Anyone still printing Type C?

[Al Seyle]

Just curious if anyone else in LF land is still enlarger-printing Type C, RA-4 from color neg, or have you all gone the digi scanning route? I am invested in Durst L1200 colorhead and Jobo CPP-2, so I'm staying put for color.

[Neal Wydra]

Does it count if I use both methods?<g>

Neal Wydra

[bob carnie]

Yes I still print colour RA4

[Andre Noble]

Al, this past weekend, I made 4x5 highlight protection and contrast masks for the first time, and made subsequent Ilfochrome prints onto Ilfocochrome Classic Deluxe paper with the help of the masks to control gradation/contrast in the famously contrasty ilofochrome materials. Was a bit of labour of love, but worth the effort.

The results were far superior to anything else I've done color work wise. In my opinion, also superior to anything I've seen printed onto ink jet paper, and better than my Fuji Crystal Archive experiences from A&I. Mind you, this Ilochrome Deluxe seems well suited for landscape stuff, I don't know yet about portraiture.

I used an Omega D5500 B&W 4x5 enlarger with Ilford Ilfochrome color filters fitted above the condensors.

[Stephen Willard]

I am not sure what type C is? But I do process all my C41 color negative film and RA4 prints. When I first started I used the CPP-2 to do both. I used the 3000 series drums for processing film. I then sold that and bought and JOBO ATL Plus 2 which automates everything. I have since purchased a Fujimoto CP51 for doing most of my prints, but I still use my ATL Plus for processing film and unsharp mask.

You will find that color negative film has at least a 2.5x greater latitude than chromes which more than doubles my yields in the field. I can shoot under much more severe lighting conitions than anyone using chromes. This is just one of the reasons I have not switched to dgital because it is based on scanning chromes which I believe is not a valid film for using in outside light. A dynamic range of 3.5 to 4 stops is not plausible in nature where light ranges can be 16+ stops. I suspect a lot of people are going to challenge me on that statement.

Another reason why I have not made the jump to digital is because I do big stuff like 30x40s and 20x50s. That is what sells. I believe in order to compete with my optical images I would need between 300 to 600 mgb drum scans. Prices for this can range from a $150 to $250 a pop for high quality scans. Remember, drum scanning is an art and not a science and there are only a few who do it well. I have over 200 negatives to convert. It would cost between $30,000 and $50,000 to drum scan my existing inventory to digital.

Currently, I can produces a 16x20 Fujiflex Crystal Archive print for about $4.50. To make a 16x20 lightjet image on Fuji Crystal Archive paper is around $35.00. I believe to digitally produce a 16x20 on an archival tested paper-ink combination is around $12 to $16.

Hmmm..wet stuff is looking pretty good to me.

When most people look at my work they believe I use Ilfochrome materials because of the brilliant colors in my images. But I do not. To get those colors I print my images on Fujiflex Crystal Archive paper. This paper is some times referred to as Fuji "super gloss" paper. The surface has a mirror like finish so it produces very very sharp images. The sharpness is very evident when compared to other papers. The paper also has a very high contrast and can turn pastel colors into primary colors. The colors from this paper seem to pop off the page. The intended application for this paper is for real big commercial stuff. The draw back is the paper if very expensive, three time more than its sister paper. For example, 100 sheet of 8x10 Fuji CA paper is around $33 while Fujiflex CA paper is about $100 at B&H prices. I just bought a 40"x120' roll of this stuff for around $700 - not cheap. However, its per unit price is still cheaper than digital if you process it yourself.

I have challenged many of the local photographers in my area to benchmark their best digital stuff against my optical images. So far to date no one has come close. The difference in clarity, brilliance, and tonal range is very obvious. I suspect that some of the differences can be attributed to the fact they use a flatbed scanner rather than a drum scanner. Too bad for them and goodie for me!

[tim atherton]

Currently, I can produces a 16x20 Fujiflex Crystal Archive print for about $4.50. To make a 16x20 lightjet image on Fuji Crystal Archive paper is around $35.00. I believe to digitally produce a 16x20 on an archival tested paper-ink combination is around $12 to $16.

$16.00 or $35.00 - still a pretty good margin on say an $950.00 print though?

[Al Seyle]

Stephen--I am impressed! Type C prints are those made from a color negative (as yours) as opposed to Type R, those made from transparencies and using a reversal process (ie. Ilfochrome) or those using an imbibition process, ie. dye transfer and others. I'm showing my age, I suppose in calling them "C prints"!

[ronald moravec]

Sure . I used the Jobo for the older color process and it was fine. The faster stuff with the 45 sec development works ok, but I don`t like it. I bought the Nova slot system, 4 slot. Brought the fun back. The Jobo is for larger than 11x14 and developing color neg 4x5.

Use the slots for dev, 2% stop , water, blix. You need the stop bath.

I have had an Epson 4870 for a week now for scanning 4x5 color neg. I probably won`t go completely with ink prints, but they are nice if you want to apply a texture, change color saturation, change color in a particular area of a print, or do intricate burning and dodging. It is nice if you only want to make one print as it is costly to set up a color process.

Photoshop gives unbelievable control, but it has it`s own set of problems.

Went to a workshop at Calumet yesterday and they said they are selling 80% digital cameras. What does that tell you?

[Calamity Jane]

It figures!!!! After 35 years of dabbling in photography, first B&W, then transparencies, first 35mm, then 120, then 4x5 - yup, it figures - just as I am gearing up to do some colour printing, the rest of the world has moved on to pixles, bits and bytes.......

...... oh well, I'm finding some great deals on colour darkroom equipment ;-)

[Stephen Willard]

Calamity, I have found over the years that trends come and go all the time. Can you remember when Kodak was trying to move into the Polaroid market and lost a big law suite to Polaroid. Polaroid was the future. Now Polaroid is a fraction of it size and still declining.

Here is a new emerging trend. People who by art are starting to realize that computer generated images are not about a human endeavor of a talented and gifted individuals struggling to make exquisite images. It is rather about smart software and a lazy souls sitting in front of a computer for days on end constructing fictitious images and then hanging them in galleries as real photographs. Their images are forgeries. And guess what? People who buy art are not willing to pay for that.

Laugh as you may, but many of the big name fine art photographers such as Burkett and Fatali make it very clear on their websites that none of their images are generated from computers. Period! All them have been HAND processed using traditional photographic techniques. Thomas Mangeleson had resorted to making digital images with his older work, but is now making it very clear that all of his new work is done using a wet darkroom. Every time I have visited one of his galleries, the sales person has gone out of there way to make that point.

I suspect that this trend will become more pronounced as time goes on and people start to understand what digital really means. People who buy art are highly educated, have wealth, live richly, and have a great disdain for Wal-Mart art.

PS

Oh by the way, about a two years ago I bought an 8x10 color enlarger that stands 10' tall, weighs 12oo pounds, and has a 2000 watt color head for $1000. I then put $1000 into refurbishing it. The enlarger looks brand new, and I bought for less than what I paid for my 4x5 Saunders Enlarger.