Kodak Professional Endura: Film Preference?

[photoreu]

I'm wondering what films "go best" with this paper? I shoot

portraits and weddings, and use almost exclusively fuji films (just

because that's what I'm used to). Usually something from their

superia line or a low contrast NP_ film. Can I expect similar

results to when I get these printed on Fuji crystal archive on a

frontier (not at a pro lab)? What main differences will I see? I'm

just starting out and the pro lab in my area prints on the kodak

paper. Just wondering if there will be any notable differences, or

if maybe I should look into a comparable Kodak film. What would

perform best for what I do? I really like the service this lab

provides, but I havent had them print anything for me yet. Your

input is appreciated! Oh and the lab is Reedy Photoprocess corp in

St. Petersburg, FL.. anyone used them before?

[scott_eaton]

Biggest difference I've found with Endura is it's lower in saturation than the previous Kodak Portra III, which was not especially vivid, but it had some depth to it. One studio in town actually called me up at home a month ago noticing the same thing and wanted some affirmation they 'weren't on crack'. They plan on switching to Fuji CA.

 

Fuji Crystal Archive has gads more color gamut than Kodak Endura, provided you are using the *glossy* version. The lustre or matte based Fuji CA paper is a huge drop in color saturation over the glossy version, which is less of an issue with the Kodak papers. It's for that reason I stick to glossy Fuji CA, even for portraits.

 

I am not thrilled about printing the Portra film on Fuji paper, even though I admit it's a bit subjective with more tolerant films like Portra NC. NC just looks better to my eyes printed on Kodak pro paper tha Fuji, even though Endura lacks the better image qualities of the older Portra III.

 

Fuji Frontiers are usually going to excel at handling NPH, Reala and NPS. While I won't rule out simply moving your services to the Fuji shop and printing Portra films over there, I strongly recommend trying NPH on that Frontier. While a different 'look' than Kodak's conservative Portra/Portra combination, I find NPH on a Frontier to simply be a superior combination because of the better color gamut and neutrality of NPH. NPS is technically Fuji's counter for Portra NC, but I feel you should try NPH first and NPS second.

[photoreu]

I already shoot the fuji films.. I get them processed at a non-professional lab that uses a frontier. I want to use a pro lab for an upcoming wedding I'm going to shoot, (I'm just starting out), and they offer a good package. This particular lab uses the Kodak Endura paper, just wondering if I should continue using the fuji films, or if there is a kodak equivalent that will give better results on this particular paper. Either way I will be shooting some test rolls beforehand, just looking for some recommendations as to what to try. Thanks

[robert_davis2]

Endura Portra? Endura Supra? Ultra Endura?

 

I use Supra Endura for everything. Kodak,Agfa or fuji films. You'll see people complaining about Fuji papers only working with some films but I don't think you'll see many people complaining about Kodak.

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/papers/endura/features.jhtml?id=0.1.16.14.28.20.14&lc=en

[scott_eaton]

If you're looking to stick with the Kodak lab you'll find less of a problem using Fuji films on Kodak paper than Kodak films on Fuji paper. The lower the saturation of a color paper, the more compatibile it is with a greater variety of films. That's pretty much the rule of the jungle. Fuji CA paper is a prick with non Fuji films simply because of it's high color saturation.

 

Kodak Endura pretty much works with any professional film, and especially with Gold 100 in a pinch. In a subjective sense I find NPH to be a good performer on Endura, but a bit cool and clinical considering NPH has more neutrality than Kodak's Portra films. NPS is on the opposite extreme and tends to produce very 'blush' looking skin tones on the Kodak papers with the lowest contrast of all the Fuji and Kodak pro films. It's otherwise a very subjective comparison with the Kodak paper. In that respect Portra NC 160 should be the film you test since it's Kodak's flagship portrait film.

 

I'd also check with the pro lab since the good ones will be perfectly happy to give you their opinion on what films work best with their lines.

 

As a side bar, a Fuji Frontier with a Medium Format deck will produce better results from NPH than any combination with Kodak Endura. 35mm can be a problem with the Frontier though due to it's flaky scanning of small format films.

[photoreu]

Thank you, very informative. My main concern was exactly that: Fuji CA is so picky about what film you use.. it's a little comforting knowing I have a little more lattitude with respect to what film I choose. I will try the portra 160 and see how that turns out.

[rowland_mowrey]

Supra Endura has very saturated colors. The trick is to use RA-RT developer replenisher and develop for 1 minute at 100 deg F or 2 mins at 68 deg F. A nomograph will supply you with comparable times at other temperatures. EK publishes data on their web site, but I find that the developments times are a little low for my tastes.

 

Starter is not necessary. The information I mention here is not new. Even EK has stated that the replenisher can be used and will give somewhat more brilliant tones.

 

Even so, their published data yields very good results as does their regular developer and the replenisher with starter.

 

Using EK and Fuji films with EK papers does work better than using EK and Fuji films with Fuji papers. It is not a matter of contrast, but rather one of spectral sensitivity of the papers and the dye set.

 

Ron Mowrey

[scott_eaton]

<I>Supra Endura has very saturated colors</i><P>Bull. The only real difference between the two papers is essentially contrast, which is Kodak's way to market papers and films while losing market share. Same dye - same muddy reds because Kodak can't figure out to produce an archival, pure magenta paper dye without making their shareholders mad by actually investing in R&D. <P>Seriously, try to get a solid, bright red or magenta from Kodak Endura of any type. You can't, no matter how you tweak the chemistry. While Supra *might* just have slightly higher color Dmax due to higher contrast, you won't get more color saturation by using Supra. Why the heck you'd use Supra over Portra for "Portraits" doesn't make much sense to me anyways unless you need some shooting tips. Somebody needs to send Rowland a box of Fujiflex just to watch his eyes bleed when he prints it since he seems to take every claim by Kodak as gospel. <I><P> The trick is to use RA-RT developer replenisher and develop for 1 minute</i><P>Why would a commercial lab want to muck with their RA-4 times? If you want more color saturation, use Fuji CA. Or, take your stuff to a lab using Kodak Edge paper which has more saturation than Endura Supra because Edge uses the older dyes with more gamut range.

[rowland_mowrey]

Scott;

 

The point is that neither commercial labs nor anyone else has to muck with their times, as the standard times give very good colors to start with. I just said what I did to get higher saturation myself.

 

And, as my comments about the quality of Endura paper are my opinion based on over 40 years of experience in photography and using thousands of sheets of Endura this year with both EK and Fuji film, yours are your opinion based on your ? years of experience and how much personal lab time? (insert # at ? because I don't know) It is for Reuben to try out and decide for himself.

 

For Reuben's benefit, he should know how subjective photography is, and that 'truth' is in the eye of the beholder. The truth is that Fuji film prints well on EK or Fuji paper, but EK film does not print well on Fuji paper. Which film or paper is up to you to decide by trying them out.

 

I have, and find them both good (the films), but different. I like Agfa negative films for some things as a matter of fact, so each film has good and bad points. Again, the bottom line is that EK tries to maintain compatibility with all negative films as far as their paper is concerned. Even Scott has conceded this in the past.

 

I dont' have a strong rant or rave either way about any of the films or papers. I suggest that if you wish to use a large variety of films from different manufacturers, then stick to EK paper.

 

Ron Mowrey

[photoreu]

Thanks guys... I realize it's all very subjective and opinionated... and really I wont really know what I like until I try out the different combinations. The main thing I'm looking for is a pro lab where they'll actually give my work some attention instead of just processing it through along with everyone elses holday snapshots... Just so happens the pro lab closest to me uses endura paper.. There is one about twice the distance that prints on CA, with better hours, but the distance is really a factor I have to consider. I'm sure I'll try combinations at both places before I make up my mind. Thanks for all your input.. I'll let you know what I find out... then you can hear MY opinion :)

[elliot_n]

As someone else said, Kodak Endura Supra for everything (Kodak, Fuji, whatever -

adjust film development as required).

 

(I noticed no change in saturation when moving to Endura from its predecessor.)

[rowland_mowrey]

Elliot;

 

AFAIK, the aim curve for EK color papers has been unchanged for over 30 years. That is one thing that can be fixed.

 

Dye hues and spectral sensitivities are also have well established acceptable limits.

 

Therefore, what you say is quite reasonable and matches my experience closely.

 

Ron Mowrey

[scott_eaton]

<I>And, as my comments about the quality of Endura paper are my opinion based on over 40 years of experience in photography and using thousands of sheets of Endura this year with both EK and Fuji film, yours are your opinion based on your ? </i><P>In the year or so you've been here all I've learned from you is that <b><P>"Internegs are better than digital scans and prints from slides"<P>"There is no difference between Kodak and Fuji papers"<P>"Color negs have just as much color saturation as slides"<P>"Kodak Endura has the same saturation as Portra III"<P>"Kodak motion picture film is equal to if not superior than professional short roll print films."<P></b>All claims that the part time counter staff at any commercial lab would chuckle and treat you like an Alheizemers victim standing in the lobby. Essentially you're an old Kodak hack that's unable to post a single example of your tests, and I personally doubt can measure gamut range nor apply a paper profile if asked, but you'll fiddle with RA-4 process time like there's some glory to it.<P>No offense Rowland, but the reason I refused three job offers at Kodak in the early 90's was because (a) the money wasn't good enough, (b) I considered Kodak color materials to be over-marketed and under-tech © Too many of the people I encountered at Rochester coulnd't think out-side the conceptual box their employer presented them, (d) Kodak deliberatly kept their employees and technicians blind to Fuji's threat, while Kodak lied to customers (e) I personally found the the staff that worked for Kodak and their surrounding engineers (like you) to simply not be that intelligent and had poor clinical skills.<P>You keep talking about how there's nothing wrong with Endura while Kodak can't buy market share, and with all your 40 years of experience it still appears you are using EP-2 testing and stndards as your reference. I've tested and profiled over half a dozen professional digital systems with Kodak Professional papers, and I could show side by side samples of Endura vs Portra III vs Fuji CA. You'd still frikken argue with me, not post any color work of your own, and continue to tell people that all RA-4 papers are the same because you've got Kodak on the brain and still living in 1982. I find it better at this point to simply ignore you just like somebody promoting amatuer print films .

[scott_eaton]

<I>As someone else said, Kodak Endura Supra for everything (Kodak, Fuji, whatever - adjust film development as required). </i><P>I have no issue with Kodak papers for Portrait/wedding work, because this is what they were designed to excel at. I also want to know why you are adjusting film development vs using a different film? For other stuff or general shooting, I'd use the Fuji lab. <P>Kodak hasn't improved the gamut range of their papers in 15years, and even though the better lab gets the biz, I don't want all of my work to have the same color standards and saturation as a 1978 senior portrait, which is Kodak's technical standard for Endura. It's a dull paper, and Endura DID take a hit in gamut range over Portra III, especially magenta. Not my fault you guys aren't noticing a difference because you aren't using subject matter to show it. When I photograph something that's red, I want to see red, not brownish/burgandy, which is what Endura yields.

[rowland_mowrey]

Scott;

 

Since others agree with my position regarding most of those issues above, and since my opinion echos Ctein regarding Endura (see his comments in Photo Techniques) I would feel that your opinion is the outlier here. To others reading this, please see other comments here on motion picture film and comments above about Supra vs Endura to verify what I say.

 

I'm sorry that EK's monetary offer to you was not what you expected. EK's offer to me was higher than anyone made to me, and I assure you that the others were very good. Hmmm, I wonder if that tells us both something.

 

And the other parts of my career were also important parts in the development of my sense of photographic quality. Scott, a transparency made from color negative can equal or exceed that made from a reversal film. That has been accepted for years. Professional photographers often shot on negative and then gave magazine editors dup positive slides. You just don't know enough about photography.

 

Ron Mowrey