Slides printing for a rookie

Hi all,

 

I've heard that printing slides is a little easier than printing

negatives. I've a Durst M670 VC and would like to try printing color

slides after so many B&W prints.

So, what are the rules for printing slides : special color paper,

special developer, special fixer and - I'm afraid - total darkness !!

Is that right ? May I look for cateyes ??

 

Anyone has links about it.

 

Many thanks for your inputs

 

Fred

Frederic:

 

1) If printing slides is 'easier' than printing negatives - it's mostly because you have the slide as a positive reference for colors - i.e. you can compare the print to the slide to see if it's "right". And the color correction is easier to understand. Printing slides, if your print is too blue you add yellow filtration/light - but printing negatives, if your print is too blue you add MORE blue light. Not as intuitive.

 

Otherwise, color slide printing is just about as difficult as color neg printing. Same (roughly) number of chemical steps, same darkness, same need for color filtration in the enlarger to get the print color right.

 

2) You do need special paper and chemicals designed to print a positive from a positive. Ilford Ilfochrome is one such process (once known as Cibachrome). Kodak and/or Tetenal also make (or at least once made) papers and chemicals for slide printing.

 

3) Yes - you must print in total darkness. Color papers are sensitive to all colors of light (or else they couldn't capture all the colors in your slide/negative) so there is no real "safe" light for color darkrooms. There's some kind of very dark green "color' safelight sold - but it's so dark I never found it to be any improvement over plain darkness.

 

4) Cateyes? You mean night-vision/infrared goggles? I've never needed/used them - but I guess you can if you want to. When I was printing color they cost about $100,000 each (!!) - I gather they are cheaper now, though.

If printing from color slides is easier than color negs they why does virtually every fine art B/W photographer in the world print from B/W negs vs B/W transparencies?

 

Think about it....

Scott, I would have thought that the decision to use negative film had more to do with latitude of the film and control in the devloping and less to do with ease of printing. But I do agree with your premise; my limited understanding suggests that printing in the darkroom from negatives is easier.

"...why does virtually every fine art B/W photographer in the world print from B/W negs vs B/W transparencies?"

 

Why limit it to fine-art photographers - virtually ALL photographers doing B&W in any genre use negatives - 10,000:1 or so.

 

BUT - I'm not sure it's because negative printing is 'easier' in terms of hands-on skills in the darkroom.

 

Maybe it's because there are at least 50+ different B&W negative emulsions in existence vs. only 1 (Scala) B&W transparency film? (Polaroid's instant 35 films being effectively dead). And because there's a whole infrastructure set up for B&W neg printing (availability of papers, chemicals, etc.) but effectively none for doing positive B&Ws (absent scanning/digital)?

 

If the infrastructure was there, it MIGHT be slightly easier to make prints from B&W slides as well. B&W transparencies (as in Scala or dx5 processing of regular B&W films) are actually increasing in popularity/availability (although still microscopic in relation to the volume of negatives shot.) Mostly because digital scanning/printing is providing the positive-to-positive B&W work-flow option that the traditional darkroom has neglected.

 

As I said - the main (small) advantage to printing color slides over negs is that you have a nice reference (the slide) for getting the colors right - not an issue in B&W work. In terms of difficulty (chemical steps, time per print, total darkness) printing color negs vs. slides is otherwise about equal.

None of you answered the question correctly because of all the marketing myth that Ilford has dumped in the industry.

 

Direct R-type printing from slides came about because before the age of digital there was no other way to produce low volume, cost effective images from slides without using a costly wet film/plate process. Basically, R-type printing was invented for utility purposes because in all other respects it was/is inferior to C-type. There is no fine art monochrome transparency B/W printing club becuase the process would produce crappy looking prints and run counter to all the intents of B/W fine art photography. The main selling point for R-type prints the past 30years have been Ilford's obnoxious industrial dyes they use in their papers, which would hardly benefit fine art, B/W printers, eh?

 

With reversal printing you can rarely dodge, you can't burn because highlights have no information, the density range and 'sparkle' of the original gets trashed and the middle zones of the original slide get expanded to occupy most of the tonal zones of the paper, and it's non-intuitive compared to printing conventional B/W. Slides that look good on the light table are not easier to print than color negs, and no slide in the history of civilization has ever produced an R-type print that looked just like it.

 

Personally I feel Frederic is wasting his time if he's experienced with B/W because the results with a digital scan/print produce better results from slides, while conventional color or B/W neg to print is still a viable process. Then again if you have a high volume of slides and a lot of time to waste by all means pick up one of the Ilford kits.- I suggest getting the smallest one possible. You'll typically be dissapointed at producing images that have bright colors, yet no shadw or highlight information without adjusting your shooting style style, and finding out that only 1 out of 100 slides produces a decent looking print.