RA-4/color darkroom printing in 2021

[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]

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!.)