Printing from 35mm slides w/ Ilfochrome

[morrison]

Well you may have seen my posts on here before asking if it is worth

going to ilfochrome and I have finally made the decision to try it

out. the one remaining question I have is on how large of a print

you can make from a 35mm slide. can you reduce grain by going to

ilfochrome? I understand the principles behind the grain on a film,

but am curious if some grain is the result of the processing aspect

of making the prints. I generally shoot on Fuji 100 Slide film.

[neal_shields]

The only way I know of to reduce grain optically is to make an internegative. I.E. make a 4x5" negative from the 35mm slide and then make the print from the 4x5 negative. (which means that you no longer need the Ilfochrome process.)

 

I have done some tests with Velvia and you really have to get big before you notice grain in clear blue skys.

 

In this crop, the clock face was 1mm tall on the transparancy and I don't find the grain objectionable. On my computer screen that works out to about a 15 power magnification. That would take a 35mm slide to about 16x20"

 

http://truckgenerator.com/subdomain/sueandneal/clocktowercroped.jpg

 

On this shot at 60X I do find the grain objectionable.

 

 

http://truckgenerator.com/subdomain/sueandneal/clockface.jpg

[scott_eaton]

Internegs diffuse the grain of the original - that's for sure. Your typical 4x5 interneg also produces a print that's marginally *worse* than using print film in the first place.

 

16x20 full frame should be no problem with a R-type print from 100 speed slide film. I sill think you're better off going with a digital scan, but if your slide isn't overly contrasty you should get an acceptable print.

[neal_shields]

"Your typical 4x5 interneg also produces a print that's marginally *worse* than using print film in the first place."

 

My point of using a 4x5 internegative was not to get to a typical print process from a negative but to destroy grain and information that was smaller than required for the intent of the photo.

 

I strongly agree that less information is "worse" but in some cases it "looks" better.

 

I also suspect that, above 8x10, a digital print from 35mm may look better than an Ilfochrome for most subjects.

 

I did a digital print recently that had detail on the horizon which I wanted to reproduce clearly even though it was at the limits of the nakid eye. The digital print (Lambda) wouldn't reproduce it and I had to go to an Ilfochrome to get what I wanted but I was working from a 2 1/4 X 4 1/2" negative.

[scott_eaton]

The idea of wanting both an Ilfochrome for it's intense saturation and likely high contrast, and comparing it to an interneg are mutually exclusive goals. You could also print the R-type slightly out of focus to reduce grain if we really wanted to pursue the ridiculous. Maybe spit on the enlarging lens.....<P>

 

Not sure if this is "interneg" month on photo.net, but that horrid and obsolete process sure seems to be coming up a lot lately. I thought the process of photographic printing was to get better results, not worse.<P><I>The digital print (Lambda) wouldn't reproduce it </p></i>The Lambda is a printer, not a scanner, and it will reproduce what-ever detail is fed to it. If you're getting better results with Ilfochrome than a scan and print, then the process is a 50/50 fault. 50% blame on the lab for being stupid and run by complete and total retards, and 50% your fault for not finding a lab that knows how to scan chromes correctly in the first place. The reputable digital labs would likely re-do your digital print for *free* if you could show them you were getting better R-typesbecause to them it's personal.<P>Even a double masked Ilfochrome has no chance of showing as much detail as a proper drum scan of a slide - I used to print the stupid things before we bought a drum. I also don't know of too many ad agencies or magazine publishers that are printing Ilfochromes and sending them to copy press because they show more detail than drum scans.

[neal_shields]

"Even a double masked Ilfochrome has no chance of showing as much detail as a proper drum scan of a slide"

 

I have had 12000 dpi pmt drum scans of Velvia done and agree that I can't get that much detail on an Ilfochrome.

 

However, my color lab limits Lambda resolution to 400 dpi. That is much less than 15 lp/mm. Are you saying that you can't get more than 15 lp/mm to a Ilfochrome print??

 

My problem is I see it on the scan, I see it under the microscope, and I see most of it on the Ilfochrome, I don't see near as much on the Lambda print.

[david_henderson]

A few comments on the issues raised within this thread as well as the initial question.

 

I don't have the technical background some of you guys have but I have a lot of prints made and see a lot of top-end prints from a range of sources. There is no doubt in my mind that a print made from a well scanned transparency in a good lab will have more detail than the best you're ever going to get from Ilfochrome and that means you can print it bigger. About two sizes bigger in my view. So from the same tranny, if you can get a 16" x 12" out of it ( and that would be as far as I'd want to go with a really good transparency) then you could get 20" x 30" of broadly equivalent quality from a drum scanned critically sharp 35mm slide. Personally I'd be happier with a limit of 14" x 11" for a type R process and 20" x 16" from a digital route but there you go.

 

Believe me the only way you'd doubt these conclusions is that you haven't seen the best that the drum scan/LightJet or Chromira route has to offer; or that the base material isn't sharp to start with- this process makes sharp prints but it doesn't create sharpness- or that your prints are small to the point it probably doesn't make a huge difference. When you add to this that you get much better control of colour and contrast, repeatability built in, and a proofing process that's really useful (it isn't really on an Ilfochrome) then frankly it isn't much of a contest so long as you're prepared to pay what it costs.

 

I seem to keep saying on here that using broadly the right equipment and process isn't enough- you have to find people who really know what they're doing. I think there's a lot of people that see the magic words "LightJet" or "drum Scan" and think that buys the answer. Some of these people are lab owners. Some of them are home scanners with underdeveloped skills and experience who think that if they put their sub-optimal files through a LightJet it's going to make things right. Well it won't. The scan's got to be right, the photographer has to be able to explain what interpretation he wants; the file creation's got to be right and the management of the print process has to be exemplary. Then you can get a great print. But just as with Ilfochromes or anything else, you'll only get the best prints if you take the trouble to find suppliers who can tell the difference between mastering their technique instead of just using it. Despite my comments here I'd rather have a top Ilfochrome than a LightJet from a mediocre scan and iffy file creation.

 

Finally, I do agree with Scott's comments on internegs. This process is just old stuff, was never great, and survives now mostly in labs that can't afford to make a major digital investment or have formed a view that the custom digital print marketplace is beginning to look very crowded and it's going to be tough to recover a major investment in a very competitive environment. But prints from internegs aren't really alternatives to Ilfochromes because the latter are saturated and vibrant and internegs are most often poor, dull flat things. The only places I see much of them these days are in the London Art Colleges - and the labs supplying the students with really big prints aren't making enough money from them to fuel an investment. The prints have all the vitality of the posters used to promote communist regimes' five year plans in the sixties. It's a legitimate look - though not one I'm personally fond of- but if I wanted to get there I think it would be easier to start with a neg anyway.

[rowland_mowrey]

Guys;

 

Every photo you see reproduced in a magazine or catalog has gotten there by means of some sort of internegative.

 

Those beautiful saturated colors you admire from Kodachromes published in National Geographic got there via an internegative process.

 

Every Hollywood motion picture was printed from an internegative that came via an interpos from the camera original (sometimes by 1 - 12 intermediate printing steps).

 

Granted that some of them were made via B&W internegatives, but nevertheless, it was an internegative.

 

Sharpness does not have to suffer, nor does tone scale or color reproduction. If it did, you would never be so 'impressed' by those National Geographic Kodachromes that you love so much.

 

Don't run down what you cannot master or understand. I have seen bad Cibachromes / Ilfochromes as well. I have seen bad digital prints. It is the master work of a master craftsman that makes photography work. Our labor in turning out a quality final photograph is what counts, not sarcastic remarks or put downs.

 

Digital and conventional can turn out superb 16x20 prints from 35mm slides or negatives and even via dupe pos or dupe negs. I have seen it done via all of those routes.

 

Ron Mowrey

[lex_jenkins]

Ron, not to disagree with your point regarding the influence of NatGeo on photographers' use of Kodachrome - it figured into my choice of the film - but when I look back on those old issues I'm surprised at how selective my memories have been. Most of the reproduction was pretty awful.

 

In fact, most of National Geographic's reproduction continues to be awful, among the worst of any magazine that supposedly prides itself on photo illustrations. I've seen magazines that specialize in bikini-clad women draped across the hoods of custom cars that have far better photo reproduction.

 

In the end I realized that what impressed me about the early color photography years of NatGeo wasn't the quality of their reproduction but the romance of photographing exotic lands where women were half-nekkid. And the Kodachrome palette was a damn sight better than that fakey-plasticky look of earlier color reproduction.

 

And I've never gotten a good interneg process print from my Kodachromes. I gave up several years ago and figured I'd have to stick with color negative films if I wanted prints. That irritated me because of the variables in color balance - at least with slides I knew what I *should* be getting, even if the final results were mushy with blown highlights or no shadow detail.

 

I know Scott enjoys poking sharp sticks at the Cibachrome/Ilfochrome crowd but I've seen some beautiful photos from this process. However I have no idea whether the prints I've seen represented the full potential of the slides from which they were derived. I would know that only if I saw their slides or tried the process myself.

 

In fact I did have a couple of Cibachromes made years ago from slides taken at the Grand Canyon. I thought they were fabulous. Unfortunately they didn't hold up well. After more than 20 years in admittedly non-archival storage they've gone as orangey as my old Ektachromes.

 

So I'd definitely consider the digital route for prints from my slides.

 

As for 4x5 internegs from 35mm for the purpose of making large prints, I don't get it. For the past couple of years several photographers at a local arts show have displayed huge prints using this process. I don't know how big some were but enough that I had to stretch out my arms to measure the full length. Most started out as 35mm Velvia; from there to a 4x5 interneg and from there to the gigantic print.

 

And most of 'em were very colorful and very mushy. They weren't grainy but they weren't sharp either.

 

I don't mind grainy prints or even artistically unsharp prints. But that clearly wasn't the intent of these photos. If a photographer wants huge prints and good results, start out with big film.

[rowland_mowrey]

Lex;

 

First, my internegatives are sharp. I have notebooks filled with internegatives from my slides and those done by EK. I agree that some can be quite bad. If you have read my other posts though you will see that this was the route of choice for Cape Canaveral film production and satisfied the Atlantic Missile Range customers for quality.

 

I have seen bad prints from all types of printing methods. You are right. Ilfochrome should keep well, but I have seen some go bad. I have Cibachromes stored side by side with Ektacolor prints, and the Cibachromes are turning brown grey in color and the Ektacolor prints are turning red (those stored next to the Ciba but not those isolated). OTOH, I have Printon prints from the 40s and 50s that are still good today.

 

It varies.

 

That is why a hard and fast rule cannot be applied.

 

I have developed an equipment line and technique that allows me to make sharp internegatives and good prints from my Ektachromes. I have been doing it for years. I don't argue that others dispute this, but the evidence from my vast experience says that it can be done. The results out of Hollywood says it can be done as well.

 

I still stand by my statement that we should each do what we are happy with and what satisfies us, and although we can explain it to one another, we should not be hidebound by it.

 

You use what you feel makes you happy. It is a hobby, not a religion. In the final analysis, the subject matter is often more important than the technical quality of the print. An interesting print done fairly well, impresses me more than a poor print done with technical excellence. It is subject matter and composition that really strike me first. I also happen to like my pictures to be realistic, not garish. I don't like seeing a garbage dump look like the garden of Eden.

 

One last point. No one yet has been able to grasp the fact that pos-pos printing cannot ever be as good as neg-pos. Digital can approach it only via manipulation of the curves, but even then is limited by the original which has lost data due to the very nature of the positive process. I don't care what anyone says, subjective visual evidence to the contrary, quantitative comparisons say neg-pos will beat pos-pos reproduction.

 

Ron Mowrey

[oskar_ojala]

<i>That is why a hard and fast rule cannot be applied.</i>

 

<p>With this I agree completely.

 

<p>As to the original question: I believe sharpness and your technique will be the more limiting factors than grain of a fine grain film when doing Ilfochrome. Grain can't be reduced. If you want to reduce grain in post-processing, try to tinker with software. Doing 10x, 12x enlargements from 35 mm with an enlarger is not easy and at these magnifications digital methods have an edge (I'm not going into discussing the reproductive qualities of Ilfochrome...) As always, if you want to do large, consider bigger film.

[chris haake]

*tee hee hee* Lex said "nekkid!"

 

Uh-hem, sorry. Anyway, I truely believe that the OVERALL best (and surest), as well as most financially responsible, way to go about this nowadays is a scan-and-print. However, a pro photographer acquaintence (wildlife) does his own Ilfochromes, and they are beyond stunning. Then again, they're expensive, too. As for size, I know he goes well beyond 16x20, but I don't know where he tops out. That's from 35mm slides. (He has, however, since switched to all digital, and the results are just as stunning and a lot less toxic.)

[steve_swinehart]

"Every photo you see reproduced in a magazine gets there through the internegative process."

 

Really? Then all that direct-to-press digital stuff is just a rumour?

 

Comment: What happened at or what was accepted by or what the gov't crowd bought off on 10, 15, or 20 years ago has absolutely NO bearing on what should be acceptable today. Having worked with the photo dudes a White Sands Missle Range, Edwards AFB, Sandia National Laboratory, and the DOE has only proven to me that acceptable for them has do with delivery time and the final audience. I've seen crap photos from every one of those esteemed gov't establishments as well as some of the finest industrial photography. Stating that a certain photo process was okay for Cape Canaveral or NASA or whatever gov't institution says nothing on the scale of "best in the world." It's also sometimes well below K-Mart Family Portrait Day for quality.

 

A 4x5 interneg is a laudible goal - now where is it that you get the 4x5 interneg film from today?

 

If you want the best reproduction from a 35mm slide into a print, have it scanned. Work on it in Photoshop and then run something like Neat Image. Neat Image allows you to make custom noise reduction profiles for each image type. I have profiles for Kodachrome 25, Kodachrome 64, Kodachrome 200, EPD 200, E200, Provia 100, Provia 400, PMC 400, Porta 160, Portra 400, Portra 800, and my digital camera at all ISO settings.

 

Neat Image will reduce the grain to the point that you can easily make a 20x24-inch print that looks virtually grainless, even with close inspection (put your nose on the print), from ISO 100 transparency film in 35mm format. Really, I do it all the time for myself and several other photographers.

 

As a reference point, I've printed well over 1,000 16x20 Ilfochrome images and a countless number of smaller images. I've done it professionally and for museums. I have a full Ilfochrome setup sitting in my darkroom including a roller transport processor. I'm telling you - do it digitally, the result will be better. If you like the sort of metallic look that you get from Ilfochrome for aesthetics - get a LightJet print done on Kodak Metallic paper.

 

As to your original question, I've made 16x20 prints from 35mm Kodachrome 200 for a photographer for a Smithsonian sponsored show. They look fine. Larger than that would be questionable.

[rowland_mowrey]

Steve;

 

Sorry, of course you are right about the direct to press digital. Before that was available, what I said still holds true.

 

Also, don't forget the Hollywood connection. Everything goes via internegative. People tend to ignore the high quality achieved there from an internegative type film reproduction chain.

 

As for internegative film, Portra 160 VC or NC work just fine. I find that a slight pull of the VC works best for me. I have made some fine enlargements from my 4x5 internegatives of 35mm slides.

 

Also, I guess time will have to tell us how well digital originals last on CDs and HDs. My color film has lasted 60 years or so. I have B&W from 150 years ago, of our family after the Civil War.

 

Ilfochrome is beautiful, but very expensive. From the cost of chemistry and paper, I would estimate that each Ilfochrome would cost me a minimum of 2x - 4x the cost of my current methods.

 

Ron Mowrey

[steve_swinehart]

Yes, film is the proven media for longevity at this point. However, I would point out, that the original question deals with an original shot on Fuji 100 transparency film.

 

So, the question really is how long will Fuji film last and not how long a CD or DVD will last. My question on either of those storage media is not so much the longevity (given the correct media type) but, whether you will be able to read the data in 30 years.

 

I remember 8-inch floppies - got a drive that will read them? Even the ubiquitous (14 years ago) 5-1/4 inch floppy - anyone got a drive for that? I still have a floppy archive that I'd have to pull out the "ancient box" (32 MHz 80386) in order to read.

 

So, yes, your comment is certainly germain and right on topic as to the true definition of "archival."

 

However, the worst Jason will end up with at this point - if he chooses to go digital - is a piece of film (with a know archival stability), a photo print on photographic paper (with a know archival stability), and a file on a media that may or may not be archival at some future date.

 

So, in reality , he's no worse off than he was when he started, and he has a photographic print.

 

As to making the interneg on color neg film. Haven't tried it. My favorite custom photo lab tried using neg film, and the owner would only say "I wasn't satisfied with the results compared with interneg film." You are, he wasn't - I don't think either answer is "right" only different.

 

The lab owner did have a well known/respected art photographer for whom he did all of the interneg work. He did quite a bit of expirementation after the interneg film was discontinued in order to keep the "look" for the artist - he could not duplicate it to the artist's satisfaction. Perhaps that's why he made his comment about interneg film versus neg film used for internegs.

[rowland_mowrey]

Steve;

 

Fuji internegative film is still available in 4x5 and larger sizes and 35mm rolls and they duplicate most all properties of EK internegative film AFAIK. The last I looked EK had not discontinued the 35mm internegative film. I found it on the EK site, as well as at Calumet, B&H, and Adorama. But, I have not looked for a few months. I considered ordering the Fuji product, but I would have to order a minimum of 500 sheets (10 boxes of 50 sheets). I couldn't do that but your lab owner friend probably could.

 

I called EK and they recommended Portra NC as being nearly identical to the internegative film except for the upsweep in the shoulder. This would make the toe region of the transparency reproduce at a slightly lower contrast and would be non-linear.

 

If you are not familiar with internegative films, they have an upswept shoulder to straighten out the toe of the transparency and make it into a straight line rather than a curve so as to preserve data. Most bad internegatives are bad by virtue of the fact that they are misprinted and don't place the toe of the transparency on the correct spot on this curve.

 

I found that VC with a slight pull (2'45" dev) works very well.

 

Ron Mowrey