Chromira vs Lightjet

[James Browning]

With regards to the software on the Chromira -vs- Lightjet, The software on the Chromira is fairly basic. You have the ability to balance 17 grey levels with a densitometer, using an iterative process. If you continue enough iterations, it will get each step to within the accuracy of the densitometer. This software is based on work I did both on the Raster Graphics electrostatic plotter many years ago, as well as more recently on a film recorder project I did. The iterative method works quite well, and will get you a good grey scale.

There is no 'built in' masking, or other provision to obtain color purity as is present in a color negative. There is an ICC engine in the printer which applies the printer's profile to the file, and this is what is responsible for color accuracy. I would imagine it is the same on the Light Jet. So, beyond the basic spectrum of the exposing light's ability to isolate the sensitivity peaks of the emulsion (which can limit the gamut if not properly optimized) the accuracy of the color is a function of the profile, which is usually made by the lab.

Regards - Jim

[Larry Gebhardt]

The calibration of the Lightjet works about the same as Jim described the Chromira, but it is either 32 or 64 steps that are read.

Also, in looking at the Lightjet targets the dmax for Crystal archive is set below what the paper is easily capable of. The later Supra Endura targets specify a greater dmax. What this means is that once the printer is calibrated it is holding back light to keep the dmax down on CA.

The RGB targets for CA are 2.1, 2.05, 2.00

The RBG targets for Supra Endura are 2.4, 2.4, 2.25

I don't know what the Chromira targets CA at but I imagine it is higher. I think for the Lightjet this is an unnecessary handicap. If you weren't happy with the blacks on a Lightjet with Crystal Archive try one running Endura instead.

[James Browning]

I target the DMAX on Fuji paper to 2.30. I don't have any problem reaching this density with the Chromira using standard Fuji Hunt RA Professional chemistry. I could probably up this to 2.50 if I switched to their digitial chemistry. 2.00 -> 2.10 would look a bit 'smokey' under higher illumination, so this is a possible explanation for the differences that people are reporting here.

When I make Dye Transfer prints (one of my services), I target a dmax of 2.70, but densities over 3.00 are easily obtainable. This is on glossy fiber papers, which have a great looking surface. This is the best black possible of any process, and the prints hold up very well under very high illuminations.

Regards - Jim Browning, Digital Mask
603.448.6241

[New Hassel Man]

What are peoples views/experiences of Chromira vs Lightjet colour prints?

Having previously had work printed via Lightjet, one of the labs I use recently set up a Chromira printer

I just got my first test print back (20x24) and am quite (pleasantly) suprised by the difference.

I find the Chromira has a somewhat crisper cleaner feel to it with slightly better/richer colour (always found the lightjets - from three or four different labs) to be ever so slightly less saturated than I wanted and usually not quite matching the softproofing on my system here - even using the labs own lightjet profiles. The Chromira is pretty much spot on - certainly as close as I get in my own smaller sized printing here (about which my wife claims I am apparently somewhat of a perfectionist....!)

I run an Chromira right now and when all profiles are aligned, as far as the printer and papers are concerned, there is no better. I've been running it for nearly two years and the sharpness and quality of our output as yet to come in to question. I've only had issues when profiles are mismatched or simply not applied. So, as long as the lab and photographer are on the same page, there simply shouldn't be any issues, it is the best way to print a photo nowadays.

[Bruce Watson]

I run an Chromira right now and when all profiles are aligned, as far as the printer and papers are concerned, there is no better. I've been running it for nearly two years and the sharpness and quality of our output as yet to come in to question. I've only had issues when profiles are mismatched or simply not applied. So, as long as the lab and photographer are on the same page, there simply shouldn't be any issues, it is the best way to print a photo nowadays.

Why respond to a four year old posting? I'm betting that OP has long since got what he needed from this thread.

[New Hassel Man]

that's pretty much it, if the profiles are correct and the lab is disciplined enough to keep the machine in good shape there's no reason not to use the Chromira. It prints at 400 dpi with a 21 led light esposure, great for detail in all tones. The banding either was caused by lack of patience in calibrating the paper and bringing the "Q" into control, finicky paper shipment or a loose spring in the main roller head, pain in the rear, but fixable.

[Syncro]

Sorry for offtop

my name is Denis. Im going to buy used Chromira30, 2002 from South Korea. I'v heard a lot of good responses of Chromira. due to money lack i can not afford new equipment.

Does anybody kindly recomend me how to recognize condition of Chromira to avoide big investments to repair of it.

thanks in advance
Denis