Lab processing to prints on Fuji Crystal archive paper

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>[Tim] Was wondering, Bill, whether you had to deal with those issues in the editing booth color tests and could distinguish how much the color cast was influencing adaptive perception over what the spiky spectra did to the color tables of the print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, the rule is that you just go by what you see; it is what it is. The neutral background and white borders, etc., help you adapt, and our color booths were wide enough to be immersive. As a warning, it doesn't take long to corrupt your judgement, you want to look around the room periodically to re-normalize. So the "color temperature" of the surrounding room is ideally not too different.</p>

<p>The human eye can't see whether the light spectrum is continous or not, or even what the spectral makeup is like, so all we have to go on is simply the visual appearance of the print.</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>[Mike] Bill, few people have this level of access to an RA4 printer. And as far as sRGB goes you may be correct.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Earlier you said, "Tim has produced a very good example of the superiority of inkjet prints over RA4. This is the same comparison I made many years ago and why I completely switched to printing the smaller sizes myself. Your wet prints may look good to you in isolation, but if you ever compare them to ones made on an inkjet you'll never want to use RA4 again."</p>

<p>Since Tim was using sRGB, this is what I answered. And as I said earler, I'm not doubting that you got poor results from an RA-4 process. All I'm saying is that this was not an inherent deficiency in professional RA-4 papers (in comparison to an ink jet print). Coulda' been a cut-rate paper in use, though, (probably is) but most likely the main problem is something wrong with the implementation.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As I am not at the stage of producing superior quality pigment inkjet prints I have the choice of having RA-4 wet process prints made from my digital files. An equivalent 10 x15 inch exhibition or for sale print via RA-4 and Fuji paper costs me $8.98, albeit a special price the lab quoted for producing a series of prints for an exhibition, whereas a pigment ink inkjet equivalent 10 x 15 would cost me $50.00 (no differentiation in price of inkjet prints between 10 x 15 and 12 x 18, and no discount, as the lab sends this work out to another lab).</p>

<p>Frankly, I have trouble understanding the apparently very great difference (from the comments here) between RA-4 and the inkjet prints. My B&W RA-4 are absolutely free of color tint and are full-toned B&W on matt paper with a very good appearance, at least as good as my RC (not FB) B&W prints from my own darkroom, and I have a lot of experience making fine B&W prints. As for color, the RA-4 from my lab is extremely good with well saturated and realistic colors and absolutely no off-white tints.</p>

<p>So, while I may indeed see some small difference with some images between inkjet and RA-4, I have trouble imagining great differences. The $9 Fujicolor print versus the $50 professional lab inkjet print means something when some 15 to 20 prints must be paid for and mounted. There is no assurance that even one half will be sold in a short time frame.</p>

<p>My original question concerned the longevity of the wet process print to the point of a small initial fading. If the practice at my local lab gives me confidence that this would indeed be 40 years, or two human generations, that may be enough.</p>

<p>There are no doubt high quality and moderate quality inkjet prints, and the same variation no doubt also exists for RA-4.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>So, while I may indeed see some small difference with some images between inkjet and RA-4, I have trouble imagining great differences.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to Bill's caveats about controlling pro RA-4 processes to get best results so there are no great differences from inkjets, I just showed you with my posted image samples what the big differences are when RA-4 is not professionally controlled for Fuji Crystal Archive paper which my sample is printed on. Apparently you've found a pro RA-4 process and I'ld advise you stick with it especially considering their cheaper price over inkjet prints which I wasn't aware.</p>

<p>An 8x10 on the Walgreens Fuji Frontier inkjet drylab costs me $4 each. Online printers are much cheaper but use a different print process and paper thus I'm not able to compare apples to apples with regard to quality and consistency across a wide range of images.</p>

<p>But my Walgreens DOES NOT professionally run their drylab in that, even though there are no chemical processes to maintain, their poorly trained multitasking "Photo Specialists" don't want to bother with pressing one button to turn off "Auto Enhance" and another button choosing "Printer Color Space" in the Fuji driver interface so I can convert my ProPhotoRGB files directly to the ICC drylab profile off Fuji's European website whose gamut hovers around NTSC. They leave the sRGB button color space and "Auto Enhance" selected. No chemicals to deal with but now they can't seem to push two buttons. It never ends!</p>

<p>But you're original question was concerns about print longevity with RA-4 process on Fuji Crystal Archive which is anyone's guess because all we have to go on is Wilhelm Institute ratings.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>because all we have to go on is Wilhelm Institute ratings</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which is an ideal value, if all other processing conditions are optimum, but one which can vary in practice depending upon how well the wet processing is done (and for automatic machines, how well it is monitored and controlled) to give the most permanent image possible with the media and process. Unfortunately, such information on print durability in practice is hard to get. We may just have to trust whichever lab we have chosen on the basis of their visually high quality printing and good Q/P ratio.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>For those interested, I am having the two RA-4 10 x 15 images also printed by inkjet and pigment inks at a respected photo studio in my city. $25 for a 15 x 22,5 inch print on overdimensioned standard perlé paper, not Hahnemule but still attractive. Will let you know my findings as to image quality.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The pigment ink inkjet prints are back and I am impressed by the quality, especially as the larger ones were made from only a 140 or 150 ppi file. I think the red-majenta tones of the Crystal Archive print are slightly better but other tones are very similar. I overestimated the cost of the professional lab. It was only 1/2 of the 50$ price quoted by the RA-4 lab for sending out to another lab. Longevity of each? No way to know for sure, but I feel confident that the 40 year to first perceptible fading will be right.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>I also feel that concern over longevity is overblown under ordinary display circumstances. The only reason I am concerned is that in some cases the customer will display the prints in an office or front room with a large window which accelerates fading. And I really don't wish my prints to fade fast under any circumstance.<br>

Besides image quality and longevity my other reasons for printing my own prints are cost and speed, as well as the ability to experiment with color variations rapidly. But if this is not something that interests you and you're happy with the results from a good lab then stick with that.</p>

[Bill C]

<p>Mike, I don't know where your confidence comes from. I've spent my adult life working in photography, and I've seen image-stability problems, and I've heard plenty of confident people talk about how stable their products are. And sometimes it turns out they don't really know anything about it.</p>

<p>Here's a real example, without names. I should mention that I'm not a typical photo.net person; I've worked on behalf of a large chain, so have had extraordinary access to all sorts of technical info. Anyway, a certain media vendor wanted to sell my company inkjet media - a half dozen or so papers with their own inks. Beautiful materials, especially a canvas-finish paper.</p>

<p>[technical part - feel free to skip] The paper was the big selling point. It was one of those papers where the ink is quickly wicked through a permeable surface into an absorbant layer so that fresh prints resist smudging even though the ink has not yet dried. But the mechanism required dye inks, pigments couldn't get through the surface layer. The dyes are more easily damaged by ozone (in the ambient air), so they had a novel feature - an intermediate catalyst layer converts ozone to plain oxygen. Per them, a specific competitor used a similar paper structure, but with some sort of buffering material. So the competitor's media should hold up in an ozone-rich situation UNTIL the buffering material was completely used up, then the dyes would be attacked. But with this new media, since catalysts are not used up, it should resist ozone for an indefinite length of time. So this gives an idea of the sorts of things that can be going on in inkjet prints.</p>

<p>So I asked, as I generally do, can you support your claims with actual image-stability test data? We won't consider using it without hard evidence (we are not Mike Earussi). If none is available, we'll test it ourselves. They say they'll find out and get back with me. On the call-back, there's no immediate data available, but they're going to get some for me. A couple of months later, they send data. They had commissioned testing, on my behalf, by the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester N.Y.</p>

<p>Anyway, the point of this is that a name brand supplier was selling advanced-technology inkjet media, and promoting the enhanced image stability, BUT THEY REALLY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE. In my experience, this is fairly typical for many suppliers. So if, as a photographer, you have much "skin in the game," it seems prudent to do as Arthur does, and seek out actual hard data with the materials you plan to use.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Bill, my "confidence" in inkjet permanence is nonexistent because I haven't done my own tests directly. I just have access to Wilhelm's tests like everyone else, which shows that inkjet prints last over 2x as long as RA-4 prints. But how that translates into the real world no one knows because none of the material has existed for that long. But as that's all the data any of us have, it's what I work with. But if you know of actual data that shows otherwise I'd be happy to look at it. </p>

<p>My personal experience has to do with overall image <em>quality</em> of inkjet vs RA-4. And as I can print my own inkjet but can't print RA-4 then my comparisons are naturally limited to the skill level of the RA-4 printing services I have access to, as are everyone else's, as practically no one prints their own RA-4 anymore in their own home lab. If you have the ability to print your own RA-4, that's great <em>for you,</em> but is not pertinent to anyone else unless you plan on opening your own printing business.</p>

<p>The vast majority of us are stuck using whatever labs are available. For me that's either the local grocery one hour machines (which are highly variable) or Costco's more professional service which is good but not better than what I can turn out using my own inkjet printing system.</p>

<p>Now somewhere in the U. S. there may be a RA-4 lab that is better than Costco, but given the time and cost of shipping I see no reason to use it. At present it costs me $1.03 to print my own 12x18, and I can do so in less than 10 minutes. I doubt there is any RA-4 lab that can match that price (and certainly not the time), especially if you consider my travel time and gasoline costs. So why would I ever want return to RA-4? This is why I encourage everyone to print their own: you not only save time and money, but you learn so much doing so by having direct control of your own printing. <br>

</p>

[Bill C]

<p>Mike, how can you say that you don't have confidence in inkjet permanence when you say things like this, "Besides image quality and <strong>longevity</strong> my other reasons for printing my own prints..." Or this, "The only reason I am concerned is that in some cases the customer will display the prints in an office or front room with a large window which accelerates fading." These statements tell me that you feel at least somewhat comfortable with the permanence.</p>

<p>I don't really want to hash over all the details, but earlier you made some blanket statements about the image life of RA-4 vs inkjet prints. I think this is ok on a very general basis, but once you get to a specific situation, I think you have to forget about that average, or whatever it is, situation. I've seen a certain cut-rate RA-4 material with a very inferior lifespan. I've seen a limited number of inkjet media, which generally fared pretty well, but these were top-tier systems from reputable companies. If you were to use aftermarket inks, or perhaps a paper that is not compatible with your inks, I wouldn't feel very confident in the long-term life of those prints. For the most part, you either have to trust in the integrity of the manufacturers, or find accelerated test results by someone reputable like Wilhelm.</p>

<p>Your own experience with any of these print materials is perfectly valid, as is anyone else's experience. My problem is the the CONCLUSIONS you are making. Also, when you generalize your experience, or what you've read, to EVERYTHING, that's stretching things. This is why I make some note of my experience, to counter some of your unwarranted claims.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Just came across an interesting Photo.net printing article by Pete Myers titled "Why Paper?"...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/learning/fine-art/why-paper/</p>

<p>Printing on white polyester film very similar to the old Cibachromes. I'm tempted to pay the $35 for 20 sheet 8 1/2x11 box of the Pictorico and see what flies on my "All In One". Mitsubishi says it's compatible with all inkjets and inks both dye and pigment. You can't get more nonperishable than polyester film as the article states.</p>

<p>Don't know if this is the type of ozone converted to oxygen type technology Bill was referring to, but I find the ideas and approaches behind the development of print ink/substrate technology by all these companies very fascinating. They must see a market to go through this much trouble. I mean Mitsubishi uses a manufacturing facility the length of a football field to make rolls of this Pictorico white film and their other line of papers.</p>

<p>http://www.mitsubishiimaging.com/pictorico-white-film.html</p>

[t.e.___]

"Just came across an interesting Photo.net printing article by Pete Myers titled "Why Paper?"...

 

http://www.photo.net/learning/fine-art/why-paper/

 

Printing on white polyester film very similar to the old Cibachromes. I'm tempted to pay the $35 for 20 sheet 8 1/2x11 box

of the Pictorico and see what flies on my "All In One". Mitsubishi says it's compatible with all inkjets and inks both dye and

pigment. You can't get more nonperishable than polyester film as the article states."

 

Epson used to make a similar type paper. The surface was an amazingly smooth matte finish (I hate every other matte

finish paper) that produced the finest detail of all of Epson's papers at the time. It had a ceramic coating, if I remember

correctly. The bizarre, but awesome, thing about that "paper" is that it also made dye ink prints waterproof. If I used one of

Epson's regular photo papers I could easily smudge the dried ink with water. With the Epson plastic film "paper" sheets

you could literally run the print under a faucet with no damage.

 

It was amazing stuff, and yet Epson discontinued it. Don't know why. Yeah, it was their most expensive paper, but it was

certainly worth it. If they still made that film today I might still be using my Epson. It was an awesome material that I liked

even better than traditional chemical glossy prints. I'd go so far as to say was, and still is, easily the best "paper" I ever

have used for photos, whether traditional chemical process or inkjet. Really amazing stuff. It sounds like that Mitsubishi

film "paper" is the same stuff. Will have to look into it. Thanks for sharing.

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Yeah, the polyester "paper" is really nice stuff. I used to use it a lot in the darkroom when printing on Fuji R-3 Superglossy. I've also used the Ilford version (which they may have bought from Mitsubishi for all I know) which produces beautiful rich saturated colors with very high resolution (printed a 600dpi actual resolution image on it using a Epson 1400 and using a 4x loupe could see more details). Very high gloss, perfectly smooth surface, and works best using dye inks instead of pigment due to surface reflectivity differences. It does scratch very easily though, so be very careful with it. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>One caveat about the Fuji Dry Lab Photo paper I posted print samples here is that it also has a similar polyester "coating" but on paper and will crack if severely bent like say bending a corner. An online review showed this.</p>

<p>I don't know if this will happen to the Pictorico white film since I haven't found any reviews stating as such but it is something to look out for. </p>

<p>T.E., I remember the Epson film you speak of. They also made clear film not just white at least the kind I tried out on my Epson 1270 back in 1999. The black ink was so dense on this film no light could be seen even on a light table so much so that I thought as a former prepress production technician it could've been used for exposing masks for commercial press use for both offset and screen printing which could've replaced their chemical processes.</p>