Kodak Professional Endura Premier Paper

[mups]

OK, I'll get on that soon.

I hear you mups. However I respectfully disagree with you regarding "unlimited possibilities offered by digital". Just to be clear, I'm limiting my discussion to color balancing and proper exposure to express the full potential of what the individual neg holds on the finished print (changing content is a whole other ball of wax).

I'm also speaking about color balance and density. You're right, I might not there be thinking in the absolute best interest of the neg, but in mine, be the results inferior. It's just that I don't think I can do this job if I'm not excited by how I do it, and spending hours in front of a screen certainly isn't my idea of fun ! 15 years ago, many photographers begged me to get into digital because they said I'd know how to keep it "normal", "natural". I saw that I "taming the beast", keeping it under control. Don't know if this is a clear way of saying it but I much rather be working at 99 on a scale of 100 possibilities than at 1 on a scale a 1 000 (or 1 000 000)... Again, that's only good as long as I have enough clients thinking the same way.

BTW, I'm a big Grant fan as well and ride a 1988 miyata 1000. But I use indexed shifting - oh the horror!

I have a 1990 ZIP MTB poisoned by titanium and with a road style fork designed by Tom Ritchey. TR from whom I have a custom made road bike from the same era, all fillet brazed...

[Drew Wiley]

Each company makes several flavors of RA4. Excluding the "room temp" abbreviated DIY formulas, the pro chem varies with respect to replenishment regimen more
within the brand than brand versus brand. I don't plan on testing for that variable, since I don't need to, and it's one less thing to worry about. It's certainly common for Kodak paper to be routinely processed in Fuji chem, and even visa versa, though Fuji-Hunt is top dog in chem distribution at this point in time.

[mups]

Right... I should have thought about mentionning this to start with ! I use these two :

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm. I use a slightly different set called RA/RT by Kodak, or more recently an Arista clone of it, which performs absolutely identically. I can even switch the respective kit components with no distinction in method or result. But to describe this accurately, I'd have to look at the specific product numbers, not just the label, which of course also signifies the volume of the concentrates.

[frotog]

FYI...

Kodak Ektacolor RA Developer Replenisher RT is the equivalent to EU Kodak Ektacolor Prime Developer Replenisher LU. Different cat. #'s, different markets, same product. This was confirmed for me by Kodak Professional.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks. When I find something that works, I stick with it. Fortunately, the RA/RT formula can be precisely reproduced, and has been. I never had good luck with Tetenal.

[mups]

Over the years, Kodak EU so many times changed the names, the references and the packagings sizes that it could very well be that LU was at one point called RT... One day, they stopped making 5 and 20L kits, so the smallest I could buy was to make 50 ! I struggled with that for a year (very different dilution) untill someone told me that the 5L was available again...

[Mark Sampson]

I've been following this thread with interest. From 1985-2008 I worked at Kodak as photographer and lab tech. We ran the color lab as well as made the photographs, so I have long experience with C-41, EP-2, and RA-4 chemistry and processors. Of course we used our own materials, so I'm intrigued with the mis-matches between manufacturers... we used Ektacolor RA/RT in a 42" Kreonite roller-transport machine. All that was closed down in '08 when some contracts ended, and I haven't made C-prints (for myself or on the job) since. I can't say I miss mixing the chemistry or maintaining the processors at all. If/when I go back to LF color I'll scan and print inkjet.

[mups]

I use a 24" Autopan Contimat 1000 that I bought used in 2000. The dryer is vertical, the paper first goes down, then back up and comes out on the top of the machine, what makes it very compact. And it's a tank...


The enlargers are Durst Pictochrom Plus and a 184 with the CLS2000.

[Drew Wiley]

I've been offered a very clean fifty inch Kreonite for free, but I'm allegic to RA4, so actually use a big roller processor on a cart which I push outdoors for the actual chemical steps. The drums are obviously loaded in the darkroom. Otherwise I have to set up a separate little light-tight bldg just for the process step. But I don't run a commercial lab. It's all my own work, mostly 8x10 film, so making just a few prints a week is enough. I'd like to put my twenty inch processor into use for more convenient printing of smaller format negs, but I'd still have the same logistical problem with the fumes ... so I dunno. Drums are just inherently safer for me personally. .. Inkjet is a completely different ballgame. They're inks, so kinda opaque rather than transparent. And the blacks tend to be mottled and blaah. For
many images I prefer the transparency of dyes. And I like the greater detail of true optical enlargements. But whatever...