Cibachrome vs Digital Prints

[Drew Wiley]

Let me follow up with another comment regarding Ciba gamut. It's interesting how
digital technology borrows terminology from the older graphic processes, like "unsharp
masking". But there is a reason for it. When Ciba was in its heyday, folks would mix
low-contrast developers or "pull" process their E6 for lower contrast transparencies
(most current films don't pull well). But these shortcuts rarely produced good Ciba prints because the added step(s) of making masks served not only to reduce image
contrast but to correct the color-reproduction errors inherent to Ciba. Today most of
you do that sort of thing in Photoshop; but with Ciba it can be beautifully done with
silver mask registration. Quite easy once you've learned the basic tricks, and probably
no more time involved than what it spent at the computer correcting images. But you
do need good punch-and-register masking gear, which is a bit difficult to come by
nowdays, especially for anything large than 4X5. I personally find darkroom work relaxing, so am attracted to this sort of process. Masking involves some fairly ordinary
black-and-white film techniques, as far as chemistry and sink gear are concerned,
though there are some distinct tweaks to making it work well. But no need for an
expensive scanner. Films like TM100 or FP4 can be used for masking. No need for the
discontinued Pan Masking film recommended in older literature. So if there are some of
you who don't want to follow the herd down the digital path, Ciba is a beautiful option.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian, he's not back. His post was from September 2007.

Ah, I see. Well maybe he'll come back. He posted to this thread in 2004 and 2007 so he's due to return again in 2010. I'm sure the thread will still be going.

This resurrection of ancient threads seems to be a relatively new thing, I don't remember so many in the past. Maybe one of these days I'll learn to look at the dates before responding.

[poco]

If you'll explain to me what makes a silver print "hand made" and why it's any more "hand made" than a digital print I'll be glad to reconsider. But just informing me that my statements are "absurd" isn't going to do the job.

Then nothing will convince you. You maintain that printing 10 prints individually in a darkroom is the same as scrolling to "10" in the print dialogue box ...and that's self-evidently ridiculous. It's like equating taking the steps to the observation tower of the Empire State to hitting the right elevator button.

Absurd.

[Jim collum]

Then nothing will convince you. You maintain that printing 10 prints individually in a darkroom is the same as scrolling to "10" in the print dialogue box ...and that's self-evidently ridiculous. It's like equating taking the steps to the observation tower of the Empire State to hitting the right elevator button.

Absurd.

i'd agree that the effort involved in the two scenerios isn't exactly equal... but I would agree with Brian that there really isn't much to silver or color darkroom printing, once the first print has been resolved. There's a *great* amount of creativity and skill necessary to resolve that first print.. but a good darkroom printer will document that.. and the mechanics of the process after that are really something that can be done with very little thought. take paper out of box, (either use right paper, or dial in color for proper contrast), push button. wait. take paper, dip into dev,stop, fix. possibly toner. wash. dry

i could teach an assistant with very little experience, but with the ability to follow directions that in the same amount of time i could teach them to boot my computer, bring up photoshop, load a file, load paper, and push print.

neither of those tasks are rocket science, and neither require much creative skill. What does take the skill is bringing an undeveloped negative to the point where this can be done (as well as a digital file). I'd spend days working a negative/print to where i want it... as well as many, many hours of testing and calibration prior to that to really understand the materials. There's nothing different in that as to what i do with a digital file and environment.

[Brian Ellis]

Yes Brian you're confusing the hell out of me. I've picked up on this thread because I still print using Ilfochrome - I love the medium. But I've also started to print digitally from 35mm to 4X5 chromes.

The whole thread is replete with silly arguments, but as always the points of view are interesting.

Fact is that IMHO a high degree of technical craftsmanship is required in any and all photographic processes in order to achieve the highest quality images. This is generally what we all strive for. However it is about half of the task at hand - the other half being the uniqueness of vision and the capturing of it on film. I am finding that some images are still nicely suited to Ilfochrome renditions while others can fit my vision in Inkjet.

Per Rick Denny above - I think I'm recently having a bit more trouble with doing Ilfochromes than several years ago. I can't put my finger on it yet but can't seem to get the original snap - perhaps it is a muddiness in the print that bothers me. Maybe it is a trend of me choosing lower contrast chromes as originals to avoid the Tmax masking complexities.

BTW per other discussion here on longevity. My oldest Ilfochrome was made in 1974 and displayed in room light for the interim 35 years half in MA and half in TX. It's mounted under sodalime window glass and cropped by the overmat (museum board) around the edge. Removed a year ago the image under the mat shows no visual fading compared to the bulk of the print. Of course this says nothing about what past and current material may be like nor anything about processing variations or display condition variables.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

If I'm the "Brian" you're referring to, and if you care to tell me which of my various statements is confusing the hell out of you and why, I'll be glad to try to clarify.

[Marko]

Then nothing will convince you. You maintain that printing 10 prints individually in a darkroom is the same as scrolling to "10" in the print dialogue box ...and that's self-evidently ridiculous. It's like equating taking the steps to the observation tower of the Empire State to hitting the right elevator button.

Absurd.

The amount of creative effort that goes into each is the same. The amount of mindless, repeatable drudgery is not, that's why computers where invented in the first place.

What is both absurd and ridiculous is all the time and effort being wasted in threads like this instead of using it for something creative.

[Jim collum]

The amount of creative effort that goes into each is the same. The amount of mindless, repeatable drudgery is not, that's why computers where invented in the first place.

What is both absurd and ridiculous is all the time and effort being wasted in threads like this instead of using it for something creative.

for creative, visit the alt process thread at http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=51078 and look at gandolfi's work.

jim

[poco]

The amount of creative effort that goes into each is the same. The amount of mindless, repeatable drudgery is not, that's why computers where invented in the first place.

What is both absurd and ridiculous is all the time and effort being wasted in threads like this instead of using it for something creative.

I was responding to Brian's claim that a hand pulled print is no more "hand made" than one spit out by a computer. Which is more "creative" is a different and much broader question.

You might spare yourself the time stolen from your crush of creativity by READING comments before responding to them.

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - you're in a dream world if you think color printing is like running a xerox machine.
Quality work involves not only things like very specific dodging and burning, but often
very complex masking sequences. I won't bore you with what goes into my Ciba prints,
but Chris Burkett has posted some comparable sequences on his website. The
processing per se is about 1% of the workflow. Even a good C print involves a lot
more than mere repetition, unless you're a 1-Hour drugstore printer. Then you've got
the really involved techniques like DT or color carbon. You know the saying, "garbage
in, garbage out". Quality takes effort. One of the better digital color printers I know
(Joe Holmes) recently told me that he spends an average of over thirty hours on
Photoshop before he makes his first print, and that it is more work than when he did
Ciba! (But faster than DT, which took him two years to make eleven prints). So everything is relative, and not all of us crank out mere commodities. There are basic
skills you can learn in a day, but then spend a liftetime fine-tuning. I can teach someone to process a black-and-white print in five minutes, but then, why do people
spend their entire lives fussing with improving their prints? Doesn't matter to me if they choose darkroom, digital, or hybrid; quality always takes skill and experience.

[rdenney]

The time and effort of making a print is a rabbit hole, it seems to me. Photographs do not get bonus points from viewers for being easy or difficult to make.

Good results from difficult processes increase the personal satisfaction for some, and, if so, require no further justification (or vigorous defense). They also earn the respect of fellow photographers. But then, so do good prints from the inkjet.

I do know photographers who believe the difficulty of the process somehow imbues special qualities to the print. If it's true for them, then it's true. But I can't think of how one could argue that it is a universal truth.

One think no inkjet printer can do is make up for not including the right thing in the image, not pushing the button at the right time, and not have a vision for the finished product that tells a compelling story. I've sure seen lots of work that missed all three of those marks but whose maker proudly stood by boasting about the monstrously difficult process required to make it.

Do people pay more for a Cibachrome than for an inkjet? Maybe. I don't know. But if they do, it's because photographers have sold them on it being better. If inkjets are more efficient to spit out once the initial process is completed, then the photographer should be able to sell them at reduced price and still make money.

As for me, I judge a print by how it looks. I have made inkjet prints that rival the Ciba prints I have hanging on the wall (made by far better photographers than me) in terms of color, vibrancy, and clarity. If the product was always a disappointment, I would remain dissatisfied and do something else--I'm a hobbyist and my own satisfaction is paramount. But I don't measure that satisfaction in blood loss.

Rick "seeing a lot of religion in these discussions" Denney