Cibachrome

I regularly use Fuji Velvia with my Mamiya RZ67 and am always

delighted with the vibrancy and sharpness of the transparencies.

 

I have had a number of transparencies printed using the Cibachrome or

Ilfochrome method. I expected some fall off from the original

transparencies as you can with any prints compared with slides.

 

I have been particularly disappointed however with the lack of

sharpness and tonal range of the Cibachrome prints I have received

back. I have tried a number of reputable printing houses but the

results have to all intents and purposes been the disappointing same.

 

Have I been plain unlucky or is what I have described a problem with

Cibachrome? The quality is definitely there in the transparencies

and I have not chosen transparencies of extremely high contrast.

 

Am I doing an injustice to Cibachrome?

I think it's just the ciba paper. It can't maintain the vibrant colors in velvia. I had similar results. A velvia enlargement looks like it was shot on Astia (pale colors), and sharpness is way off on the medium contrast paper. You're only hope is to use the high contrast paper and one or more contrast masks, which will drive the price of a 8x10 up in the $60 range (guess). Otherwise, go digital.

 

Because of this, I've pretty much abandoned ciba and use the Fuji RP crystal process introduced in Japan a few years ago. So far, it's the only method I've seen that can maintain the vibrant velvia colors. Most of the pro landscapers here (Japan) use this method. As almost all nature/landscapers here shoot w/ velvia, it wouldn't surprise me if this process was designed w/ velvia in mind. I don't think it's available in the US. An 8x10 runs me about $12 (does not use contrast masks). Of the dozens of prints I've had made, I've only had one that didn't print well. For the money, it's hard to beat.

Na, there are problems with ilfochrome, but lack of vibrance or lack of sharpness aren't among them! There are several different ilfochrome papers. Make sure you use specifically the ultra-glossy polyester based one, since the others are all inferior in my opinion.

I have to agree with Andreas. I have my images printed on the glossy polyester material, and the colors from a Velvia slide will knock your socks off. I've also got a tack sharp 24x30 print made from a 6x7 (pentax) transparency. Prior to finding my current lab (Allied Photocolor in St. Louis, MO), I did have poor quality machine prints made elsewhere that were very disappointing. I've been exhibiting at art shows for over 2 years now, and with more than 50 images displayed, I've yet to need a contrast mask. Looking at other exhibiting photographers, the polyester Cibas always look better than c-prints, and I've yet to see the Fuji positive prints.

Graham

 

Cibachrome is a capable of great results, but with Velvia and the Kodachromes it is very difficult due to the high contrast of the originals and the high contrast of the paper itself. Personally, I find that a more neutral slide film such as Astia or E100 gives better results (neither are as sharp though). Still I think you expected that and so I am not sure quite what the problem is although I would guess it is the lab. One obvious thing worth pointing out is that you can spend a lot of time looking through a loupe at a slide and still fail to notice that sharpness is not quite bang on. A large print will reveal this. It depends on how good your eyes and your loupes are. Similarly slide projection to check for sharpness needs care too, because the overall sensory effect of great color can disguise sharpness issues. I remember printing a Ciba of a landscape that was sharp in the plane of focus (a 180mm lens on 35mm) but the foreground was out of focus being inside the depth of field. I did not notice this on the slide as the color and impact of the picture was very high, but on the print it worries me every time I look at it.

Try the "Type R" papers from Kodak and Fuji. If you like the "super gloss" look of the polyester based Ilfochrome, it's available from these same folks. They're not better, just different...t

As a veteran custom printer who's handled and printed both reversal and standard "C" type materials on a commercial level I'll have to be the spoiler and offer my usual advice: If you want prints, shoot print films, if you want slides, shoot transparency film. Cibachrome prints from slides are seldom more than garish, abstract images with washed out colors, poor neutrality and a lot of hype. <p>

 

The *ONLY* consistent method to get a good image from a slide material such as Veliva and preserve the rich colors and contrast is to use either a digital process like Fuji's Frontier printer or a Light Jet print. In my experience over 90% of all reversal prints I've seen on Ilford stock look as bad or worse as Graham describes them. The fact that there are bragging rights to it "being an Ilfochrome" doesn't impress me.<p>

 

Some of the newer C type display materials like Fujiflex or Kodak Duraflex look almost identical to Cibachrome, yet produce images from negs that will blow away most anything done with a conventional enlarger,a slide, and Ciba/Ilfochrome. Example: 6x7 NPS (that's a portrait film) on Fujiflex.<p><img src="http://www.mindspring.com/~wseaton/pictures/yellow.jpg"></a>

Wow, really impressed by those flowers !

I just got back my Velvia slides on 13x13 Fujichrome paper. No complaints! They are far better than the average papaers i'm getting back from my negatives. Fine details, nice colors. I really think about keep shooting on Velvia/Kodak 100VS and if needed, let it made on Fujichrome.

By the way, here (Hungary) a 13x13 cm Fujichrome print costs about 1.5$ (yes, one and a half USD). The 40x50 cm enlargement (the biggest one in the shop nearby) is about 10$ (again, yes, ten USD).

 

Akos

I've printed over 1,000 16x20 Ilfochromes in the last 10 years plus countless test prints. I've printed for myself and commercially for special projects such as museum displays. I've printed Kodachrome 64, Kodachrome 200, multiple types of Ektachrome, and at least three types of Fuji film. While I am not claiming to be an expert, I will give you my observations based on my experiences with the material.

 

Prints that closely match the original transparency (irrespective of film type) can be made on Ilfochrome material with several caveats. Most of the prints (at least 90 percent) that I have made require a contrast mask or, if one is not made, will require extensive dodging/burning. Extensive dodging and burning will often change the colors being dodged or burned depending upon the length of the original exposure. This mainly occurs with burning to lighten an area. The remedy is to make a test print of the areas to be burned in, and when making the final print, the filter pack is corrected, as indicated by the test print, for each area to account for the color shift.

 

Processing professional Ilfochrome paper in P-30 chemicals (instead of P-3) will give color crossover. The severity will depend on the film that has been used and the total print exposure. It will appear either as red in the shadows and/or cyan in the whites.

 

No matter what film is used, Ilfochromes reproduce blue slightly differently than the original transparency shows it. While I do not find the results offensive, it is a fact that needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating the final print. If the filtration is changed to correct the blue, other colors are not reproduced accurately. The only method that I know of to totally alleviate the problem is to treat an Ilfochrome as if it was a dye-transfer print and make black and white color separations that are then individually printed with red, green, blue filters.

 

The advice to use negative films for prints, I find a genuinly pedestrian point-of-view as Ilfochromes have a certain look that cannot be achieved by any other print material. That look is specifically because of the material's color gamut and resulting color reproduction. If you want that type of reproduction for aesthetic reasons, there is no other way to get it - and shooting negative film is not a substitute. However, I will also say that the LightJet prints on ultra-glossy material certainly come very close.

 

I think Ilfochromes take more work and expertise approaching a dye-transfer print level of effort (and I have made dye-transfer prints) in order to make consistently good looking prints. While most labs have competent "C" printers, the same cannot be said for equally talented Ilfochrome printers. The amount of work required to produce really top-notch Ilfochrome prints is beyond what a majority of labs wish to spend in expertise, additional material and time costs, because the majority of people do not want to pay the required price.

The result, is that while many labs offer Ilfochromes as a "service," they do not specialize in Ilfochrome prints. This is understandable as the majority of the prints they are making are not Ilfochromes. As I make my own prints, I am not familiar with labs that specialize in the material. I am, however, sure you can find a lab that specializes in Ilfochrome printing, and can give you the results you are looking for regardless of the type of film you are shooting.

Actually I have a question for PhotoDr(forgive me if I am wrong), published your comments today (10/21/99). Obviously you have a lots of experience on Ilfochrome. I noticed that you use a lot of masking procedure (90%). Would you please let me know what kind of film do you use for the masking. did you use any Tmax 100 for this purpose. I have learned the technique from Mr. Haward Bond. As I know that Kodak has stopped producing the masking film except the size of 8x10. It is very expensive. I hate to cut the masking film for 35mm or even 6x6 slides. Could you mention a little bit about how do you make the masking film, if you don't mind.

Thank you very much for your sharing.

If you use the Ilford Low contrast material CF1k, there's mostly no need to mask films. It has to be processed in P-3 or P-3X which, I think, are not sold in small kits. Otherwise, Ilfochrome processing is rather easy and forgiveable. (once you have the basic filtrations)

Ilfochromes, made accurately, will give the sharpest impression of any photographic material I know.

For a good cibachrome printer, and lots of information about the process, see http://www.lightroom.com/.

I have tried a number of different films for masking including: Kodak Pan Masking Film, Super XX, Plus-X, and FP4. Of all of the films I have tried, I consistently get the best results using FP4 sheet film developed in ID11 Plus, diluted 1 part developer to 3 parts water. I develop the film at 70F for 3 minutes in a tray with constant, random rocking agitation (front-to-back, side-to-side, corner-to-corner etc).

 

I use a piece of frosted Mylar between the transparency and the film. The film goes into the contact frame emulsion side down (against the glass), and the masking film emulsion side up (the film is now back-to-back with the Mylar between). The idea is to make an unsharp mask. Some people like to separate the two even further for "fuzzier" edges, and put a piece of anti-newton glass between the transparency and the film. I have tried both methods, and prefer the Mylar as I can easily clean it, and, if it gets scratched throw it away. It is, however, somewhat more difficult to register the mask to the transparency as the edges are sharper

 

For most masks, you can tell if you have the exposure correct just by looking at the film. The highlights should have density, but by the time you get to the midtone area of the slide the density should just barely be visible, and no density in the shadows.

 

Remember, anything I tell you is only the recipe I use in my darkroom to get what I consider satisfactory results. You should only use the information as a starting point, and adapt the process to your printing style and processing conditions.

 

I use a roller transport machine for paper processing and very carefully track the amount of paper going through it for replenishment. The machine is allowed to warm up for 1 hour prior to any processing to assure that the chemistry is stabile. I process the paper at 88F (slightly warmer than recommended) as I have found the results in my roller transport system to be better at the higher temperature. If you use drum or tray processing, and at a different temperature, your results may dictate slightly changed mask densities.

 

The nice thing about making prints is that even if you really screw up badly, you're the only one who knows - and you can throw away the evidence. Feel free to expirement.

In case the fine print was missed, the yellow flowers are from a C type print, not Ciba/Ilfochrome. There must be at least 3 labs in town that do this quality of work because the materials are so much easier to work with and obtain.<P>

 

>>No matter what film is used, Ilfochromes reproduce blue slightly differently than the original transparency shows it......Processing professional Ilfochrome paper in P-30 chemicals (instead of P-3) will give color crossover<<<P>

 

And here's the explanation for the Cibachrome look: poor neutralilty, crossover and a "sparkly" AZO dye set that fits a narrow range of subject matter; fire hydrants, ballon races, and 57-chevy's. I thought the main point we shoot transparency's is to maintain greater fidelity to the original scene?<P>

 

My technique for correcting Ciba images during printing is a bit more high-tech. Yes, I've done analog tri-color printing, but for reversal mediums it's a near waste of time in my opinion. <P>

 

Anyway's, I got around the problem by mapping grey scales on the Ilfochrome, reading them with a densitometer, building a 12-bit look up table in my CMS software, scanning the transparency, and kicking it back out to a 4x5 via a well calibrated fire 1000. I then printed the resulting 4x5 on Ilfochrome with all the anomolies essentially "closed loop" corrected out.<P>

 

The results were dead neutral, sharper, and didn't suffer the registration issues inherent to masking. Compared to my best C type images my best Ilfochromes have marginally brighter, more intense colors, but the limitations of the paper and transparency film in general produced a much lower frequency of color detail, and no matter what I did there is always less information in highlights. For me it's not a fair trade-off.

<P>

 

>>The amount of work required to produce really top-notch Ilfochrome prints is beyond what a majority of labs wish to spend in expertise<<

<P>

Actually that's not entirely true. The problem is customers bring in slides with too high a dynamic range and expect miracles for the same price as a C type print when they should have shot negs in the first place. The highlight portion of a slide contains near clear base with no information. Negs contain highlight information in bounty with layers of increasing density. I have no issue with those who like to print with this medium, but having spent more than a few years in a commercial dark room I am amazed at the amount of work that is spent making an image that quite likely will be dissapointing.<P>

 

FYI - My Duraflex and Fujiflex printes recently fooled a 50year veteran of the photo industry and home Ciba printer when I layed them out on the counter at a photo store. At least 3 people commented on what nice "Cibas" they were. <P> You tell me if this image is a Ciba or "C" print, or scan from Velvia: <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~wseaton/pictures/pink.jpg">Pink thing</a>

Let's see, you want someone to make a judgement on how a print was made by viewing a compressed scan of a print, via the Internet, and displayed on a monitor that probably isn't calibrated. Wow. I think I'd rather buy a Powerball lottery ticket. I think my chances of winning are higher. What's your point?

I'll take the lottery ticket too. Scott, it seems you've made a fairly convincing argument against LightJet prints also, since most service bureaus want to make scans from transparencies and not negatives.

>>What's your point?<<<P>

 

My point is I have the technical skills to upload images that show that reversal printing is "dead art" only practiced by those interested in maintaining Ilford's material at it's pre-madonna status. All I've seen from PhotoDr is ASCII text. If I produced less than a 1,000 commercial images in a week as a custom printer is was during the slow season. I also spent a great deal of time digitally correcting slides from clients who had Ciba's made for some ridiculous price and were embarrased at the results.<P>

 

Complaints regarding Cibachrome/Ilfochrome in MF digest and photo.net all have the same format in a thread: <P><ul>

 

<li>Somebody posts a complaint about the process yielding the results Graham complained about. <li>Then the poster blames themself because THEY must be doing something wrong because Ilfochrome was created by God himself<li>Sombody chimes is that they need to read 3 books on Ciba printing or do web research<li>The poster should be willing to pay 4x as much for a Ciba/Ilfo print as a high quality C type print<li> Custom, hand made Ciba's by the best labs are ONLY to be comapred with .60 minilab prints from negs.<li>The crossover issues regarding Ciba/Ilfo can be corrected, but you should be honored at using the process and not be that picky<li>I post examples and experiences contrary to the snob appeal mentality of a product that has been proven again and again to be inferiour to virtually every other from of photographic reproduction.<li> I clue the poster in on films and combinations that work well with Fujiflex and Duraflex and they E-mail me back in a few weeks excited over their new prints<P>

</ul>

<p>

>>I find a genuinly pedestrian point-of-view<<<P>

I find that as I have evolved as a photographer I've grown less interested at having be distracted by loud, vivid color displays meant to distract my attention from the composition of the photograph. Which brings me to a better point of *I make photographs, not Ilfo/Cibachromes*. I could give a damn what material I use to produce an image. I simply use the process that gives me the best results.<P>I'd also serve you the question if you've ever printed fine art B/W and if you choose to print Ciba/Ilfo from positive B/W, or rather inferior negs? Same physics, same advantages/dis-advantages.<P>

>>I think I'd rather buy a Powerball lottery ticket<< <P> Why waste your money when you can give it to me? Or, maybe you should save up and buy decent monitor. Both images are straigh scans of an HP flatbed with no color, or saturation correction. And gee, almost ANY photographer with a camera and decent film can get results like that, or is that the real fear?I'd wager any amount of money you wanted to that if we placed 10 random prints on a table, 5 Ciba/Ilfo prints made by a lab of your choice and 5 Fujiflex prints made by me you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Funny thing, but when most people buy my images from me they usually ask about the picture taking aspect of it because the image looks so real. Whenever a discussion goes up about a Ciba/Print it goes immediatley about the technical aspect of making reversal prints and how bright the colors are the material reproduces. <P>

>>seems you've made a fairly convincing argument against LightJet prints also, <<<P> I read my post about half a dozen times and never found that conclusion. You may however want to be informed that LightJets are commonly used in conjunction wth C type papers like Fujiflex and Crystal Archive type C. Being a digital device it would be very easy to utilize a reversal medium like Ilfo/Ciba in a LightJet and re-cal the look-up tables, but, hmm, seems Cymbolic Sciences is really just a stupid bunch of engineers that are ignorant that they should really be using Ilfo/Ciba.<P>

Been a pleasure guys, but I'm out to take pictures today. I've got better things to do than sit in a musty darkroom and play with film masks.

I'm with Scott on this one.

<p>

I've had excellent output from a Lambda to c-print material from a color negative original. The conclusion to which you've jumped is the wrong one. You could more accurately assume that most service bureaus are too lazy to learn how to work with color negs at the scanner. I'd rather print direct from the neg than go through the scanner/LightJet. And printing from a trans on any material is a pain. Period. Unless you're under a 4 stop range.

<p>

As an aside, it used to be that Galleries and Museums didn't even consider photographic prints other than Cibas and dye transfers, but now they all love to see that "Fuji Crystal Archive" on the back of a print.

<p>

If for some reason you love to look at a reflection of yourself and everything in the room behind you <i>while</i> trying to see your photograph, then by all means try Ilfo and Fuji Flex (poly based) Print Material as an alternative to direct positive printing on the same kind of substrate, at least you'll be able to show some highlight detail. By avoiding contrast masks you won't have to keep the dust off 4 surfaces (8 if you print in glass) while you work. Plain old glossy c-print (Fuji) works best for me, and the Iris would be my second choice (ha)...t

Hi Graham,

 

This is very interesting. I recently returned from a trip to Australia where I used Provia / Agfachrome and also Kodak's Elite. I got all my favourite shots printed up onto Cibachrome low contrast paper and I was surprised to see that the fuji shots were possibly the least impressive. The kodak elite shots came out superbly while tha agfa shots were possibly more 'true'.

 

I had a long discussion with the guy at the lab who printed them for me, and he said that Ciba, even low contrast editions of it can be very contrasty, so I wasn't surprised to see that some shadow detail had been lost in the final print.

 

But overall, I still believe that Ciba is the 'only way to go' to get something close to the original slide in terms of vibrancy.

 

But I think i'll be sticking with Kodak Elite for 35mm, and E100SW for medium format. I always thought that kodak film would be too 'red', however, it was superb at colour saturation in all areas of the spectrum.

 

Lastly, Ciba is very expensive, and Ive had the same shot printed more than once by several labs - each time will drastic differences. I would maybe try handing in a single frame to another lab that has a good reputation and see what the outcome is like. You may be surprised to see a marked improvement....

Scott Eaton seems to be presenting more than simply a dispassionate view that there are other options than Ilfochrome that can be better with certain films or that the effort to produce a good Ilfochrome is not worth it. I sense a manic determination to rubbish the medium. I suspect much depends on whether you can find labs skilled enough to do it. Here in the UK, there are frankly very few that can do it properly - one is BDP Phototec in Warrington,Lancs that I think rely on dodging and burning rather than a contrast mask, for about £18 for a 16x12. The results are infinitely superior to any R type print I have ever seen. That said, I think Provia (RDPII)works slighty better than Velvia. I have also had good results with Fuji Chrystal Chrome (as it is branded here), but my local professional lab (Colab) can only do up to 12x8. I am going to have one try with Ilfochrome in my own darkroom (P30 process),but expect it to be too time consuming to make contrast masks.

I find this conversation really interesting, and I won't hide the fact that I'm a reversal-printing neophyte.

 

What got me interested in this is the fact that most of what I shoot for my local photo club has to be in reversal, by virtue of the fact that it's easier to show slides to a group than it is print. I bemoaned this at first; after a few rolls of Kodachrome I was hooked, as the colour saturation and midtone contrast seemed to be blowing the negative colour films I was using out of the water. Unless I wanted to go with a "specialty" film like Agfa Ultra, I just couldn't match the Kodachrome for depth and richness of colour. That's just personal observation, though - I'm sure there are those who will disagree, and I present it only as opinion ...

 

... anyways, this made me inevitably curious about the possibility of printing. And what got me intrigued by Cibachrome (Ilfochrome or whatever) were the results on the Fujichrome prints I got back. The lab I dealt with (local pro shop, doesn't charge an arm and a leg, but considerably more than the local photomat) raved about the Fujichrome process, and I really had to work to not show my disappointment when I got the prints back. They were muddy and dull, and I simply couldn't correlate the image quality of the prints to the original transparencies. Perhaps I should give it more of a chance, as that was one batch of prints from one lab ...

 

I had no idea that Cibachrome was such a pariah in the industry - people either look at me reverently or as some sort of leper when I ask about it, which I admit has made me curious to try it for the benefit of my own experience and opinion, if nothing else. As Scott said earlier, I don't particularly care what the process is - as long as I get good results. What good is, however, will remain to be seen.

 

I happened upon this thread in searching for information about how to do the P-3 processing myself. This still seems to be a rather scarce topic, so perhaps this is an indication that I'm getting out of my league here?

 

Persistantly,

-- Mike Helms