Kodak Endura & Fuji Crystal Archive

Hi,

 

There are a few things I need a little enlightenment about:

 

1. I know (or should I say I think) Kodak Endura is a pro paper only but I believe there are

several different levels of quality of Fuji Crystal Archive. Is this true?

 

2. If it is true about the Fuji paper... What are the different papers and their qualities or

lack there of.

 

3. What is your personal knowlege of both the Kodak and Fuji papers both qualitatively

(how you feel) and quantitatively (what the numbers say)?

 

Thanks,

Drew

All endura and crystal archive paper is now designated Pro paper.

 

Andrew, I use endura super and endura metalic in my home darkroom there are 3 types endura paper AFAIK portra, metalic and supra.

 

Fuji has 2 types afaik of crystal archive cdII and super C. CDII is for mostly LED or laser exposure super C for optical.

 

It is becoming slim picking n the sheet paper market much wider selection in rolls.

 

I use kodak because I like the look better IMO.

 

Check out Bhphoto or adorama and see there selecion. If you need detailed paper info fujifilm and kodak websites have days of reading on there papers.

 

Hope this helps.

You may want to review data on print lifetime at this site"

 

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

 

Do a search on Kodak Endura and you will find an article about the difference between the test method that Kodak uses compared to everyone else. The method Kodak uses gives print lifetime (fading) results that are almost 4X what you would get with the test that everyone else uses. Fuji Crystal Archive has a considerably longer lifetime relative to print fading than Kodak paper. I think Kodak should fix the problem rather than change the test method to get a better answer. I just finished replacing images printed on Kodak paper that had faded in less than 17 years - I used Fuji Crystal Archive or Epson Ultrachrome prints.

Even the stuff (FujiCA) at wal-mart is pro grade?

 

Thank you for the great responses... I can always count on photo.net when I can't get the

answer elsewhere :)

 

Drew

Don't let the word "PRO" fool you anymore it and "HERO" have been dumbed down till the truth is murky I guess since few "Amatuers" print at home everything must be "PRO" lol I absolutly hate corperate advertising people they are such a bunch of idiots...or is the average consumer the idiot...sheeps to a slaughter they said yeah yeah...anyway i am not crazy...or am I.hehehhehehehhe....

 

I am really tired off to bed.

 

,Grinder

The article Robert refers to above from the Wilhelm site is mainly discussing ink-jet or digital papers. It may not apply well to photo papers.

 

There must be some sort of standard established, but there is not.

 

When I ran tests on color paper, we used 2000 FCH illumination 24 hrs/day. It was found that at that high level we could induce fade very rapidly but there were problems as the actual light was intermittant in a home or gallery and there was consideralbe contribution from oxygen diffusion into the print. There was a 'relaxation' phenomenon that took place under this type of intermittant illumination. Of course, heat and humidity are also significant factors, and oscillations in these cause the effects of light and oxygen to vary.

 

Therefore, we found that print fade had a degree of 'reciprocity' built into it as well depending on intensity and duration.

 

I'm not sure how well anyone's fading tests predict into the real world. I know this. Some prints I have kept well and others kept poorly even though all were kept under the same relative conditions. It might be the wash water or the batch of paper. By this time, over 20 - 30 years later, who can tell. (note that - I'm seeing fade but in the 20 - 30 year time frame. I have prints 50+ years old that still look great but are slightly yellow, but it varies)

 

Endura paper has a projected lifetime of about 200 years according to Kodak's web site. IDK how well the accelerated tests they use now can be used to predict that, but I'm sure that there is some degree of assurance that todays paper keeps x times longer than the old paper under the same conditions and that can be reported on.

 

In the 60s and 70s, Fuji paper faded much more rapidly than Kodak paper, and Wilhelm concentrated on Kodak at that time. About the same time, Fuji came out with a new, more stable paper. Then Kodak did the same, and the race has been seesawing back and forth ever since.

 

I would say pick the paper that looks best to you. I would further say that no one you know will be alive when the prints made from today's conventional photographic papers start to fade appreciably if kept under normal home storage (wall hanging or album). In fact, the real problem may begin to be the paper support that the prints are coated on. That will be a problem for all prints, digital included and B&W included.

 

Ron Mowrey

Grinder,

 

You make a good point. Marketing is often misleading!

 

Don,

 

What a thorough answer with many great points to consider.

 

Fortunatly, with digital, we can always just print another. Execpt of course if you are a

client receiving a print.

 

I have been thinking of swithcing to WHCC for my printing. They clarified for me that they

use Fuji Super PD2 which after reviewing the Fuji site is indeed truly a pro paper.

 

I wonder which one wal-mart uses. BTW... I hate Wal-Mart in general so i will never go

there except in a pinch anyway.

 

Any other comments out there?

 

Thanks everyone!

RE: Endura and most other metallic paper, does anyone feel like these are "gimmicky" papers? Gimmicky in the same way a fisheye lens can sometimes be? I love the paper myself and got some beautiful air show B&W prints out of my last outing, but as I was looking at them on my table I started to worry that mainstream taste (which I know there's no accounting for) might receive the paper like it's a gimmick for attention.

I doubt Walmart's Fuji CA paper is pro grade, but if Sam Walton

personally sends me e-mail to the contrary, I may change my mind.

<P>

According to <A HREF="http://wilhelm-research.com/4x6/WIR_4x6_Prints_2005_07_03.pdf">

this PDF at Wilhelm's site</A>, Epson pigment inks on Photo Paper

last 104 years before noticeable fading,

Fuji Crystal Archive type 1 from a Frontier lasts 40 years,

Agfa Sensatis (RIP) from d-Lab lasts 22 years,

Kodak Edge and Royal Generations last 19 years,

and Canon inkjet prints touted by many photo.netters last 4 years.

No, Wal-Mart's (and Costco's and Walgreens', etc) CA is Type 1 - equivalent to Kodak Edge

- a very thin amateur paper.

 

I wouldn't put too much consideration in Wilhelm's methods - I'm not sure that test results

over 20 years or so are too meaningful - that's about 100 years for album storage or dark

hallway display... You get problems with the paper base and stuff before dye fading... and

we have no tests that consider that.

 

Also remember, just because we should, that Wilhelm (rather publically) holds a grudge

against Kodak - while that probably does not affect his methods, we must consider the

possibility.

<p>Wilhelm's tests are the best, period. I've been depending on them for decades, dark storage, films, papers and digital papers. Kodak has been lying on their longevity, and has no standard. Wilhelm does, and Kodak vs Fuji in same conditions is about 1/4th longevity, that is HUGE.<br>

I used to bring my own papers to the labs if they did not have Fuji, the one I now use does.</p>