What was wrong with film?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:55:26 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:

Raphael Bustin wrote:
Try these URLs then:

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/PressCenterDetail.jsp?DBID=NEWS_473989
Just a no info press release.
http://www.fujifilm.ch/downloads/de/fujifilm_foto/papier/SUPREME_Typ_One_E.pdf
Only one of the papers. Is this version even still sold?
http://www.fuji.fi/documents/13/fujicolor_ca_paper_type_sp.pdf
Is this paper also still sold?
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000pki
Not very offical is it?
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epa...686& product=
The four common Crystal archive papers. Still not a great deal of info.
Compare to Kodaks info for it's pro papers.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...ura/main.jhtml



I love it when a poster whines about not finding data,
then when that data is handed to him, whines that it's
not good enough. Not my job to do your research
for you Nick, nor do I have any interest in selling you
on one brand of paper vs. another.

I don't really give a hoot about the paper's specs.
It's the image that matters. I've sold many hundreds
of dollars worth of Lightjet prints over the years, on
Fuji paper. I'm about to sell several thousand $$
of prints on Kodak Endura. In any case, the choice
had nothing to do with the paper's specs.

My involvement in this thread began with a response to
Stacey's ridiculous statement that Fuji Crystal Archive
paper was inappropriate for use with "killer" lenses
and contrasty negatives, and intended for rank
amateurs with P&S or disposable cameras.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
"Reciprocity Failure" wrote:

I'm not sure what "Oh yea" is supposed to mean. If you're questioning the
statement [...]

You didn't get the joke, Top poster.

Raphael Bustin wrote:



I love it when a poster whines about not finding data,
then when that data is handed to him, whines that it's
not good enough. Not my job to do your research

You provided info on two papers that don't exist any more.

for you Nick, nor do I have any interest in selling you
on one brand of paper vs. another.

Yet you've been claiming that one paper is great. Then pull out data on
two versions of the paper that don't exist anymore. You haven't even told us
which of the two papers you are using.


I don't really give a hoot about the paper's specs.
It's the image that matters. I've sold many hundreds


My involvement in this thread began with a response to
Stacey's ridiculous statement that Fuji Crystal Archive
paper was inappropriate for use with "killer" lenses
and contrasty negatives, and intended for rank
amateurs with P&S or disposable cameras.


And with Fuji selling at least four different papers under the same name
she might just be right. Fuji also sells various other less common items
with the same name.

Nick

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:34:38 +0000, Stacey wrote:

"Scott Eaton , mar 31, 2000; 09:41 a.m
If you shoot Fuji professional print films you want the Type "C" variant. If
you shoot Kodak films, you might want to avoid the Fuji papers.


Type "P" is the low contrast portrait grade (murky), and standard Crystal
Archive is the mini lab variety to be avoided if you do your own printing."


I've gotten excellent results printing the various portra films on
Crystal Archive type P. Not murky at all. Contrast is more suited to
portraits than general subjects. I haven't tried the type C yet.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Professional Shop Rat: 14,267 days in a GM plant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nick Zentena wrote:

Stacey wrote:


That's the only one I've seen, the amatuer high contrast type that
minilabs all seem to use. I had no idea they made several versions of
this paper. Is there anywhere that describes this? The kodak "pro" paper
says this on them and I believe even says which type it is on the back.

The Fuji pro papers should have something on the back. The fuji website
shows a bad pictures of the back of the paper. I guess Fuji expects you to
phone them if you need any info on the paper. The website is basically
worthless.


Yep, it would be nice if they compared the contrast of their different
papers or something? From the info I saw on the site, it didn't say much.
FWIW none of the labs around here using fuji paper use anything other than
the basic crystal archive consumer paper. That stuff is awful.

--

Stacey

David Starr wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:34:38 +0000, Stacey wrote:

"Scott Eaton , mar 31, 2000; 09:41 a.m
If you shoot Fuji professional print films you want the Type "C" variant.
If you shoot Kodak films, you might want to avoid the Fuji papers.


Type "P" is the low contrast portrait grade (murky), and standard Crystal
Archive is the mini lab variety to be avoided if you do your own
printing."


I've gotten excellent results printing the various portra films on
Crystal Archive type P. Not murky at all. Contrast is more suited to
portraits than general subjects. I haven't tried the type C yet.


I'm guessing he was talking about using it for general purposes? I'm sure
for portraits (the intended purpose) it works fine.

--

Stacey

Raphael Bustin wrote:



West Coast Imaging, Calypso and Foto-1 use
Fuji Crystal Archive.

So these are mini-labs?

--

Stacey

Nick Zentena wrote:




My involvement in this thread began with a response to
Stacey's ridiculous statement that Fuji Crystal Archive
paper was inappropriate for use with "killer" lenses
and contrasty negatives, and intended for rank
amateurs with P&S or disposable cameras.


And with Fuji selling at least four different papers under the same name
she might just be right.

Exactly my point. Using their standard paper (I never said their PRO
paper...) is useless for anything other than snapshots done with a P&S.
Using the example of highly edited digital files sent to a high end digital
imaging lab as an example of what fuji paper from a minlab would look like
-is- ridiculous.

--

Stacey

Recently, Stacey posted:

Exactly my point. Using their standard paper (I never said their PRO
paper...) is useless for anything other than snapshots done with a
P&S. Using the example of highly edited digital files sent to a high
end digital imaging lab as an example of what fuji paper from a
minlab would look like -is- ridiculous.

Why so much concern about minilab print quality? Minilabs are for
convenience and economy, not quality. IMO, two out of three is about as
good as it gets.

Why not take advantage of the strengths of a minilab and then use a pro
lab when the quality is required? For example, around here, the better
minilabs and pro labs are using the same equipment to develop film (I
don't go to drugstore labs). The minilab offers fast turnaround, and
prints a "digital contact sheet" along with the 4x6 prints, all at a
reasonable cost.

I don't judge the images on film by either the contact sheet or the
prints, as I don't judge the images by contact sheets when I work in the
darkroom. Both prints are compromised, rather than optimised, as are the
prints that one gets from a minilab (which is why they're inexpensive).
Images that I think are worth pursuing I examine either by scanning or on
a light table, then take to either the darkroom or a pro lab for printing.
In short, the complaints about minilab print quality seem to be more of a
workflow issue in a MF forum, as minilabs were not intended to bring out
the best possible quality from our equipment.

Regards,

Neil

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:41:03 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


I don't judge the images on film by either the contact sheet or the
prints, as I don't judge the images by contact sheets when I work in the
darkroom. Both prints are compromised, rather than optimised, as are the
prints that one gets from a minilab (which is why they're inexpensive).
Images that I think are worth pursuing I examine either by scanning or on
a light table, then take to either the darkroom or a pro lab for printing.
In short, the complaints about minilab print quality seem to be more of a
workflow issue in a MF forum, as minilabs were not intended to bring out
the best possible quality from our equipment.


The only use I have for the lab (pro or mini) is to develop
film and to make prints larger than I can make on my own.

Having recently acquried a fine used Epson 7000, the
latter practice will soon cease as well.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com