This is good news for Ilford. I didn't even know Kodak had a reversal paper.
Fuji's was good but I believe you needed a machine to process it. R-prints are
archival but not as good as prints made from negatives. I also believe they are
superior to prints made from digital files but are much more costly - that's why
I switched over to scanning.

MikeWhy wrote:

I heard on the grapevine but haven't confirmed with first sources yet, that
Kodak and Fuji both stopped producing reversal papers. Ilford continues to
make Ilfochrome. The rationale is that Type R prints, direct positive, have
always been problematic and inferior to neg-pos processes. Whether you like
it or not, scanning appears to be not only superior to direct wet prints, it
will be the only way forward.

Moose, I can mix up my own chemistry from a cookbook, but it doesn't do any
good without the paper to print on.

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
news
"Any Moose Poster" wrote in message
...
RA4? What the hell is RA3? Chromes? Like Ciba? or E6? WTF are you
spewing.

That would be R-3, 3000. Ilfochrome, Fujichrome. Clumsy of me.

I can understand the spoting part, but the sharpness is relative and
usually
a wet print, imaged optically wins,.....(this comming from alot printing
experience
- 22 years)

And a wet behind the ears high school dropout can drive Photoshop just as
well, faster, and more cheaply. I'm not denigrating you or your craft.
Contrast and color cross-over are serious problems with wet printing. They
don't amount to anything worth mentioning in digital.

Most good "wetlabs" retain the old and buy into the new..
My lab one of the biggest in Balt, does both. Maybe that will have to
change
but the same papers are used for both,.......the issue I see happening
will be where
to get chemistry,...not paper.

Wetlabs retain the old because of a few luddite dinosaurs like me. With 22
years in the business, you're a young guy yet. What will you do in the
next
20 years before they put you out to pasture?