ilforchrome classic--color contrast

[jim_chow]

I recently had three ilfochrome classic enlargements made from

velvia 6x6 slides. However, the color saturation of the enlargments

isn't near the intensity (eg., pale to med. blue skies vs deep blue) of

that of the original chromes viewed on a light table with no loupe.

Does anyone know the reason for this? Is it from developing/

printing error or by nature of ilfochrome classic? On the other

hand, I alternatively had Fuji Labs in Tokyo make some 5x5 prints

from velvia slides using their RP direct crystal process...Wow! They

look exactly like the chromes on a light table viewed with no loupe!

The color saturation is virtually identical...much better than that of

the ilfochrome classic.

[andreas_carl]

Chances are it's the printing. Both materials are excellent and should

give you great results. By the way, is there a Fuji lab in the US that

offers this RP direct crystal process?

[scott_eaton]

James,

Fuji's RP process has a lot more dynamic lattitude than Ilford's.

Chances are you could have matched the intensities of the skies on

the Ilford material, but then you would have trashed everything else

in the image, unless you resort to masking or other expensive options.

 

<p>

 

I used to print a lot of slides on Ilfochrome from customers from

vacations, etc, usually because they accidently shot slides instead

of film. The "Blue-sky" syndrome that you mention is a common problem

with reversal printing. Quite often I resorted to 4x5 internegatives.

 

<p>

 

Fuji's RA-4 color print papers have a high "Wow" factor also,

although I'm partial to that process over reversal printing. Your

post clearly shows the R&D that Fuji has put into their films and

papers.

 

<p>

 

//scott

[james_d._steele]

I have to agree with the above response. The Fuji RA-4 papers are so

good I don't know why anyone would shoot chromes if ultimately they

wanted prints. The Fuji colors are fantastic and the dye stability

exceeds Ilfochromes by a factor of 3 is I understand Henry Wilhelm's

aging tests.

[scott_eaton]

James Steele,

I agree with you 100% - that's both my professional and personal

opinion. I see the need for reversal printing by the fact that many

commercial photographers need a direct silver halide process to

reproduce their images. However, if I weigh in the pluses and minuses

of reversal printing vs standard RA-4 neg printing I'd have to give

RA-4 my vote. If you want prints - shoot negs.

 

<p>

 

In short:

- reversal papers aren't more light stable than Fuji's Crystal

archive. This includes Ilfochrome's wild claims.

 

<p>

 

- I've never seen a really sharp image on Ilfochrome glossy. In fact,

they look kind of hazy to me. My Kodak duraflex prints look just as

sharp as my Ciba glossy prints and I learned how to print on Leitz

Focomat enlargers. However, the cheaper Ilfochrome pearl does seem to

have a higher inherent image sharpness than glossy or RA-4 stock. Go

figure this one.

 

<p>

 

- It's almost impossible to burn and dodge a reversal print. Your

limited to the original dynamics of the original slide, and slides

don't contain as much dynamic information as a neg. "Is that a cloud

in the sky, or did somebody drop a bottle of white-out on your

Ilfochrome print? And is that a grey wall or a mirror?"

 

<p>

 

- I have no sympathy for fussy photographers (pro or amatuer) who

complain their prints from negs aren't the right color. If you can't

communicate your color preferences to a lab, then you should try a

different lab, or maybe a different hobby.

 

<p>

 

- The only thing I want to look like "wet paint" is wet paint. Most

of the reversal prints I've seen have the color range palette of a

box of Crayolas. Yep, them colors are sure saturated :^)

 

<p>

 

- Fuji Crystal Archive just plain rocks!

 

<p>

 

cheers,

//scott

[msitaraman]

Over here in Singapore, the principal pro, high volume lab, is a Fuji

owned and operated lab. For MF c-41, my contact sheets and proofs come

back on Crystal Archive. Next best thing to projected slides IMHO;

and better than Ilfochromes; apparently as archival. Curiously, I like

the end product of Kodak c-41 + Crystal Archive more than Fuji c-41 +

C.A. i.e. vericolor is just plain terrific. High marks to Fuji for

working hard and upping the ante.

[s_p]

<i>- I have no sympathy for fussy photographers (pro or amatuer) who

complain their prints from negs aren't

the right color. If you can't communicate your color

preferences to a lab, then you should try a different lab,

or maybe a different hobby. </i><p>

Yikes! You know, I've never seen a sign in a lab that said 'Sloppy

work done here' but sometimes that is what I have gotten. If any labs

aren't serious about offering quality custom printing services, they

should get into some other business.<p>

I know a number of fine art photographers who use color negs for their

work. They have teaching jobs at colleges and universities and thus

have full access to color darkrooms. That's how you get really good

color prints: make them yourself.<p>

Another option I am currently investigating with the lab here in town

that I trust are lightjet prints from a digital file. I am told that

I send in the file on a Jaz or Zip, looking just the way I like it,

and they send me back print. I hope to have my first print back

before the month is done; I will let you know what I think.

Expensive, but for us fussy photographers without our own color

darkrooms it may be an option.

[twmeyer]

the fuji papers also have excellent reciprocity characteristics that

allow for extensive dodging/burning without the colorshifts

experienced with kodak papers.