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

[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.