What are C-print, R-print, Cibachrome/Ilfordchrome, and Vibrachrome?

[sliu]

I got my first slide print from Duggal, it is someting called

Vibrachrome, a VERY GLOSSY print that looks like an enlarged

transparency with back light. I am very pleased with the result,

although it is very expensive ($50 for 11x14). I read from Duggal

website that they use this to replaced Cibachrome(Ilfordchrome)

because of environmental issue.

 

When I asked people in many pro-labs here in NYC, almost nobody had

ever heard of Cibachrome, let along Vibrachrome. And there

are also some confusions about C-print and R-print.

 

So my question is, from a photographer's point of view, what are the

technical and aesthetic differences between these prints? If the

people in pro labs couldn't get it straight, how can we figure it out?

 

I am looking for intelligent answers, not marketing buzz words.

[James G. Dainis]

Almost nobody heard of Cibachrome in most pro-labs in NYC? That Vibrachrome, which I have never used, sounds like the same surface as the old Cibachrome, which I have used. Very shiny and deep looking. C-print is for negatives, R-print is for chromes. Are you sure this is a pro lab?

[sliu]

I was told that C-print is for chrome. And there is also digital C. This is so confusing. Somebody told me that Inkjet is more archival than digial C but digital C gives better color.

[James G. Dainis]

The archival qualities of inkjet prints depend on the archival qualities of the inks and papers used. Digital prints are made with regular photo papers and chemicals but instead of an enlarger and negative, high intensity lasers expose the digital files to the photo paper. You might want to contact a real lab like A&I to find out what they recommend and use them.<a href=http://www.aandi.com/about.html><U>http://www.aandi.com/about.html</U></a>

[hal_bissinger]

<i>I was told that C-print is for chrome. </i><p>

This COULDN'T be a pro lab, or at least it's not staffed by anyone that's been around long enough to know anything but digital. <p>

A C print is the print you get from a negative. A type R print is made from a chrome. <p>

Digital C print? First I've ever heard of that, though I suppose it could describe a Lightjet or Frontier print since it's on regular photographic paper.<p>

Inkjet more archival than photographic paper? Not yet.

[James G. Dainis]

S.LIU,<BR>

 

Did the guy in that "pro" lab inadvertently ask, "Do you want fries with that?"

[oskar_ojala]

I haven't heard of Vibrachrome but R-prints and Ciba/Ilfochrome are indeed prints from positives (slides), while a C-print is for color negatives.

 

Cibachrome was developed ages ago and made by Ciba, until Ilford acquired it and the brand name was changed to Ilfochrome due to trademarks. Nevertheless, the old name still sticks. R-prints are not quite the same, the papers made by many manufacturers, eg. Fuji.

 

Now to the question...Ilfochrome can look very good provided that a) you like the look and b) the slide is suitable for Ilfochrome printing and the printer is skilled. There are a few different surface finishes, the ultra-glossy is quite striking. I understand that R-type prints are more forgiving in terms of printing, but in all fairness, digital printing is far more dependable, looks good and suits every type of image.

[sliu]

Hal and Oskar, thank you for the answers.

<p>

James, thank you for the link. I don't blame the ignorance of some lab people when they are asked about some services they don't have. (We are all confused ;-) In the digital age, there are so many buzz words to confuse customers.

<p>

So C-print for chrome is definitely misinformation. Perhaps the guy mixed it up with Digital C-print, which could be some process that print digital to photographic paper.

<p>

Form A&I site, I read:

<p>

<i>

For custom prints from color transparencies, or Type R prints, we use Fujichrome paper. Borders on Type R prints are black, not white. Super Glossy prints are made on a plastic-based paper whose surface is similar to Cibachrome. Custom Type R prints are hand-enlarged and include cropping, color correction, burning and dodging.

</i>

<p>

The vibrachrome print I had also has black borders. Since Duggal also has r-print, which is cheaper ($30 for 11x14), I wonder what is the difference between Duggal's r-print, vibrachrome and A&I's r-print.

(I couldn't afford another $30 for an r-print yet ;-).

<p>

About digital, an interesting thing is that Duggal is the only lab that provides digital c-print on true B&W paper. I saw their samples

of all difference processes (inkjet, minilab, digital c, etc.) of the same image, the digital c B&W is astonishing.

<p>

Since I used to shoot digital and almost never made prints, when I shoot slide, I want true non-digital print.

[david_henderson]

OK, just to top up on the other answers so far.

 

1. You could view Ilfochrome/Cibchrome as a variant of R type

rather than something completely different.

 

2. It's getting hard to find R type prints commercially and with the

exception of Ilfochrome. the paper and chemistry is already

being phased out by manufacturers. This relates to ---

 

3. I'd be careful before you commit yourself to purely traditional

( analogue) printing from your slides. Not only are you going o

find it less easy to get your prints in future, but you will also be

ignoring the fact that todays best prints from slides (by a mile)

are produced through scanning and printing on machines like

Lightjet and (with less control and only at smaller sizes but

much cheaper) the Frontier and equivalents. For transparencies

at least digital prints are by far the best way to optimise the

results from your work. A 20"x 16" LightJet makes a well printed

Ilfochrome or R type look a bit sick, but the difference is marked

well below this size.

 

4. Digital c type is presumably so called because it is most often

produced on Fuji Crystal Archive paper, the same base material

as used for probably a majority of analogue c types.

 

5. I don't know what a Vibrachrome is either. Doesn't sound like

something you buy in a photographic store.

[James G. Dainis]

I checked out the Duggal web site. They look to be very good. <P>"We have replaced our Cibachrome line with a more environment-friendly

Fuji process called Vibrachrome, which also uses dimensionally stable

polyester-based paper, providing superior results without the need of the mask. <I>Vibrachormes are the most archival photographic prints available today. The sharpness, color saturation, permenence, and vibrancy of these prints make them ideal for artists, museums, portfolios, and edition printing.</I>"<BR>(Italics added)

<BR>

That Vibrachrome does sound like Cibachrome/Ilfochrome. I looked at some Cibas that I printed over 25 years ago. The colors still look the same as the day they were printed. The 8×10 chromes that they were contact printed from have started to go to magenta.<BR>

 

I have never been able to describe it, but Cibachromes have an almost metallic sheen. They stand out from any other color prints. I imagine that is also true of Vibrachromes?

[ted_marcus1]

<i>I have never been able to describe it, but Cibachromes have an almost metallic sheen. They stand out from any other color prints. I imagine that is also true of Vibrachromes?</i>

 

<p>Years ago, the Fuji Anaheim lab offered something called "Golden R." I have a few of those prints on my wall. They have a very high gloss, much like Cibachrome and similarly "deep" colors, but not the metallic look. It's a different look from the regular type R prints, but it's not quite Cibachrome. I don't know whether they made any special archival claims. Maybe Vibrachrome is just the current version of the "Golden R"?

[hal_bissinger]

<i>Since I used to shoot digital and almost never made prints, when I shoot slide, I want true non-digital print.</i><p>

Yup, I hear you but you will find that digital printing of chromes is a great improvement over analog. Given a high end scan, a printer like a Lightjet that prints on photographic paper together with a skilled operator and the results can be fantastic.

[sliu]

To print the same slide digitally to 11x14, I have to pay $30 for the print but $40 for the SCAN. (And I don't know what kind of machine they will use.) With that price, I'd rather shoot directly with a 5MP digital camera.

 

If we have to make COLOR print this way, then film IS dead.

[joseph_albert]

A good ilfochrome print will cost you alot as well as the printer

will almost surely need to make a silver mask to control contrast.

Slides have always been difficult and expensive to print. If your goal is to

produce prints entirely by photochemical processes at economical

cost, your best bet is to shoot negatives and mave C prints made.

<p>

The advantage of slides is it is cheap to proof, just develop the

roll and let the slide be its own proof, whereas with negatives,

you need some contact prints or small machine proofs to judge

the effectiveness of the images.

<p>

Digital has the promise of offering the best of both worlds and

more, but also I think the very nature of photography is going to

change. When images are so easily manipulated, the image capture

with a camera may well become analogous to an artist's sketch waiting

to be painted.

[oskar_ojala]

<i>With that price, I'd rather shoot directly with a 5MP digital camera.</i>

 

<p>That's one of the reasons why many photographers are moving to digital, but you should note that affordable flatbed scanners can produce great results from medium and large format transparencies and 35 mm slides are easy and affordable to project. Traditionally, people just used neg film to get prints and I see digital techniques as tools to get good prints of old, good shots and get good prints of larger format slides. Not to sound disrespectful, but if 5 MP quality looks good for you from a camera you can afford and your aim is to produce prints, then the solution is obvious.

[rajiv_mehra]

Has anyone got their prints from slideprinter.com??? They also do Type-R prints.

 

How well do they compare with Duggal's Type R or Cibachromes ?

 

I had got some slides printed from them, the results were excellent! But then again I have not compared them with some other printing lab.

 

--Rajiv

[garethspics]

The "metallic sheen" seen on Cibachromes came in when the papers were changed to Cibachrome 2 in the early 1980s The earlier papers did not have this look and in my opinion were nicer. The main problem was contrast, especially with Kodachrome, but boy was it sharp! I have many prints which I did in my own darkroom which have been on the wall for 20 years, and they are as good as new.

[robert x]

I realise I am coming to this late but....

I have read a lot about Cibachrome versus Digi prints from slides and the only pics I have printed up from slides have been from 35mm with a friends Nikon Coolscan, which have come out ok, but not amazing. Now I have 6x6 slides and am wanting to get some prints done up to see what this new format blows up like.

I am going to try some with the digi R type prints and some with Ciba/Ilfa to see the difference.

My question is as follows : I have heard it said "It depends if your slide is suitable for Ciba or not" (or similar)

 

In people's opinions, what makes a good slide for a CIBA print ? How are the colours affected ? etc etc. Sorry for being so clueless.

 

Another question: Is theer any latitude with a CIBA print ? (ie if I have some slides that are a bit dark can I help this?)

 

 

Also my advice to the original poster is to buy a slide projector. I have a Leica Pradovit which is gorgeous and was cheap. It is a whole new way of looking at your pics. (Though tends to make all prints look bad by comparison)