Type "R" Prints from Transparency - Which Labs Still Do It?

This is my 2nd post regarding enlargement from transparency.

 

Scanning the slide into digital and then print is one option, which

is pretty expensive. I wonder if there are still labs in the U.S.

who are still printing type R prints from slides.

 

Never printed from slides before. What's quality of R prints vs

digital prints? How about the cost? Thanks.

Getting a slide drum scanned and printed on a LightJet is expensive. Getting a slide scanned on a Fuji Frontier or similar machine and printed is pretty reasonable. I think my pro lab charges about $2 for that compared to about $40 for the drum scan and LightJet. Most pro labs and places like Wolf Camera and even Walmart can use their minilab equipment to print from a slide for 50 cents to a few dollars. My pro lab still does Cibachromes but not R prints.

Binyuan,

 

The answre is no. Kodak discontinued all it's R paper and chemistry.

 

Fuji has some left but no chemistry.

 

The only direct print process is ILFOCHROME (Cibachrome) which is very expensive.

 

To make matters worse Kodak has discontinued it's internegative film so getting internegatives is also a problem.

 

The market has spoken - it's scan and print to a C print or inkjet printer.

My store has a Noritsu 2901 machine (400 d.p.i.). The machine has a slit scanner that does surprisingly good scans and makes great prints on color negative print paper up to 12x18 inches. We charge the same price for prints from slides as prints from negs.

 

 

The main advantage to scanning a slide and printing on "C" paper is that you are able to avoid the contrast build-up of type-R papers. Slides- as opposed to negatives- are often a bit contrasty to begin with. Type-R papers (e.g. the old Kodak Ektachrome paper) are basicaly big slides with an opaque, white plastic backing. As such, you are often printing a slide that is a bit contrasty on a type-R paper that is a bit contrasty, resulting in a lack of shadow detail and blown-out highlights in the finished print.

In terms of price and quality of print, it doesn't so much matter what method you use, digital, internegative, Ilfochrome or R print. You get what you pay for. A high quality drum scan and LightJet print or a well done Ilfochrome print are the best quality. Both are very expensive. A good Ilfochrome print usually requires making an unsharp silver mask to reduce contrast of the slide to retain detail and sometimes dodging and burning as well. An unsharp silver mask is essentially a B&W negative contact print of the slide that is used as a mask with the slide. This is labor intensive. Drum scans are expensive because drum scanners are expensive, and the post-processing in photoshop is labor intensive. But the results of all of this extra effort is the potential of a museum quality Ilfochrome or LightJet print. Making an color negative of the slide, usually called an internegative and then using that for a C-print is another option and if the internegative is larger than the original slide, high quality is possible, eg a 4x5 from 35mm, but again this gets into more $ whereas a 35mm contract print or in-camera dup(lication) of a 35mm slide is cheaper.

 

Lower cost scans, less photoshop work, or just printing the slide on some type of R paper without doing the extra work to control contrast, or making an internegative of the slide and using it for a C print are all cheaper options, with commensurate less quality.

 

Yet another option that is excellent if you just need a 3x4 or 4x5 size print is to make a polaroid print of the slide.

 

Lastly, I've heard that Ilfochrome has ceased to manufacture the old Cibachrome/Ilfochrome process. Digital scans are definitely the future. In time, the ability to do top of the line scans of slides will get cheaper. This is one good reason to shoot slides instead of digital-- once you've capture teh image on a slide, you can take advantage of years of technological improvements in scanning, whereas once you capture an image with a digital camera, you cannot "recapture" it at higher quality later when a new technology makes a better digital camera affordable.

Joseph,

 

Where did you hear that Ilford Ilfochrome material was being stopped?

I heard that Ilfochrome was being discontinued from the owner of a fine art photography gallery. I have not tried to verify the claim, so it may not be correct.

A type "R" print from a transparency should cost you about $2.00.

If your lab can't produce that, you probably aren't using a "pro" lab. Find another lab.

I'm not at all sure that labs can now offer R types with the exception of Ilfochrome. Where you can find it, this would not cost $2. Or anywhere close to $2.

 

Done well, the quality of digital prints exceeds that of Type R in any case, and the larger the print you want the more noticeable that benefit will be. Its a question of finding a good source. Scan and print from transparencies can be cheap (eg most Frontier Labs) or it can be expensive. The difference between the two lies in the scanning; the ability to produce very large sizes; and the amount of personal intervention in the creation/tweaking of a file.

 

I'm not going to be specific on prices because UK pricing probably won't help much, but there is easily a factor of ten or more between a Frontier ( or equivalent) minilab product and a top of range lab using drum scanners and Lightjet/Chromira printing. You need to decide where to buy into this range of options bearing in mind that easy transparencies at moderate sizes can often be printed well and cheaply. It seems logical to me for an amateur photographer wanting to print from slides to experiment with different minilabs to find their best, and to use the more expensive route only where the print is very important and won't work via a Frontier or whatever.

The last time I had r prints done (Matrix, in indianapolis) about 5 years ago. They ran

about $40 for the first 11x14, then $17 each for copies.

 

I don't think they still do R's tho - having switched to scan and print systems.

 

My lab here in Chicago no longer lists R prints.. but still offers internegative services.

 

--

 

Quality wise - nothing in the world looks like a well made Cibachrome. R prints were ok,

but not as saturated to my eyes. Digital processes are getting better.

 

Without a side by side comparison - I am happy with any of them, provided the labs do

their work correctly.

Ilfochrome (aka Cibachrome) is a live and well. There are a hand full of quality labs in the state offering them. I use www.hiddenlightllc.com THEY ARE AWESOME.

Type R - Fuji is the only company making this paper and process, but only availble in Japan. There is currently a company in the States offering this process but they call it Vibachrome. This paper does not have the same qualities or longivity of an Ilfochrome. If I can find the info I will post it, but I do remember they were expensive and might as well spend a little extra get the Ilfochromes.

 

Happy Shooting!!!

If we're talking top end prints, my experience is that a drum scan and print on a Chromira aor LightJet beats Ilfochrome by a distance. Especially if you want a big enlargement or the original is contrasty, or if its important that the print is accurately repeatable.

 

However we're talking top end here. Most prints from trannys are "machine prints" made these days on a Frontier or similar

David,

 

What is "top end"???

I agree with Dave Henderson.

 

At large print sizes Ilfochrome is weak compared to drumscan/chromira or even imacon/chromira.

 

No contest.

J.W. Photo Labs in Raleigh, NC still print w/ Ilfochrome using a traditional enlarger. www.jwphotolabs.com (as of Oct 24,05)