Kodak Professional Endura Premier Paper

[Drew Wiley]

Frotog - first of all, that's the wrong tech sheet. Second, all someone has to do is get ahold of a Fuji price list to note the availability of CAII paper clear up to fifty inch wide rolls. You're welcome to call me a liar, but like I've told you before, I've got forty inch rolls of more than one flavor of it (all CAII) in my darkroom right now.
So does the main commercial lab around here. So do several other people who log into this forum from time to time. Anyone who has successfully printed Super C
or P won't have any problem with Type II. The speed and color balance are very similar. Easy. ... Otherwise, "ignore" function now deployed (long overdo).

[mnemosyne]

Hi, I am relatively new to RA4 printing and don't want to get involved with the dispute raging between the experts here, but to answer your original question, I found that Kodak Endura Premier gives me excellent results when printed optically.It is available as custom cut paper here in Germany. I printed mostly from Ektar or Portra 400 negatives using a desktop roller transport machine with Rollei Digibase chemicals, but will probably switch to Kodak Ektacolor RT/LU chemistry in the future. So, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't try the paper. Even if you don't have access to cut sheets, the price of RA4 paper is so modest it shouldn't be a problem to order a roll and cut your own sheets to try it out.

[tgtaylor]

I agree! The cost per sheet of 11x14 is only 56 cents and it should be easy to cut from a 11”x266’ roll. The only problem is that they are packaged two rolls to a case ($137.50/roll) which is too much paper for a single user. If two people can split a case (1 roll each) than that would be ideal. A 100 sheet of 11x14 CA runs almost $90 at B&H (90 cents a sheet).

Anyone out there interested in splitting a case?

Thomas

[mnemosyne]

I see, situation is a bit more comfortable here in Europe, as the rolls of 30.5 cm (12") and wider are available as single rolls. You might also want to look for someone to split a case over on APUG. Anyway, good luck in finding a partner for your purchase! One more thing, maybe of interest for those who think about starting with their own RA4 printing here in Europe ... In the beginning I tried the Fuji CA paper that is available as cut sheet in Germany from MACO. I have no idea if it is the same cut CA paper available abroad (the whole Fuji CA branding policy is really confusing), but it appears this is the budget (lowest quality) version of the CA available and the price is almost the same as for the custom cut Kodak paper, to which it is clearly inferior. When you compare both side by side, the Kodak paper has a thicker (stiffer) base, darker blacks (the Fuji blacks appear a bit mottled in direct comparison) and (the glossy version) shows a very beautiful gloss just from plain air drying, while the glossy Fuji CA paper has a somewhat dull appearance and has to go through a infrared dryer to show a nice gloss. There are other Fuji CA papers available here in rolls and I have no doubt that they are much better quality than the basic Fuji CA, but I am very happy with the Kodak Endura Premier paper right now, so I do not see any reason to switch horses.

[frotog]

I see, situation is a bit more comfortable here in Europe, as the rolls of 30.5 cm (12") and wider are available as single rolls. You might also want to look for someone to split a case over on APUG. Anyway, good luck in finding a partner for your purchase! One more thing, maybe of interest for those who think about starting with their own RA4 printing here in Europe ... In the beginning I tried the Fuji CA paper that is available as cut sheet in Germany from MACO. I have no idea if it is the same cut CA paper available abroad (the whole Fuji CA branding policy is really confusing), but it appears this is the budget (lowest quality) version of the CA available and the price is almost the same as for the custom cut Kodak paper, to which it is clearly inferior. When you compare both side by side, the Kodak paper has a thicker (stiffer) base, darker blacks (the Fuji blacks appear a bit mottled in direct comparison) and (the glossy version) shows a very beautiful gloss just from plain air drying, while the glossy Fuji CA paper has a somewhat dull appearance and has to go through a infrared dryer to show a nice gloss. There are other Fuji CA papers available here in rolls and I have no doubt that they are much better quality than the basic Fuji CA, but I am very happy with the Kodak Endura Premier paper right now, so I do not see any reason to switch horses.

Mottled blacks you say? Thin base? Clearly inferior when compared to premier? Sounds like European Ca in sheets is the same emulsion as CA-II here in the states. You are right, this is a budget paper, intended for minilab use and only later marketed as a cut sheet product to hobbyists - for those who remember RA-4 printing before all the cut paper disappeared this current fuji cut sheet product is not only an abomination but a cruel joke being played on those expecting a professional quality product.

Premier is decent but it has nowhere near the color fidelity of the old Supra Endura. These days, printing from digital files is so vastly superior to traditional c-printing that I see absolutely no reason to suffer through trying to make exhibition quality prints from materials not designed to be used under an enlarger. What could you possibly gain?

Admittedly, I'm still printing RA-4 under an enlarger but the bulk of my work this way is archiving. I still have some of the old supra in a chest freezer - some rolls, several hundred sheets of 11x14. Printing with this stuff after working with digitally optimized Premier makes me feel as though I've just removed ankle weights after walking around with them on all day long!

[frotog]

Frotog - first of all, that's the wrong tech sheet. Second, all someone has to do is get ahold of a Fuji price list to note the availability of CAII paper clear up to fifty inch wide rolls. You're welcome to call me a liar, but like I've told you before, I've got forty inch rolls of more than one flavor of it (all CAII) in my darkroom right now.
So does the main commercial lab around here. So do several other people who log into this forum from time to time. Anyone who has successfully printed Super C
or P won't have any problem with Type II. The speed and color balance are very similar. Easy. ... Otherwise, "ignore" function now deployed (long overdo).

The link I posted is to a tech sheet for Fuji Crystal archive Type II. This is clear as day. Only a fool or someone who has something to hide would say otherwise. This much is not news though...

But just for giggles - if not a tech sheet for Type II, please tell us what I linked to, Drew?

[tgtaylor]

The benefit of working with C-41 is that negative film has a far greater latitude than transparency and is much lower in cost. And, last but certainly least, you can print it “traditionally” using the RA-4 process and you can print it digitally.

Thomas

[agregov]

I've been printing with the Fuji papers in the darkroom for the past 4-5 years on either a Colex or Omnipro processors. Unfortunately, I don't yet have experience with Premier (love to try it!). But I have used Kodak Supra Endura. You can't get the Supra Endura any longer but I'd guess it will likely be in a similar ballpark as Premier. My experience:

• Fuji Crystal Type II - This is the thinest weight paper of the three I have used--easier to ding, though not much a problem for 16x20 and under. It's the least contrasty of the bunch and skews a bit on the blue/green side of things.
• Fuji Crystal Type C - This is a thicker weight paper than the Type II. It's more contrasty and I've noticed it picks up magenta/reds stronger than the Type II.
• Kodak Supra Endura - This is the thickest weight paper of the bunch. It's also the most contrasty with very strong, vibrant colors. Makes the Fuji papers look like they came from a different planet.

What do I personally prefer? If I had a paper cutter at home, I'd probably buy rolls of Type C and use that for most of my printing. It's a nice contrasty paper, straight forward to color correct by sight (as opposed to using a color analyzer) and readily available on B&H. But cutting paper is a pain. So, I primarily use Type II. I personally found the Kodak colors too strong for my taste and more difficult to color correct than the Fuji papers. I would have loved to print on the old Supra but I came to color analog printing just as it was being discontinued.

What I hope people just starting out printing RA4 don't take away from this thread is that Type II is shitty paper. Because it's not. In fact, I work with advanced analog printers who prefer it as it offers a flatter look to their images. The irony in the whole "minilab" part of this discussion, is that if these labs weren't still around and doing decent business, there'd be no paper available at all. The paper manufacturers couldn't do enough business from the art crowd to justify continued manufacturing.

I've printed some spectacular images (IMHO) with Type II. I'm glad it's still around in cut sheets. As long as I have access to a Colex and Ominpro, I'll happily continue printing with it.

[Drew Wiley]

The color balance and speed of Super C, CAII, and Fujiflex are almost identical. The CAII RC-based paper is slightly lower contrast (but higher contrast than Type P). It is a brighter white paper, so renders some hues cleaner, and there are other minor color reproductions improvements. The cut sheet product is a bit thinner than
Super C, so in really big sizes some people prefer the older C paper, though I haven't had an issues handling it. The current Fujiflex is a tad more contrasty than either, with bolder blacks, but otherwise similar to expose. It is deluxe stuff which has the look of Cibachrome, costs a lot more than the paper-based products, and
is only available in big rolls at this time. I handle minor contrast change issues just like all of us did when printing chromes all these years - with unsharp masking.
That might be overkill for routine commercial printing, but is a valuable skill for fine-tuning high-quality prints. CAII is perfectly amenable to outstanding results in
this manner. But most of the time, the average darkroom printer doesn't even need to resort to that if they shoot the correct contrast color neg film for the
subject and lighting in the first place. Please don't get scared off people - printing from color negs onto RA4 papers is just about the easiest form of color printing I can think of, though you can up the quality with advanced techniques too, if you prefer, just like any other category of darkroom skill.

[Drew Wiley]

Another giant myth is that you can't get good prints optically, in the darkroom, with these current materials. A dedicated worker should be able to get prints AT
LEAST as good as a lab with an expensive Lightjet or Chromira or Lamda system. After all, you're going to avoid all the scanning headaches. And with large format
originals, you'll get sharper prints too, if your technique is good. But how you prefer to handle contrast and saturation is really a personal preference, whether PS
or hands-on darkroom style. Either way, an experienced worker should be able to obtain world-class quality with several current Fuji papers.