but when I shoot color it is transparencies because I love the look of cibachromes
I have to agree, a Cibachrome in the hands of someone that has mastered it is an incredible sight. I once went to a show of prints made by John Charles Woods and let me tell you, his cibachrome prints were amazing, the one that stuck with me was of a sea algae....the thing look better than the real stuff.
Yeah, Cibachromes are great; an excellent reason for shooting transparencies. Wish I could afford it...
The most significant difference:
Transparency film has a smaller dynamic range, and therefore better tonal separation. If you are really trying to
maximize the final image quality, film should be matched to the contrast of the scene. If you like soft light, transparency would give you better results. If you like contrasty light, it will be difficult to retain shadow and hightlight detail with transparencies.
Although I haven't compared them side-by-side, the Fuji super-gloss crystal archive paper produce a result
which I find quite reminiscent of Cibachrome.
Exposure bracketing: if you use the technique I describe on the static page (expose two identical images, process the second one with adjustments after seeing the first one), you should be able to get a usable transparency unless you make a gross exposure mistake. Two pieces of film is the minimal number you should expose anyways.
You actually can print Ciba from negatives when you print digital (e.g.: Durst Lambda printer).
I also have Scala printed on Ciba (Ilfchrome) this way.
I am wrestling with this as well, as Provia has been my standard colour film for some time. I recent shot a pack of NPS and like the look of the negatives I got. I shot some early morning deep woods fall shots with both NPS and Provia, AND, I'm playing with a new scanner (Epson 4870), and for the moment, the negs are winning hands down in the race to a print. Partly, I did better with the exposure on the NPS than it turned out on the Provia, but at least in lowish light, there is far more range of hue in the negs then there is in the trannies. I send out both to be processed (as wetlabbing my own colour has never seemed to be cost effective for me) and the negs are twice as much to have developed as the trannies (two different labs), so there's a certain angst to using the NPS, but there appears to be a lot more to work with in the computer with negative scans. So far.
In the end, I think it might depend on what your subjects usually are.. If you want to keep sublety of hue in nozzleprints, then negatives might work better. Provia, Velvia and the like already have built-in limits to the film, which no amount of post-processing is going to fix.
"NOBODY has used Cibachromes for 10-15 years. (Unless they've got a freezer full of it, like me. Mixed in with the boxes of Ektaflex stuff.)
--Bill, 2005-07-07 17:40:52 "
-----------------------
www.cibachrome.com
Mark, I've just checked your web site, and it appears that you don't use Cibachrome either (It was intended as a joke -- Cibachrome became Ilfochrome some 10 or more years ago.)
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
The lab I use (in Singapore) only does E6 for 4x5, no C41
Hence, for color work, I can only use Slide film...
Be thankful that you still have a lab that can process both types of film.
I am seeing the beginning of the end of pro film lab processing here.
Well, there is always B&W and shooting 3 sheets with 3 filters
It's not my site bill. Just a lab that has been recommended to me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks