A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT but still photography



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 21st 04, 11:28 PM
Any Moose Poster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak and Fuji discontinues reversal paper ( OT but still photography)

In article ,
"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.


Politely Mike; You don't know sh*t from shinola. (At least in this case)....
there that sounds nicer.

RA4 is not a Reversal process.

Its a negative to positive process and is used in Lambda & Light jet machines.

You can only mix chemistry if you can get the components.

R3000 is a positive to positive process, and since its not
imaged to in any great amount,....especially using Lambdas &Lightjets
it has a very limited use. Only optical
printers are typically used to print on it.

I believe Kodak R3000 was discontinued about 2 years ago.
  #42  
Old May 22nd 04, 12:06 AM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak and Fuji discontinues reversal paper ( OT but still photography)

"Any Moose Poster" wrote in message
...
Politely Mike; You don't know sh*t from shinola. (At least in this

case)....
there that sounds nicer.


And I'll quote it for the archives, so I won't forget who said what to whom.

RA4 is not a Reversal process.


I never said it was.

You can only mix chemistry if you can get the components.


Thanks. I'll add that to my book of little known facts.

I believe Kodak R3000 was discontinued about 2 years ago.


Not surprisingly in the least. Apparently, R-3 followed suit:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...2410/e2410.jht
ml?id=0.1.16.14.28.54.36.16.3&lc=en



  #43  
Old May 22nd 04, 12:06 AM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak and Fuji discontinues reversal paper ( OT but still photography)


"Ralf R. Radermacher" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:

I heard on the grapevine but haven't confirmed with first sources yet,

that
Kodak and Fuji both stopped producing reversal papers.


Anyone to second my request to open
rec.photo.equipment.the-sky-is-falling?


http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...2410/e2410.jht
ml?id=0.1.16.14.28.54.36.16.3&lc=en


-Discontinuance of KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME RADIANCE III Papers
and Materials and KODAK EKTACHROME R-3 Chemicals-
Alternative options for image capture and output have gradually
eliminated the need for PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME RADIANCE III Papers and
Materials as well as chemicals for Process R-3. Therefore, dependent on
individual country and market requirements, Kodak will discontinue these
products as inventories are exhausted.

Technology has made the option of scanning, manipulating, and
outputting images directly to traditional color paper very popular, and
photographers are increasingly using color negative film and digital cameras
for image capture. Producing positive prints, even from transparencies, for
image display no longer requires the use of RADIANCE Papers and Materials.

Thank you for using KODAK PROFESSIONAL Products.

  #44  
Old May 22nd 04, 05:15 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak and Fuji discontinues reversal paper ( OT but still photography)

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.


You're right and this is why I tell people if you want prints, shoot print
film...

I doubt they are going to get rid of RA-4 since that's what they print
digital stuff on as well. Those "type R" prints have always been ugly IMHO,
good ridance! As you said ilfochrome is still around and it is the best of
this type paper anyway.

--

Stacey
  #45  
Old May 22nd 04, 05:35 PM
Bandicoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT but still photography

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:19:00 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

I think I've shown on my "scan comparison" site that
a good film scan holds its own against optical prints
made with moderate skill in a home darkroom.

Depends on d the film original, the scanner, the printer
etc. Highly subjective.



Well, that's why I asked my lab -- very well
known and respected around these parts --
if they'd do an optical print for me. Their
response was, "Huh? Who does optical
prints these days?"


See Mikes post, it's about how long it takes to do it. Digital is
faster and easier for them to do, that's why they like them so
much!


I'm sure that drives the commercial decision.

However, while there can be (and is!) much debate as to which is better at
small to moderate enlargement, for really big prints digital printing seems
to have the edge. I'm talking about laser output to real photographic paper
here, though iris prints and similar have their place too. (I rather like
Epson Archival Matte for some things, and that's a hard effect to duplicate
with photo paper.)

This actually makes sense, since a laser outputter scales up without all the
issues that accrue as an enlarging lens is moved ever further form the paper
and/or has to be of ever wider angle.

The lab I use for exhibition prints does wonderful 30" square (or more, but
I seldom want more) prints with a Durst Lambda, for which I like Kodak
Endura Metallic paper. Ilfochromes are wonderful, but at smaller sizes the
difference is not that great, and as size increases the Lambda (or Light
Jet) results are sharper to my eye.



Peter



  #46  
Old May 22nd 04, 10:17 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak and Fuji discontinues reversal paper ( OT but stillphotography)

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?


  #47  
Old May 23rd 04, 12:09 AM
Raphael Bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT but still photography

On Sat, 22 May 2004 17:35:37 +0100, "Bandicoot"
wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:19:00 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

I think I've shown on my "scan comparison" site that
a good film scan holds its own against optical prints
made with moderate skill in a home darkroom.

Depends on d the film original, the scanner, the printer
etc. Highly subjective.


Well, that's why I asked my lab -- very well
known and respected around these parts --
if they'd do an optical print for me. Their
response was, "Huh? Who does optical
prints these days?"


See Mikes post, it's about how long it takes to do it. Digital is
faster and easier for them to do, that's why they like them so
much!


I'm sure that drives the commercial decision.

However, while there can be (and is!) much debate as to which is better at
small to moderate enlargement, for really big prints digital printing seems
to have the edge. I'm talking about laser output to real photographic paper
here, though iris prints and similar have their place too. (I rather like
Epson Archival Matte for some things, and that's a hard effect to duplicate
with photo paper.)

This actually makes sense, since a laser outputter scales up without all the
issues that accrue as an enlarging lens is moved ever further form the paper
and/or has to be of ever wider angle.

The lab I use for exhibition prints does wonderful 30" square (or more, but
I seldom want more) prints with a Durst Lambda, for which I like Kodak
Endura Metallic paper. Ilfochromes are wonderful, but at smaller sizes the
difference is not that great, and as size increases the Lambda (or Light
Jet) results are sharper to my eye.




Even at 8x10", I'm quite happy in most cases with
prints off my Canon S9000. Lightjet and Lambda
are really beautiful, but a well tuned and profiled
Epson wide-format printer isn't far behind.

Yes, with a loupe, you can always tell it's an inkjet
print. But most folks don't buy art that way.

When I scan 4x5 and print on my Epson 7000 at
24x30", you can see individual pine needles at
thirty feet, and the tonality beats any Ciba print
I've ever made.


rafe b
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
  #48  
Old June 6th 04, 07:48 PM
steven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT but still photography

"jjs" wrote in message
...

First, to put this On Topic: my wife and I are traveling very light on a
cross-country trip, and I'm taking my SWC and Zeiss Ikonta 645 folder. But
for her...

The years haven't been kind to the eyes and she can't use the Olympus
Pen-F anymore. She's looking for a point-n-shoot. Got any recommendations?
Digital is okay, too.


Ah, the good old Pen-F! We used them in our photo class in junior high!
From half-frame 35mm to MF seems a giant leap though. Sure you don't want a
35mm replacement?


  #49  
Old June 6th 04, 09:15 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT but still photography

In article , "steven"
wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message

The years haven't been kind to the eyes and she can't use the Olympus
Pen-F anymore. She's looking for a point-n-shoot. Got any recommendations?
Digital is okay, too.


Ah, the good old Pen-F! We used them in our photo class in junior high!
From half-frame 35mm to MF seems a giant leap though. Sure you don't want a
35mm replacement?


No. She's gone off in a different direction. So be it.
  #50  
Old June 7th 04, 05:40 PM
Ray Paseur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT but still photography

Go to a camera shop and try some consumer-grade digital cameras. You can
get very good vacation pictures without spending much money. If she likes
the feel of the digital camera, buy some extra memory cards - it's fun to
shoot with abandon when you know you're not spending a dime for film or
processing until you have just the exact photo you want to print.

"jjs" wrote in message
...
In article , "steven"
wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message

The years haven't been kind to the eyes and she can't use the Olympus
Pen-F anymore. She's looking for a point-n-shoot. Got any

recommendations?
Digital is okay, too.


Ah, the good old Pen-F! We used them in our photo class in junior high!
From half-frame 35mm to MF seems a giant leap though. Sure you don't

want a
35mm replacement?


No. She's gone off in a different direction. So be it.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Digital Photography Community Forum Announcement George Digital Photography 1 June 24th 04 06:14 PM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief In The Darkroom 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM
TheFAB Fine Art Photography Board is now open SP Advanced Photography 0 January 3rd 04 04:34 AM
The Photography Questions Tony Spadaro APS Photographic Equipment 0 November 17th 03 06:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.