without degradation.

What degradation is deemed acceptable, is a story unto itself. Benchmarks range from dE <=2 to dE <= 10. The former is barely visible to the naked eye even on close observation, while the latter is easily visible by the trained eye.

So in short, to optimize print longevity, the following seems to make the most sense:
* Use a 'pro' paper like DPII or Maxima
* Ensure proper processing, especially thorough blixing and thorough washing. Note: optical brightening agents will not wash out of the emulsion (because that's not where they are - they're in the PE coat).
* Prints survive longer without degradation when not exposed to UV.

Note that the above applies to Fuji papers. It's doubtful that currently manufactured Endura paper will perform anywhere close to Fuji's; it's different from Kodak-era Endura, which is no more.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for beginning to think this over. But we could take any of those segments and, after a bit, realize what you relate is barely the tip of the iceberg. There are a huge numbers of real-world variables, especially with respect to permanence, which accelerated aging tests are only a very rough approximation of at best. So anyone who tries to extrapolate that into actual years of display or storage is basically just making an educated guess. Stating 200-400 years??? Get real. How many color photos do you own which were made 400 years ago and still look good? Let's see... Crystal Archive papers have been around a little more than 20 years now; so that leaves only another 380 to see if that statement is realistic or not. Who the heck in Fuji itself ever stated any such ridiculous thing? None of my official Fuji tech sheets do. They're just wild guesses with zero real world track record. Chime back in, in the year 2423.

You don't even realize that Fujiflex is thick opaque PET base and totally different from Fujitrans. But yes, there are some basic common sense rules which apply to a wide variety of papers : wash them well, protect them from UV; and it appears probable that current Fuji CA papers are more fade resistant on display than what Kodak offered. Stabilizer baths are for automated processing lines where washing is brief and in the same tank. There seems to be no reason to use them if you can prolong washing with distinct changes of water.

[Willie]

Once you have the print and have taken every step possible to help you are left with storage, framing and display.

Bainbridge Alpharag Artcare mat board can help with protection againse airborne/environmental contamination. Help, nothing is perfect. Keeping prints away from kraft paper and cheap mounting/matting/interleaving materials is important.

Framing - avoid wood frames and cheap plastics. Outgassing of the frame itself presents problems. The Artcare board helps but framing material other than metals can cause trouble. Also a problem is display or storage in locations where air quality is questionable. Airborne contaminants come from burning fuel of various types, from vehicle tailpipes to open flame heating. Frame with the Artcare materals and be sure to seal the back of the frame as well.

Then you have UV light levels as well as too bright conditions. Top quality Museum Glass or Tru Vue Optium Museum Acrylic are supposed to be at the top of the game for protection. Costly but can show the artwork at its best while protecting it from UV damage. The Acrylic(plexi) has the added benefits of being lighter weight than glass as well as not easily shattered. Glass shatters and can damage your art - Acrylic is much less likely to do so.

The general term of all this is "Conservation/preservation Framing" and storage. If you want your images to last you go that extra mile to help with the best material and practices known.

[Drew Wiley]

Tinted museum glass or acrylic only slightly protects from UV, while it the yellowish of pinkish tint (much like a skylight filter) does mute blue hues somewhat. I've tested it of course, but it's certainly no silver bullet. Alkaline buffered boards aren't always ideal either; some print media don't do well in contact with alkalinity. And I've had a few unexpected issues with Bainbridge Alphamat over time. Wood frame rabbets can be sealed with true shellac (not varnish or lacquer) to prevent acid or turpene migration. Of course, any wood finishes themselves should be thoroughly outgassed prior to picture framing, and this can take weeks to months if oil-based finishes are involved.

One of the biggest problems today is that many people don't realize just how much UV is output by certain kinds of artificial lighting : halogen track lighting, halogen floor and ceiling lighting, most fluorescent and CLF bulbs. As far as sunlight goes, reflected sunlight, bounced around off painted interior walls, is nowhere near as bad a direct window light in terms of UV.

[koraks]

Thanks for beginning to think this over.
I relayed information I obtained from Fuji to the asker of the original question because I promised to follow up on this.

If I want to discuss the market of power tools in the 1990s, I'll ask you. If I want to know about color papers, I'll ask the people who manufacture them.

[Willie]

Drew, you may be a bit behind on museum glass & acrylic. 99% UV filtration is the claim with TruVue top glass these days - clear with no tint.
Bainbridge Alpharag ARTCARE is not just a buffered board - it actively protects from outgassing and environmental pollutants.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm am NOT behind, Willie. I'm way ahead. And I have actually tested these things for two or three decades under all kinds of display situations, some deliberately abusive, going clear back to the first variety, Denglas. I think I still have one sheet of current TrueVue left in stock. I sent out a Cibachrome framed with it about 6 months ago. I also have an analogous background in industrial pigments, and am all too aware of the pitfalls in extrapolating accelerated aging test results into predicted years of light tolerance. All of that is relative, and simply cannot factor in all the potential variables.

Optically coated framing glass is analogous to an optically coated "clear" UV camera filter. But even if that can filter out certain wavelengths of UV somewhat, the residual amount can still be significant in terms of fading risk. And lots of display lighting is brutal in terms of UV output. So the only logical answer is to deal with the light sources themselves. And even putting UV-control filters over those has only a minor effect, essentially worthless over the long run. And UV alone is not the issue. So even a 99% hypothetical blockage of a particular part of that end of the spectrum might equate to only a 5% improvement in actual fading over time.

But besides the risk of breakage, the other problem with glass is that it thermally insulates less well than acrylic, and the coated varieties need to be cleaned carefully just like a lens. Clients or their janitors forget that and haul out the paper towels and Windex, and risk spoiling the whole extra cost. You also need to cut coated glass with different cutters than regular float glass. The best of both worlds is optically coated acrylic, but that gets really expensive.

As per board, yeah, I've known about the Alpha marketing mantra ever since that product line first came out. It a good product; but again, it's no silver bullet. Pollutants need to be stopped at the source. And artificial CaCO3 buffering is not always a good idea. I've even got examples of the alkaline buffering leaching out of Alpha over time and causing a surface deposit - a rare problem, but evidently possible. For black and white prints I prefer Rising Museum board, which is manufactured using natural limestone well water rather than aggressive buffering. But I do use Alpha for overmats or window mats in some color print framing applications, and still have a few cases of full 32X40 inch sheets.

[faberryman]

I'm am NOT behind, Willie. I'm way ahead. And I have actually tested these things for two or three decades under all kinds of display situations, some deliberately abusive. I also have an analogous background in industrial pigment, and am all too aware of the pitfalls in accelerated aging tests and so forth.

If TruVue UV glass and Bainbridge Alpharag ARTCARE mat board are problematic, what do you use? Or do you echew glass and mat board altogether? You have said you make your own wood frames. Is there a reason you don't use metal frames? Also, can you describe with specificity how you have tested these conservation and mounting methods and products over the decades? Thanks.

[Michael R]

Maybe Drew is referring specifically to Dye Transfer prints? Apparently even the weak alkalinity of most buffered conservation materials is no good for that and you have to use something neutral. But Dye Transfer printing is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this thread.

UV glass and conservation board/adhesives are basically all you can do, and they are good. For framing metal is probably best but I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you're using particularly stinky plastic etc. The other option is to keep the print in sterile, climate controlled dark storage. That's a great way to enjoy a piece of art, and also not expensive at all.

Also in the end who cares. With reasonable care things will last long enough and what does it matter thereafter, unless anyone here seriously thinks their stuff needs to last hundreds of years, in which case haha good one.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't use any generic solution. The high cost of a serious color installation warrants a tailored approach, evaluating the lighting conditions in advance, discussions with the architect or owner. I'm getting older and less ambitious now, but have used all kinds of framing solutions, including expensive proprietary true hermetic sealing of displayed images. I kept a large variety of mounting board, mat and museum board, and mounting tissues and adhesives on hand; and for all practical purposes, had my own commercial quality frame shop.

I do use metal frames. I have a overhead loft with a selection of Nielsen 10 ft metal sections still on hand, and an industrial quality mitering station. I have a commercial glass cutter capable of cutting up to 6 ft wide glass a quarter inch thick - that should tell you something. But I prefer acrylic for framing.

Coated glass was useful when I was doing static mounting of moderate sized Cibachromes, where one does not want an acrylic face capable of a static charge itself, potentially pulling the print away from the static charge behind the print. But current Fuji Supergloss is not static prone, a great improvement over Ciba in one respect, but a minus if one wants to offer static mounting, which was extremely smooth yet also reversible.

On my day job basis prior to retirement, I was a supplier of equipment and finishes, plus technical advice, to both museum shops and large picture frame wholesale fabricators, as well as to many high-end architectural restoration projects, as also many serious artists and artisans receiving very high commissions for their work. No one shoe size fits all.

[faberryman]

I don't use any generic solution. The high cost of a serious color installation warrants a tailored approach, evaluating the lighting conditions in advance, discussions with the architect or owner. I'm getting older and less ambitious now, but have used all kinds of framing solutions, including expensive proprietary true hermetic sealing of displayed images. I kept a large variety of mounting board, mat and museum board, and mounting tissues and adhesives on hand; and for all practical purposes, had my own commercial quality frame shop.

I do use metal frames. I have a overhead loft with a selection of Nielsen 10 ft metal sections still on hand, and an industrial quality mitering station. I have a commercial glass cutter capable of cutting up to 6 ft wide glass a quarter inch thick - that should tell you something. But I prefer acrylic for framing.

Coated glass was useful when I was doing static mounting of moderate sized Cibachromes, where one does not want an acrylic face capable of a static charge itself, potentially pulling the print away from the static charge behind the print. But current Fuji Supergloss is not static prone, a great improvement over Ciba in one respect, but a minus if one wants to offer static mounting, which was extremely smooth yet also reversible.

On my day job basis prior to retirement, I was a supplier of equipment and finishes, plus technical advice, to both museum shops and large picture frame wholesale fabricators, as well as to many high-end architectural restoration projects, as also many serious artists and artisans receiving very high commissions for their work. No one shoe size fits all.

So no information, just self-aggrandizing statements. How helpful.

[Drew Wiley]

This is how it's done, faberryman. Specific info is based on specific application. Want a generic answer and price? - go to some shopping mall DIY framing outlet instead. True custom framing is different. There are entire trade association websites of their own involving the picture framing trade, with lots of info articles. Limit it to just photographs, and there are all kinds of options within that single overall category, depending on archival requirements and personal esthetic taste. Lots of handbooks are in print. All the serious product manufacturers and distributors have their own informational sites and tech literature. Ask a specific question, and you might get a specific answer. But insulting someone with actual experience is likely to be a non-starter.

As for my friend Koraks, my expertise goes right up to the pandemic line, and I still keep updated. It goes way beyond power tools. Keeping with chemical reformulations of finishes etc is more difficult, since many of my inside contacts have now themselves retired. Fuji might state something in good faith (if from the engineering side rather than customer service dept guessing); but testing and seeing real world results under a wide variety of conditions, and comparing the end result with other print media, is a brass tacks kind of evidence of its own, and often differs from extrapolated accelerated guesstimates based on a limited number of lab-controlled variables. I'm not particularly worried in Fuji's case, since they've already made significant improvements. But talking 200, 400 yrs... C'mon. Did they factor in a few world wars during that cycle, or fade resistance to nuke fallout?

Otherwise, when I can actually get ahold of one of these newer papers in sufficient width, which you or they allegedly claims is not ideally suitable for darkroom use, I'll test it relative to my own needs. If necessary, curve restructuring via masking was routine before scanning and digital printing days. No big deal; it's easy enough to do. In the meantime, my big Fujiflex roll is capable of producing superb results for those images where a high gloss is suitable. I doubt it can be done better digitally, or at least have never seen anything which would give me that impression; and there is an awful lot of fancy printing technology in this part of the world. And every good printmaker learns to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of his chosen medium, and make the most of them.

But I am awaiting your own LED printing head results relative to at least some variety of Fuji CA paper. No matter what, each such venture is another helpful step in the exploration process.

[faberryman]

This is how it's done, faberryman. Specific info is based on specific application. Want a generic answer and price? - go to some shopping mall DIY framing outlet instead. True custom framing is different. There are entire trade association websites of their own involving the picture framing trade, with lots of info articles. Limit it to just photographs, and there are all kinds of options within that single overall category, depending on archival requirements and personal esthetic taste. Lots of handbooks are in print. All the serious product manufacturers and distributors have their own informational sites and tech literature. Ask a specific question, and you might get a specific answer. But insulting someone with actual experience is likely to be a non-starter.


Layer after layer of obfuscation.

By the way, I was recently in San Francisco and had an opportunity to view the Bernd and Hilla Becher exhibit at SFMOMA. While I was impressed with the photographs and underlying intellectual and aesthetic concept, I thought I could have done a better job mounting and framing the photographs in my own mounting and framing studio.

[Drew Wiley]

obfuscation? Them is big words. Yes, I too have seen some disappointing mats in particular in relation to public exhibits. And I detest the current trend of making all the mat margins equilateral, the lazy way even for a computerized matcutting machine. I guess obfuscation also involves scoping out a display installation in advance with a lux meter and color temp meter on hand, and an alignment laser too, plus specific mat samples, and then printing the work relative to the end purpose? Obviously, there's no need to do that anymore, since everyone in the know simply goes to Ikea and buys a big color inkjet print on over-laminated canvas. Might as well throw in a black velvet rug or two in the meantime, and appeal to an even wider audience. I'm surprised the SF MMA doesn't have some of those on display. Elvis is at least as famous as Warhol.

I rarely drive across the Bridge anymore to SF. Traffic can be such a mess that direction. I could see the Bridge from my former office window, and if traffic was flowing smoothly, would slip over the Bridge after work when SF MMA was open in the evenings. I was also involved in certain activities at the Convention Center just down the street. In between, all the granite involved in the MLK Memorial fountain came from a quarry my father temporarily bought out just for the surplus granite block scrap. But in terms of photography per se, don't forget the Oakland Museum; it has one of the best collections in the country, though with a different emphasis than SF MMA. I interacted with their display facility on a routine basis, though the specific individuals are now all either retired or deceased. They were an enthusiastic and dedicated crew, and the best smoothwall drywaller in the whole area volunteered some of his time - when he was sober.

[Michael R]

Drew what sort of clientele have you come across that goes to the length of using colour illuminance meters for display?

[Drew Wiley]

Happy clients. I'm referring to big permanent or semi-permanent installations. Basic gallery sales require a more middle of the road approach, though I always did my own framing. Just like any serious lighting store, I had a bank of various lights set up with different switches, to simulate a variety of common illumination scenarios. Tungsten bulbs were common, so as a personal printing standard, I settled on 4000K, midway between household tungsten and diffuse daylight. Now I standardize on 5000K, but if needed, can adjust color prints to some other standard. Any serious architectural project factors in specific lighting characteristics.

You need to understand that the same renovators and architects who came to me for technical advice often became my personal print buyers, and even became close friends. The company where I worked actually encouraged the interweaving of official business with personal moonlight income because it brought in a lot of new high-end clientele based on confidence. The inventory was at that time also being tailored by us, including me as one of the primary buyers, according to that very demand we were creating in advance. The same outfits which relied on me for specific products and technical information would hire me as a private color consultant or architectural photographer, and then even buy framed prints from me for sake of their personal or corporate projects. It all added up, though family responsibilities chipped away at that, and I did fewer outright exhibitions as time went on. These were largely top end people when it came to skill and level of project, which included the digs and yachts of the richest tech moguls in the world, along with significant historical restoration projects. Their education level was generally very high too. Now that whole generation is gradually thinning out. But they prided themselves on their level of craft and professionalism, and sought out likeminded individuals. It was a fun career, but demanding, with zero tolerance for any kind of BS. Practical jokes were a different category - those could be elaborate and ostentatious.

[faberryman]

The company where I worked actually encouraged the interweaving of official business with personal moonlight income because it brought in a lot of new high-end clientele based on confidence. The inventory was at that time also being tailored by us, including me as one of the primary buyers, according to that very demand we were creating in advance. The same outfits which relied on me for specific products and technical information would hire me as a private color consultant or architectural photographer, and then even buy framed prints from me for sake of their personal or corporate projects. It all added up, though family responsibilities chipped away at that, and I did fewer outright exhibitions as time went on. These were largely top end people when it came to skill and level of project, which included the digs and yachts of the richest tech moguls in the world, along with significant historical restoration projects. Their education level was generally very high too. Now that whole generation is gradually thinning out. But they prided themselves on their level of craft and professionalism, and sought out likeminded individuals. It was a fun career, but demanding, with zero tolerance for any kind of BS. Practical jokes were a different category - those could be elaborate and ostentatious.

Would you share with forum members the name of the company you worked for?

[Drew Wiley]

Times up.