Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Fuji RA4 |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji RA4
Just what is it with Fuji Colour paper? It seems to be far, far, less stable than a drunk on a see-saw!
last night I made 3 quite successful prints using Kodak RA4, I didn't even have to change the filtration and just used what I had used the last time. I was about to pack up then found another negative I had not printed and decided to do one more. Rather than cut more paper off the roll of Kodak, I chose to try to use one of the last few sheets of Fuji I have. After a test strip or two changing the filtration and times needed. So far so good. Using a sheet of 10x8 from the same pack and with the same filtration from the 2nd test strip plus my chosen exposure time, I printed the image. After washing and drying it was obvious that the filtration had shifted from that on the test strip and was now most certainly yellowish and lacking in 'punch'. I had changed NOTHING! The developer had not been replenished since starting and I had not processed enough to cause a colour shift due to partial developer exhaustion (the test strips were OK), the temp was normal 35C, time was 45 seconds - again as normal Stop bath and fix were normal......I then made another print from the same negative, this time using Kodak paper with the previous filtration I had used earlier and it was damn near perfect........I think I will stay with Kodak it is a far better medium. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Puzzling, John. I take it that the light under which you examined the OK test strip was the same as that under which you examined the yellowish finished print and that "dry-down" didn't play a part?
I was recently looking through the Darkroom Book by Jack Schofield where he shows prints of a girl with casts and until I looked at the correctly filtered print, the one with a yellow cast looked OK. It had turned her hair more of a yellow blond but still a blond that characterises some blond hair and had warmed her white cardigan to a slight beige but again still natural looking The other casts were much easier to see. It struck me that of all the casts a slight yellow might be the most difficult to see unless looked at again and closely. Most mini-labs these days use Fuji and I'd have thought that sudden unexplained changes of this nature would be a nightmare, assuming that the paper lacks consistency Just some thoughts on my part but the most important one being that at least you have a paper, Kodak, that gives you total reliability and consistency Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I intend to do the same exercise again, possibly this evening to see if I can replicate the problem, if it persists I will scan test strips and a complete print to post onto the forum.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks John A picture is worth a thousand words as they. Written forum exchanges have their limits unfortunately. I look forward to the day when we can be beamed into each others' darkrooms when problems arise.
Captain Kirk has had that privilege to himself for too long Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Just out of interest, is your easel black or white? I'm wondering if when doing the test strip you get less reflection back into your room which is messing up the exposure when the whole of the image is being exposed? It wouldn't explain why kodak is less susceptible I guess, but it was a thought!
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Colour variations.
Quote:
As I type this my Nova processor is heating up, so hopefully I should have the new test strips and finished print ready later tonight. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji/Kodak print comparison
I printed 2 x test strip, one Fuji and one Kodak. Then two 10x8 prints on the same filtration with the chosen exposure. The results are the opposite to what I achieved yesterday with the Fuji print. The test strip was yellowish as can be seen, but the 10x8 is verging on a good colour balanced print.
The Kodak was the same on both the test strip and the 10x8 print. What I did notice when the Fuji print was on the screen, there was partial discolouration on the right side of the image verging on yellowish brown. What I now think is the Fuji paper is past it best (although less than a year old (in my ownership). heaven knows how old it was before I bought it. The paper speeds are about the same, the longer exposure for the Kodak paper was due to the greater filtration needed. It is obvious that the brightness and contrast on the Kodak paper is much better. Fuji was 42.5M and 32.5Y. The Kodak was 65M and 57.5Y. The film was Poundland Agfa!!!!! ( I almost (I find may still have later) had a disaster before printing, the enlarging lens slipped from my grasp when I was screwing it onto the mounting ring and dropped into a bucket of clean water. I fished it out immediately and was under water for less than a second and fortunately being a Rodagon lens it seems to be proofed against accidental immersion in water.) Last edited by John King; 19th October 2015 at 10:37 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the prints and test strips,John. I think I prefer the Fuji buildings but the Kodak sky
Colour filtration is to a larger degree than we might believe in the eye of the beholder and what I think is right may not be what you think is right If you had only given me a quick first impressions look at both in succession I think I'd have said that the Fuji's brownness might be the result of too much "red cast" and the Kodak's coldness the result of not enough The problem in saying this now is that I cannot discount my being influenced partially by knowledge of both papers' filtration but if my first impressions are hopefully not influenced by my knowledge of the filtration then there appears to be a correlation of sorts between the Fuji too much red( so too little in Y and M) and the Kodak not enough red(so too much Y and M), albeit I recognise that the papers require different fitration as they are different papers. Both are OK and without the benefit of seeing both side by side two viewers seeing only one print each wouldn't have a problem with colour but I think the Kodak is "brighter" and if the Kodak paper was bought brand new but the Fuji was secondhand and of indeterminate age then this might well play its part. Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Looking at the originals, the Fuji looks quite drab and lacking in contrast, in fact the sky looks quite muddy. Thr fuji papaer was not second hand it actually came from either AG or Process Supplies, I can't remember.
Of course the scanner would also play a part as well, my Epson does tend to scan a bit on the 'cold' side, but to ensure what I uploaded was fair, I didn't do any changes via photoshop. Fortunately I only have half a dozen sheets left so I may as well dump it now. PS the enlarging lens that took a bath still isn't showing signs of water ingress. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Still works perfectly 12 years later Mike |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fuji to ax most of its range. | photomi7ch | Photography in general | 6 | 23rd July 2013 04:32 PM |
Fuji reala | paddy | Colour film | 11 | 20th January 2012 01:14 PM |
Fuji film | AmericanMrs | Colour film | 4 | 11th July 2011 03:28 AM |
Fuji G690 | Hagbard | Cameras - medium format | 5 | 29th April 2011 07:28 PM |
Fuji 690 ? | Steven Taylor | Cameras - medium format | 6 | 9th January 2009 01:48 PM |