Color vs Print Film

[johnyslo]

Hi. I've been away from photography for the last 12 years while I was off getting married, having a kid, fixing up houses, moving, getting a real job and such. When I fell out of photography, I was all fired up to build my own darkroom, and I had just started developing b&w negs. I was just about to try my hand at contact prints. Then I lost my make shift darkroom (basement sink). I had also purchased my first box of 55 P/N which I never shot. I also shot a lot of Velvia and Ekachrome in MF.

Now, 12 years later, the bug has bit again, but it is a different world. I always preferred to shoot color on slide, most likely because my Dad always shot slide. I always felt that it showed the true color and you saw exactly what was there. My Dad also enlarged on Cibrachrome. Now I'm thinking about printing for sales at art shows and such and I don't know what to shoot anymore.

I don't like having all my work on slides and getting stuck with out a way to create analog prints if Ilforchrome dies. When I had slides printed before at the Pro lab, they used internegatives and I never really liked the results. I never felt that the print matched what I wanted it to look like. The results were kind of muddy. It was hard to get the feel I wanted. (They didn't like me being so picky either.) But I never really liked the prints from color negs that came from the 1 hour places either. I guess I could consider scanning and sending out for a LightJet print, but $20 a print is a little too high for me and I feel like I don't have control over the whole process which always bothered me before.

- Is there any way to print analog from a slide on print paper?
- Is it hard to get softer pastel colors on Ilforchrome?
- Can I get high quality color prints of landscape and nature using print film?
- If I shoot print film, how do I keep from degrading the negative when enlarging numerous copies? Can I use EDUPE to create a working negative?
- How do I make a working copy of a b&w negative?
- Do folks that print on LightJets feel like they still have full control over the print?
- Is slide or print better for scanning?

All opinions are welcome.

Thanks!

[BetterSense]

You may be making digital prints either way. The color paper situation is not looking good. It almost looks like by the time I get into color printing, there will be no color paper suitable for enlarging left at all.

-yes, by reversal-processing the paper. It's not a high fidelity process though.
-I don't know
-absolutely
-I didn't know color negs wore out. Use a cold light perhaps?
-the rest I don't know

[Tom Monego]

Having control over your printing is always a question, I wasn't happy with my local guy doing Chromira (not Lightjet) prints. I feel if you have a quality printer you can work with then you have some control, but this is expensive. I was never happy with home color printing, too much guess work unless you had an analyzer and a processor. B&w was a different story, but I have crossed over into the digital world and in many ways I feel more in control. There is still nothing like a LF neg to work with.



- Is there any way to print analog from a slide on print paper?
Yes Ilfochrome, don't know if Kodak still has its reversal paper, Ilfochrome is better, never liked internegs but for a while it was the only option. that is what I like about a scanning workflow.

- Is it hard to get softer pastel colors on Ilforchrome?
You are only as good as the person doing the printing, not recommended as a home process, very noxious down the drain.

- Can I get high quality color prints of landscape and nature using print film?
Current print film is fine, I still like reversal better.

- If I shoot print film, how do I keep from degrading the negative when enlarging numerous copies? Can I use EDUPE to create a working negative?
Not sure here, how many prints do you want to make? Again a plus for scanning.

- How do I make a working copy of a b&w negative?
A large format neg will enlarge well by itself. B&W film doesn't degrade with light exposure as it is silver not dyes.

- Do folks that print on LightJets feel like they still have full control over the print?
Again depends on the printer. I like the inkjets I print much better than the Chromira prints I was getting.

- Is slide or print better for scanning?
Definitely the film, transparency is easier because you see what you get, b&w isn't hard either, color print film requires some work but isn't difficult. Prints loose a lot of res, only use prints in an emergency.

Tom

[rdenney]

The main problem with transparency film is contrast. It is designed for direct viewing, and therefore provides a density range that appears on inspection to extend from solid black to clear white.

This contrast makes it a challenge to print using Ilfochrome, because it has the same limitation of film--it can only make a sample from a full-range subject. Thus, Ilfochrome tends to add contrast to what is already a contrasty source. The best Cibachrome prints of old knew how to make contrast masks to control this problem. That is a lot of work--nearly as difficult as an internegative process.

The contrast of transparencies is also a problem when scanning. Most scanners lack the dynamic range necessary to capture all of what is in a transparency, and many lack the ability to penetrate the deep blacks even if they have the dynamic range. This can be avoided somewhat by how you set up the scan, and there are ways to combine multiple scans, or send it out for scanning on better equipment. In the end, though, you'll mostly like to have to make a decision about what details in the original transparency you are willing to give up in the print.

That said, if you understand the process start to finish, you can visualize images with those limitations built in and make very successful prints.

Also, there is nothing like throwing a transparency onto a light table. Probably half of what I do is on transparency film just because I like working with it.

Negative film does offer some advantages, though. For one, it is not intended to provide a range of densities that have direct visual meaning from black to white. Thus, it can compress a wider range of tones onto a narrower range of densities in the negative. This helps with scanning, because you can get all of what is in the negative to scan as adjustable values, and then you can spread out those tones however you want in the computer.

My experience suggests that prints from negatives look different than prints from slides because we try to keep all those tones in the print. That compresses the micro-contrast that makes a slide look like a slide. The result is an image that looks flat. But this is a choice. If we do our own scanning, we can adjust the contrast to avoid this effect. I have photographs of the same subject using both transparency and negative film, and ended up with prints that were mostly indistinguishable.

So, for high-contrast subject, I generally prefer negative materials, and for low-contrast subjects where I want to increase tonal spread, I might use transparency materials. With transparencies, I prefer subjects that are more evenly lit, such as with the sun directly at my back, in open shade, or with fill lighting. Transparency film is much more demanding of accurate exposure, too, because whatever exposure you use is likely to leave some tones in the image off the scale in one direction or the other, or both.

I used to make chemical color prints from negatives back in the old days (more like 30 years ago than 10), and I always thought they lacked "sparkle". Cibachrome was the antidote to that, but often it had, well, too much sparkle. Now, I scan everything, and have far better control over tonality, contrast, and color than I ever did in the darkroom, and I find myself making use of both film types.

Given enough effort, each of these can be taken to high levels of art. The question is: how much time and effort can you devote to it?

Rick "you may have to experiment for yourself" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Ilfochrome is still available, although it's wise to order it in advance and keep it in the
freezer until needed. E-dupe is no longer available, although the best dupe film I've found is Astia 100F, which also seems to be on the chopping block, although 4x5 sheets are still around and you could freeze some. Whether you print directly from the
original positive or from a dupe you will need to mask the original. Both FP4 and TM100
can be used for excellent masks, but it would take a fair amount of explanation to give
the specifics. You will need a punch and contact registration frame. These are hard to
find unless you are working with 4x5 or smaller, or know a good machinist. The resulting quality, however, can be superb, once you gain the experience. Internegs can
also produce high-quality, but rarely do simply because labs are frequently sloppy with
this procedure, and most don't even offer this service anymore, and it is tricky to do
now that the appropriate interneg films have largely disappeared. It's a lot easier to
simply shoot negative film and print directly onto RA4 paper. The quality of the color
has improved dramatically since the old days, but still doesn't resemble Cibachrome.