Has anyone used this paper for optical (RA-4) printing? How does it compare with Fuji? With Arista?
Thomas
Has anyone used this paper for optical (RA-4) printing? How does it compare with Fuji? With Arista?
Thomas
Shoot, no one on this forum has any experience with this paper. But I'm motivated to try it anyway. You have to but it in boxes of 2 rolls @$137.50 each for a 11"x288' roll. That computes to 246 11x14 sheets or 56 cents/sheet/roll. No bad really and this is supposed to be Kodak's best color paper. Should be easy to cut with my Logan matt cutter - just one cut per sheet and you can cut a 50 sheet box off the roll in no time.
Anyone interested in going half on a two roll order? Your cost would be $137.50 + 1/2 of whatever FedEx ground charges would be - probably ~$10. Send me a PM if interested.
Thomas
Hi, Thomas,
I have a few rolls of the Premier. Comparisons to Fuji CA-ii aren't fair as Ca-ii is cheap minilab paper.
A few things about premier...
It'll give you a solid black.
The colors under the enlarger aren't as true as the previous iteration from kodak, Endura VC.
It's nowhere near as good as the old Supra, namely due to crossover and increased saturation and contrast.
If you're committed to making c-prints under the enlarger, it is your best option.
If you're just looking to try it out, I can sell you a box of 50 sheets. PM me if interested.
PM sent.
Frotog is spinning the same badmouthing BS about Fuji as over on APUG, which has been abundantly refuted already by numerous users of CAII. He's welcome to
give a recommendation about Kodak paper (I have no experience with it). Fuji makes a number of CAII papers, and most of them enlarge superbly.
I'm not sure where you get your info from. Fuji CA ii is Fuji's name for a singular product in their photographic paper catalogue. As I've stated before, it is Fuji's only consumer paper in their current line-up of papers. And yes, it is cheap minilab paper with extremely low silver content. This much is fact and as such, indisputable.
Your feelings about the paper, on the other hand, are purely subjective and the possibility of true opinions regarding your results is limited only by the knowledge you bring to it.
I'm not going to waste as much time here as I did on APUG trying to convince someone about the merits of a WIDE SELECTION of papers he has obviously never even used, and in fact, doesn't even admit exists. Plenty of people on this forum know otherwise, and a few even make their living with optically enlarged CAII papers. Photofinishing or minilab products are just one small category of the offerings under the CAII designation. MY INFO is gotten from printing the real deal. I sure as heck haven't had any problem getting wide rolls of the stuff in a selection of surfaces, including glossy polyester. But one can't play a violin well with a hacksaw either, even though they insist a violin bow doesn't exist.
You are correct Drew, I've only used a handful of Fuji's paper offerings. However, I have printed under the enlarger with CAII (the paper that is still offered in cut sheets) and I can say this much with great confidence - it does not take a master printer to realize just how truly awful the CAII emulsion is. On the other hand, their professional offering, Fuji CN, is a fantastic paper when used with laser light as intended. Incidentally, type CN would be a much more apt comparison to Kodak's Premier.
For anyone curious about Fuji's current photographic paper line-up, you can get the complete rundown here (for the US)... http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/...als/index.html
Show me someone who is making their living printing with CAII and I'll show you a minilab operator.
Thanks for your contribution here, Drew. Best of luck with all your endeavors!
I'm still convinced you've tested a completely different paper than we are using here. If you just don't like something, that is your prerogative or taste. But the Fuji
CAII papers I've used are only about 5cc's different in green balance, on the average, from the highly regarded previous generation of Super C and P papers, with
slightly cleaner colors overall. And no, these are not mini-lab operators I'm referring to. Anything but. If anything, the results are even better optically enlarged than
with the expensive wide-format laser printers. It's just the prep stages of workflow which differ.
Well I’ve had good results in the past with Fuji CA but that was previous CA before the optimized for digital product and, perhaps more important, I was shooting Fuji 160-S and Fuji Realia back then. Now I’m shooting Kodak and there was thread on apug about printing Kodak negatives on Fuji paper. Apparently Kodak film didn’t print well on Fuji paper but surprisingly Fuji film printed well on Kodak paper. IRRC Ron Mowrey (PE) was instructed by Kodak to look into the disparity but I don’t recall the outcome.
In any event I want to compare both papers side by side to see which gives the better result. Also both papers are “optimized” for digital exposure and my enlarger uses a 250 watt halogen bulb. Would the difference (if any) in the light have any effect on the outcome? Both papers are processed RA-4.
Thomas
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks