Printing from slides

[craig_h1]

The Cibachrome thread was very interesting since I've been interested

in slide printing. Is there any other way. Please don't say scan

since I am not & will not go digital.

 

Craig

[dennisprice]

<i>...since I am not & will not go digital...</i>

 

<p>And yet you used a digital computer to send your question to a digital server on a digital network which is almost instantly accessable by forum members around the world?</p>

 

<p>Forgive me Craig, the irony was so great that I couldn't resist ;-) </p>

[bobmichaels]

Craig, there may still be a lab left somewhere in the world that will make an optical interneg and print on an optical enlarger. That worked reasonably well back a decade or so.

 

But almost every lab nowdays uses a system that digitizes or scans the chrome or neg and outputs it to a lightjet. The good thing is that the entire process works very well. Today you get the same print from the Fuji Frontier at WalMart from a slide as you do from a neg. The quality is amazing. Of course the operator still makes some difference which is why you get a better print from a pro lab than WalMart even though they use the same machine.

 

If you are wanting to optically print really good color from a chrome at home and not use anything digital, good luck. I don't there ever has been a good way.

[discpad]

Craig, the problem is that nobody makes color interneg film any longer. Ron has a recipe for exposing Kodak 160NC film at E.I. 80 and pull processing 1 stop (3:00 in C41 color dev @100F).

 

Cheers! Dan

[colin_thomas5]

Craig, One way you can accomplish this is to use a bellows on your camera with a slide copier attatchment. Just put the slide you want a print of in the attatchment, and load the camera with print film. I will attempt to post some examples. Note, if you build up too much contrast in the copy, this can be alleviated by "flashing" the film, that is pre-exposing the film slightly with a flash, before making the copy. I did not use this on my sample. For more details, check out the book "The Manual of Close-up Photography" by Lester Lefkowitz. The sample was made when I first got my Minolta Bellows Model II and slide copy attatchent for my Srt-101. I used a daylight balanced flourescent bulb for illumination. Nothing special just farting around with my new toy, both samples have been scanned from the slide and the negs, but it will give you a rough idea of what you might expect.<div></div>

[hjoseph7]

Seek and ye shall find.

Adorama in New York City still has a few batches of ektachrome left.\ (link)

 

Freestyle based in LA California also sell R3000 chemicals on a limited basis.

 

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_main.php?cat_id=1003

 

Please do not deplete the remaining stock. Thank you.

[stoem]

http://www.cloneachrome.com/

[User_502260]

Craig,

 

I used to send slides to The Slideprinter in Denver for Type R prints. If the slide in question did not have too much of a contrast problem to begin with then the Type R print could be vivid, sharp and very nice overall. I wish I could still have Type R prints made because I like the way they look. The problem is that most or all of the materials needed for Type R printing are now gone.

 

A few years ago, before the changeover, I shot a roll of Kodachrome 25 and sent some slides to the Slideprinter. The glossy 11X14 Type R prints were beautiful. These were optical prints and the tight grain pattern of the Kodachrome 25 film was evident. Late last year I had prints made from some Kodachrome 25 shot in the summer. The 8X12 prints were very nice but the grain pattern of the Kodachrome 25 film could no longer be seen. This is because the slides were scanned and output digitally. They still look good but they look different. If you look closely at them with a magnifier you see the pattern of the digital printer and not of the original slide film itself.

 

The advantage of the digital printing is that you have much better control of contrast than Type R printing ever had. To control contrast in the pre-digital era you had to either make an internegative or use a contrast mask. My solution was to shoot print film when the contrast was too high and save the Kodachrome for something else. The Slideprinter's prices for standard size prints, including appropriate scans, are very reasonable and the quality is quite good. If you want a really large print you can pay for a better scan separately and have the scan returned to you on a CD. If you are the Craig I think you are you can also borrow my Bronica ETR and get your large prints that way.

 

Jeff

[juergenf]

Craig,

 

I am sorry to say it but in IMO your best bet is to scan. The alternative is to have Ilfochromes/cibachromes made but it is hard to do it really good and will cost you big $.

 

I know that scanning will 'digitalize' you to a degree, but as said, it is your best bet to get really good prints from slides. Even though I've seen many stunning prints made from slides, I still believe that print film is best when all you want are prints.

[manjo]

film vs digital is a religious issue. I shoot slides primarily, but that is coz I would like to look at my photos 20yrs from now and not have to pay "fees" so some corp to look at my own photos. But it does not make sense to wrap your hand around your head to touch your nose. Digital process produces good prints, and the price is unbeatable. I have digital scans of all my slides, both 35mm and 220.

[scott_eaton]

Anybody who claims they don't want to use digital scanning of slides for some irrational reason, and yet are willing to get internegs made is likely willing to take up shoveling horse manure to avoid a smelly job.

 

4x5 internegs can be tolerable, but they still dumb down the color saturation and density range to a final print worse than shooting color neg film in the first place.

 

Somebody just doesn't want to pay for a decent lab/drum scan.

 

I don't care what kind of slide you have. Give me a decent 4000dpi film scanner and I'll mop the floor with the best cibachrome or interneg print available on this planet. Already done it.

[craig_h1]

Jeff,

 

It's me. Then I would need a scanner & a better printer. Would you explain that to Jennie!

 

Craig

[bman0023]

Scott, where is a good place to go to get a good scan. I have many slides to get printed, a limited budget, but a desire to learn how to do it. I am also going to try to teach myself Photoshop. Any help will be appreciated.

 

I have also seen Fatali's Gallery in Utah, and the pints are awesome. I wonder if he burns and dodges though. Regardless, I hope my prints can look that good one day.

 

Brad

[daveg]

I have some 16x20 Ilfochrome prints made a few years back from Fuji Velvia slides, and a 16x24 made from a drum scan of a Fuji Velvia slide and printed on a lightjet printer. The Ilfochrome prints blow the lightjet print out of the water, hands down. Both the Ilfochrome prints and the drum scan/lightjet print were done by Calypso Imaging, the premiere pro lab in San Jose. Unfortunately, they don't do Ilfochromes any more. Too bad.

 

As far as I know, there is still a lab on Industrial in Hayward that does Ilfochromes, but they have a very poor cleanliness regimen, and it is not uncommon for the prints to be contaminated with dust. I donﾒt remember the name of the place.

[stephen_ray]

Craig,

 

You've heard "never say never." <I am not and will not go digital.>

 

The fact is digital is faster, better, and cheaper than the older method.

 

Les Sarile,

 

About Fatali in Las Vegas: You've heard "Don't believe everything you read." You may

Google the name and learn what his concept is regarding "available light."

 

About the gallery you mentioned visiting in San Francisco: The Aussie is Peter Lik. The

gallery has since relocated to Las Vegas, second floor of the Forum Shops at Caesar's. The

prints are Fujiflex material, not Cibachrome. Peter has a very large body of work, shoots

primarily with a Linhof 6x17 on 120 size Fujichrome.

 

Digital printing is the practical way to go.

 

-Stephen Ray

[steve_swinehart]

"The Ilfochrome prints blow the lightjet print out of the water, hands down."

 

Then the Lightjet prints weren't handled correctly - I don't care who did them. I've printed Ilfochromes for over 20 years, and know just about every printing, masking, and chemical trick available for getting a good Ilfochrome with no color crossover, nearly accurate blues (the material does not make accurate blue no matter HOW it's printed), and the full tonal range of the transparency.

 

I can blow away my own Ilfochromes with a correctly made scan, and the proper adjustments in PS - IF the service with the Lightjet is not using sRGB as the colorspace and is willing to work with me using a larger colorspace.

 

Your single example cannot be extrapolated to a ubiquitous application of Ilfochrome versus a digital print made with a Lightjet, Chromira, or Lamda printer. There are far too many variables in either process to quantify the results that easily.

[rainer_nagel]

>I've been interested in slide printing.

 

I have two Pro Labs in Zurich (Gwerder, Stutz) that I use occasionally for pro grade prints.

 

They use a Durst Lambda printer at 400dpi either on Ilford Ilfoflex (blues color fidelity is better and deeper blues are possible) or Ilford Ilfochrome (maybe 15 years ago known as Cibachrome). It looks very close I must say!!

 

re: is there any other way?

Answer: yes! I believe also Fuji labs use a 400dpi printer and print results are very good.

 

Oops they scan your slides. If you don't want to do it yourself which I understand, it is at least 20 bucks extra/slide.

For a 450MB file size you pay 400 bucks (scanners: Heidelberg Topaz, Durst Sigma, Dust removal, Color correction), though.

 

Or is it that you want to do the slide printing yourself?