Life after E6 and large format transparencies

[Timothy Blomquist]

After several years of no large format photography, I got back in. Been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 since 1978. Most of my work was Ektachrome and Fujichrome transparencies, enlarged on Cibachrome/Ilfochrome Classic. This latter process is practically gone with the exception of a couple of labs I understand. It always provided beautiful results this positive to positive process.

Now I am finding that large format transparencies are basically dead as an option. So, what to do? Color negative film seems to be available, albeit pricey. So what are current color photographers doing? Are you enlarging the traditional way, or going to drum scans for your large format negatives and finishing in the digital realm?

Thanks for any wisdom you can provide....

[xkaes]

There are a million ways to approach this. I remember the days of Kodachrome 25 and Cibachrome. I switched to color negative and RA-4 years ago, and while I miss some things about Cibachrome, my results are great -- but apparently a lot of people still shoot color chromes. Then they make prints in various ways -- I'll let others offer suggestions.

But switching to color negative sheet film is also wide open. Just like with chromes, different people will suggest different film -- and different ways to get them into prints.

Tell us what gear you currently have for making prints.

[Timothy Blomquist]

Tell us what gear you currently have for making prints.

Sold off most of the enlarging equipment, just contact print capabilities. My plan is to use custom labs for enlargements. Was also looking at dye transfer prints and other types of alternative processes.

[xkaes]

Sold off most of the enlarging equipment, just contact print capabilities. My plan is to use custom labs for enlargements. Was also looking at dye transfer prints and other types of alternative processes.

That narrows your options, but makes things simpler and easier. While I do my own enlarging, I have had great experience sending off digital files to be printed. All you need it a way to get your negatives or slides into a digital form -- and there are several ways to do that -- as you already know. I use an HP 4x5" flat-bed scanner or a Sony a850 camera for that.

Dye transfer? Nice, but that and other alternative processes are all DIY -- and usually require an enlarger. What did you have in mind?

[Timothy Blomquist]

That narrows your options, but makes things simpler and easier. While I do my own enlarging, I have had great experience sending off digital files to be printed. All you need it a way to get your negatives or slides into a digital form -- and there are several ways to do that -- as you already know. I use an HP 4x5" flat-bed scanner or a Sony a850 camera for that.

Dye transfer? Nice, but that and other alternative processes are all DIY -- and usually require an enlarger. What did you have in mind?

For Dye transfer, I would have to use a custom printer. I have seen some incredible results from drum scans of 4x5 transparencies. Haven't done 8x10 yet, but I have a large portfolio of images, so I will have to be selective as price is rather high for that size of a scan.

[xkaes]

Others may chime in on alternatives to drum scans -- perhaps you already know about that. From what I gather, it is pretty pricey.

[domaz]

Others may chime in on alternatives to drum scans -- perhaps you already know about that. From what I gather, it is pretty pricey.

If you already have a DSLR then DSLR "scanning" is a pretty viable option these days and only costs you the light source and camera mount.

[Drew Wiley]

If you want the look of Cibachrome, yet with greater ease and somewhat more affordably, you can shoot color neg film, especially Ektar 100 with its more chrome-looking contrast and saturation, and then print it on Fuji Supergloss. But this particular medium is, unfortunately, only available on big expensive rolls which you'll have to cut down yourself, and at the moment, temporarily not available at all due to pandemic-related distribution issues, but should be again in a few months perhaps.

Now the other method, using LF chromes themselves, and doing so via true optical enlargement : There's a distinct learning curve to it, but you can use your prior masking skills and punch and register equipment to make very high quality color internegs for sake of printing onto Fujiflex Supergloss or nearly any RA4 chromogenic paper. Porta 160 is an excellent interneg choice, especially if generated via contact along with a modest registered contrast mask. You end up with a master printing negative.

So no, the direct optical pathway for LF chromes is not over at all. The new E100 chrome film is available up to 8X10 sheet size, and a number of labs still offer E6 processing up to that size or even larger. But cost-wise, shooting and printing 8x10 chromes is getting pretty gnarly. That's why I only interneg my existing older 4X5 and 8X10 chromes, and going forward ever since the demise of Ciba, now only shoot color neg film.

But even retired, I still simply haven't had large enough blocks of time to warrant digging out my stockpile of dye transfer printing supplies. I've been getting such good results the color interneg method, it would hardly be qualitatively worthwhile to do so, though I'd still like to do some dye transfer work for personal interest reasons, with its own special look. Wonder what I'll finally do with all those supplies. Taming any color neg film for direct optical printing takes some patience anyway, especially if one wants those clean hues associated with chrome films rather than the traditional "muddiness" of color negs. But after the learning curve, I ended up with RA4 prints even cleaner in hue than my previous Cibas printed from trannies. There are some secrets to it, which I'm willing to share, that is, if anyone out there really takes serious interest in the same route. But NOBODY is going to mistake the result from something ink-jetted - this has way more potential for fine nuances of detail and tonality than going the scanned route.

[domaz]

Once other thought. You could shoot chromes and investigate the RA4 reversal process. Many people are using it to shoot "in-camera", although there are significant color and contrast limitations with that. It could be an interesting way to contact print old 8x10 chrome negatives.

[gnd2]

I've never done cibachrome but I'm disapointed it went away, sounds like it would have been right up my alley from what I've read.

I've done some color negative but haven't been thrilled with the results.

I've just started working on fully analog tri-color carbon transfer. Spent some time on color separation negatives and currently testing cyan tissue. Not sure how much success I'll have with this though.

I thought dye transfer was dead too (except for the supplies some still have on hand) due to the matrix not being made anymore. Is there another way to do this? Easier than carbon?

Drew's color internegative process sounds interesting, I'm curious to hear about that. Actually, I'm not totally clear if this is for shooting color neg film or making color interneg from transparency.

[Drew Wiley]

There are two well-supplied labs capable of still doing dye transfer printing for you, one in this country (possibly nearing retirement?) and another still quite active in Germany, and both using novel modernized techniques. But anything like this is inherently quite expensive. Outright buying matrix film is getting quite difficult because the remaining commercial operations need their own dedicated stockpiles of it. A few individuals are contemplating small-batch coating machines of their own. But the odds of some philanthropist coming up with the whopping sum of money needed for another industrial scale coating of matrix film and pre-mordanted receiver paper appears doubtful. The last time that was done was thanks to a major university grant in Germany. Otherwise, mordanting your own paper and securing your own dyes is relatively easy. But you'll still need a lot of time and a lot of space compared to most other color printing options.

As far as RA4 reversal goes, yeah, a number of people are experimenting; but results so far are kinda "creative" more than repro quality, and the relative permanence of such prints, or lack thereof, is still an unknown.

And cost-wise, making high-quality LF internegs is getting pricey too. For example, if you're intending to shoot 8x10 chromes at now at least $35 per shot with processing, double that for the C41 contact internegative, plus one or more sheets of TMax 100 masking film ... easily adds up to around $100 per image before you even begin printing. That's not really terrible if you're highly selective about what you choose to print, but factoring a number of inevitable bellyflops in route, during the learning curve, it all adds up. The alternative of just shooting color neg film in the first place instead, is obviously both significantly cheaper and requires far less time and fuss, but does not necessarily alleviate the need for supplemental masking in certain cases for optimal results.

[Jody_S]

I've given up on color LF and I'm about to sell my Jobo CPE 2. It's just too pricey and I've learned to 'see' in B&W.

[domaz]

I've given up on color LF and I'm about to sell my Jobo CPE 2. It's just too pricey and I've learned to 'see' in B&W.

I agree color LF is too pricey.. but the Jobo CPE 2 is still great for B&W processing so not sure I follow that part. Mostly I like being able to multi-task while my film is developing and fixing.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, direct RA4 printing optically still tends to be relatively economical in comparison to fiber-based b&w consumption, let alone the additional cost of museum board these days. And per film, 4X5 is the new 8x10, cost-wise. So these things can still be reasonably juggled. Maybe 8x10 gets shot and printed somewhat less often, when especially large prints are in mind, while the more frequent retreat into med format roll film balances out those expenses. Where there's a will, there's a way. But I'm a format and print schizophrenic, who can't seem to give up any of my formats, or give up switch-hitting between color and black and white either.

[Timothy Blomquist]

If none of you ever used the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) process, it was glorious. Extremely nice rich colors, high contrast, but was an art to print. In reality, the perfect chrome was required in exposure since the printing was kind of unforgiving. They claimed it was very archival. I have numerous prints from the early to mid-1980s and no evidence of color shift or fade. The claim was 500 years of color stability if not in direct sunlight and optimal conditions.

Shooting chromes and doing direct to positive was great fun. I guess I am going have to consider Kodak color negative film and maybe high resolution drum scans.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, nobody has been around 500 years yet to verify that. I do know that in proper dark storage, 40 year old Ciba prints look like they were made yesterday. That leaves just another 460 years till we find out the truth. Don't think I have that much patience. Cibas don't like UV; that I already know. But going forward, an expert scanning and laser-printing service (Lambda, Lightjet, etc) can output EITHER chrome or color neg originals onto Fuji Supergloss media very reminiscent of Ciba results, and quite close to actual optical enlargement quality.

[Timothy Blomquist]

Well, nobody has been around 500 years yet to verify that. I do know that in proper dark storage, 40 year old Ciba prints look like they were made yesterday. That leaves just another 460 years till we find out the truth. Don't think I have that much patience. Cibas don't like UV; that I already know. But going forward, an expert scanning and laser-printing service (Lambda, Lightjet, etc) can output EITHER chrome or color neg originals onto Fuji Supergloss media very reminiscent of Ciba results, and quite close to actual optical enlargement quality.
This I was not aware of. Thanks. Now I have some options.

[eric black]

still doing E-6 myself. Shooting Provia and Velvia (occasionally) and developing myself. The Fuji Hunt kits are gone but I still have a little left so Ill switch at some point to Arista for that end of things. Drum scans on the nicer results via sending the transparencies out. Epson V700 for the others. Digital printing on an old Epson 9600 if I feel like hanging something. Ill cling to it as long as I can! I like the process so much more than an entirely digital work flow.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes indeediee, Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) can result in quite remarkable color prints IF properly done.

To get the very best out of a Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) print is NOT low cost or Easy. Back in those days the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) print recipe went something like this:

~Fuji Astia or similar lower contrast, essentially color neutral sheet film no smaller than 5x7 or more than 4x enlargement.

~Color temperature stable strobe with absolute consistent light output per flash to assure exposure consistency and color rendition stability per exposure.

~Lower contrast lenses (Kodak Commercial or f4.5 Ektar, Schneider Xenar or similar non-multicoated uber contrast lens) where possible as the higher contrast lens adds to the contrast build up problem.

~Gray card test the system of film, lens, lighting, E6 processing Lab to make color corrections before film is exposed. This is done to assure proper post process color transparency density and color neutrality (best possible) based on the system used. Getting the color transparency as GOOD as possible will result in a happier Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) printer and aids in achieving a GOOD print.

~Work with a GOOD printer at a lab able to meet the print needs. All the steps above can still produce a color transparency that needs contrast masking to get the very best out of the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) print. Don't demand stuff out of the color transparency that is not possible to render on the print, be realistic and understand_accept the limitations of what is possible -vs- what can never be.

~Get the print properly mounted and framed for display.

~Take care of the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) print, don't bake the in the sun or harsh lighting that will degrade them.


All that said, stopped doing any LF sheet film color in the early 2000's for a very long list of realities. It has been B&W silver gelatin process since then for sheet film. Digital remains the means for color images today, not ideal, does ok enough.


Bernice









If none of you ever used the Yes indeediee, process, it was glorious. Extremely nice rich colors, high contrast, but was an art to print. In reality, the perfect chrome was required in exposure since the printing was kind of unforgiving. They claimed it was very archival. I have numerous prints from the early to mid-1980s and no evidence of color shift or fade. The claim was 500 years of color stability if not in direct sunlight and optimal conditions.

Shooting chromes and doing direct to positive was great fun. I guess I am going have to consider Kodak color negative film and maybe high resolution drum scans.

[LabRat]

The first Cibachrome process was the nicest, but the big problem was not letting the two solutions to meet, or it produced a deadly gas... (There were lab workers that had died from this reaction...) The second version was safer...

Fuji came out with a very nice Type R replacement process, but it became a casualty of the 80's "Japan" pushback started by one of the big LA labs, and Fuji didn't end up building their proposed photo center where this process and other services would be showcased... Later, scanning and digital printing started to come to reality, and in Hollywood, traditional press kits for the entertainment industries had been all printed Type R had been replaced with CD-ROM's, so that ended that...

Some chromes should still be around, but print materials are not likely to come back... But the chromes can still be scanned and printed in the digital domain with new variants still to come...

Steve K

[826257]

Bettina Haneke is the only dye transfer transom printer. Get in line, soon./

http://bettinahaneke.com/en/

[linhofbiker]

I have a few Cibachrome prints on the wall (from 4x5) including a 20x24 of a trail in the woods taken about 40 years ago. Did anyone shoot Cibachrome directly in the camera. I think it's speed was about 6 ASA. It would have been laterally reversed. I had Cibachrome drums and a Uniroller but never tried it.

[xkaes]

I still have a Cibachrome 4x5 drum, and use it all the time to develop 4x5" film. It's perfect for one sheet.

[neil poulsen]

Life after E6?

Well of course, we've gone to heaven . . . with digital capture and digital printing. :)

At least, that's what I've done. Not so sure that I'm in heaven, though.

What's the problem with digitally printing E6 capture? I've been giving this some thought. At least, we don't have to deal with the orange mask in color negative.

[linhofbiker]

I still have a Cibachrome 4x5 drum, and use it all the time to develop 4x5" film. It's perfect for one sheet.

What's in a name? XKAES. My wife used 3 XK's with plain prism for her portrait work. We had all the Minolta XK finders except for the AES. Do you still have your Minolta XK's? We had ours from the mid 1980's until going digital with Sony A850 about 7/8 years ago.

[Maris Rusis]

Bettina Haneke is the only dye transfer transom printer. Get in line, soon./

http://bettinahaneke.com/en/

the only active printers gather at:n
the OIC group:
https://groups.io/g/printingdyetransfer

I'm lucky to have as a good pal the only dye transfer printer I know of in the southern hemisphere: Andy Cross who lives in Brisbane, Australia. He writes on Dye Transfer techniques and teaches the process to aspiring students. He also consults with a number of American galleries re contemporary production of classic DT images. The really lucky part is that I have several of his pictures; gorgeous things.

[Drew Wiley]

There's relatively little activity on the group site lately, and virtually zero image sharing. It's a spinoff from Jim Brownings forum dye transfer forum and still contains his technical information and input. Andy sometimes chimes in. Some members no longer print DT but continue to have interest in it and share information. Some are merely scouting out the process in case they want to dive in. The problem is getting or making more matrix film. But nobody knows how many DT printers are still active in the world. It's obviously diminishing, but not extinct. During its heyday there were five different manufacturers of supplies.

The huge advantage over color carbon and carbro etc is that you can fine-tune prints in progress, and produce those in multiples using the same set of matrices. Different dye sets can be used for specific results. All kinds of options. But the advantage of color carbon is that every you need is readily available, and with care, you can achieve significantly more permanent results in terms of lightfastness. But you only get one print at a time, and its a tedious process. DT can be done using precision modified conventional enlargers; carbon etc is strictly a UV contact process, with a few proprietary exceptions like Fresson. But there are all kind of color "alt" processes out there. None are capable of the kind of precise detail associated with directly enlarged Ciba or RA4 prints directly from film.

[Jim Andrada]

Lately I mainly do B&W with film and color with digital. But I still have a 100 sheet stash of fresh Ektar 100 in 5 x 7 that I should really start using. I just had Custom Bellows make a nice new bellows for my Linhof Master L and I need to waste some film in it. Bellows was quite reasonably priced.

[826257]

... During its heyday there were five different manufacturers of supplies.

....

who were they?

[Drew Wiley]

US Army, Color Corp of America (a major player), obviously Eastman Kodak, Technicolor Corp for sake of release stills, and in Europe, apparently Agfa at one time. I think there was yet another US source, but can't recall its name. Certain items were likely to be outsourced to one another; but in the main, no single corporation dominated the whole. Often dyes were sourced directly from dye manufacturers, and there were many potential combinations, depending on the specific application. Eastman was just one of several prime sources for dyes.

[martiansea]

There's always full-color carbon?

[sperdynamite]

Ektachrome is a wonderful film from Kodak and easily available. An IQSmart scanner from Micheal Streeter is a fantastic investment for any large format photographer. An Epson or Canon pigment inkjet printer from the current line up produces jaw dropping prints.

There ya go!

[Drew Wiley]

There are still many many ways to potentially reproduce color transparencies in print fashion. Some are just far easier than others.

[826257]

US Army, Color Corp of America (a major player), obviously Eastman Kodak, Technicolor Corp for sake of release stills, and in Europe, apparently Agfa at one time. I think there was yet another US source, but can't recall its name. Certain items were likely to be outsourced to one another; but in the main, no single corporation dominated the whole. Often dyes were sourced directly from dye manufacturers, and there were many potential combinations, depending on the specific application. Eastman was just one of several prime sources for dyes.

wow-- i hope this isn't level of knowledge from browning-ctein-et.al.
not even a Rolex Ranger would make this mistake

[Wheathins]

If you want the look of Cibachrome, yet with greater ease and somewhat more affordably, you can shoot color neg film, especially Ektar 100 with its more chrome-looking contrast and saturation, and then print it on Fuji Supergloss. But this particular medium is, unfortunately, only available on big expensive rolls which you'll have to cut down yourself, and at the moment, temporarily not available at all due to pandemic-related distribution issues, but should be again in a few months perhaps.

Now the other method, using LF chromes themselves, and doing so via true optical enlargement : There's a distinct learning curve to it, but you can use your prior masking skills and punch and register equipment to make very high quality color internegs for sake of printing onto Fujiflex Supergloss or nearly any RA4 chromogenic paper. Porta 160 is an excellent interneg choice, especially if generated via contact along with a modest registered contrast mask. You end up with a master printing negative.

So no, the direct optical pathway for LF chromes is not over at all. The new E100 chrome film is available up to 8X10 sheet size, and a number of labs still offer E6 processing up to that size or even larger. But cost-wise, shooting and printing 8x10 chromes is getting pretty gnarly. That's why I only interneg my existing older 4X5 and 8X10 chromes, and going forward ever since the demise of Ciba, now only shoot color neg film.

But even retired, I still simply haven't had large enough blocks of time to warrant digging out my stockpile of dye transfer printing supplies. I've been getting such good results the color interneg method, it would hardly be qualitatively worthwhile to do so, though I'd still like to do some dye transfer work for personal interest reasons, with its own special look. Wonder what I'll finally do with all those supplies. Taming any color neg film for direct optical printing takes some patience anyway, especially if one wants those clean hues associated with chrome films rather than the traditional "muddiness" of color negs. But after the learning curve, I ended up with RA4 prints even cleaner in hue than my previous Cibas printed from trannies. There are some secrets to it, which I'm willing to share, that is, if anyone out there really takes serious interest in the same route. But NOBODY is going to mistake the result from something ink-jetted - this has way more potential for fine nuances of detail and tonality than going the scanned route.I'm a younger guy who just got a bessler print processor, and would like to start ra4 printing. Have lots of experience with silver gelatin and inkjet, both film scans and digital. I don't like inkjet simply because I don't feel like I have the same connection to my prints as silver gelatin printing.

Ive got really good results on my ipf8400, but I've read that the ra4 color gamut is simply smaller than 12 color inkjet. How much control do you have over color in ra4? Could you share some knowledge?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Drew Wiley]

826257 - what exactly are you implying? Kodak wasn't even the primary supplier to some of the biggest DT labs during the heyday. Jim Browning's materials were made by Efke before its demise. I have some of that too. The last run was by a current EU coating source, but was all dedicated to just one lab. So how many overall sources in history - dunno - but we're up to at least 7 now in total. Ctein was the last user of a slightly different product - Pan Matrix Film; he worked directly from color neg film, not chromes via color separations.
Then going back behind DT per se were a number of related dye imbition processes, including Eastman Wash-Off relief and no doubt a number of homemade tweaks. Lots of history there. It could easily be revived for about the cost of a ride or two on a current tourist space vehicle. Any takers? At least you don't have to wear diapers for the take-off.

[jnantz]

Sold off most of the enlarging equipment, just contact print capabilities. My plan is to use custom labs for enlargements. Was also looking at dye transfer prints and other types of alternative processes.

I hope you have deep pockets for the DTs !
you might look into someone like Bob Carnie and Tri-Gum prints, he's a masterful commercial printer, and a known quantity (that doesn't involve pixie dust and a prayer).

[Drew Wiley]

Wheathins - direct optical enlargement straight from color neg film onto RA4 media is capable of finer nuances than inkjet. At an optimized level faithful to the original negative, inkjet has to jump through more hoops and is more lossy, and actually is less than ideal in terms of gamut; but the ease of digital manipulation following a scan or download from a digital camera allows one to manipulate the image considerably more. And some people mistake that kind of adding something that wasn't there to begin with in terms of saturation and so forth as enhanced gamut, but it isn't. It's just faking it. Fine, but different ballgame. Inkjet inks have all kinds of gamut issues. Any halfway decent watercolorist alive can mix hues more accurately than inkjet inks in mere minutes. I get a lot of pushback by saying that because a lot of beginners only think of gamut only in terms of what a computer screen shows you.

There are different kinds of RA4 paper, some with distinctly wider gamut capacity than other, along with greater saturation and contrast. But for some applications, that's not necessarily ideal. Softer results are often preferred by portrait studios and analogous amateur applications.

But it does take some time on the road to begin to appreciate what any specific color neg film in combination with certain RA4 papers can and can't do. Limitation is actually liberation. And there are advanced printing techniques applicable to optical RA4 printing itself. But I won't go there at the moment. Another nice feature is that RA4 papers are less expensive then FB black and white. Technically, it's a fairly easy process to learn. And itt's certainly not the "ugly duckling" of color printing options anymore; film and paper have come a long ways. However, the esthetic learning curve is lifetime, just like any other medium. You can make it either as simple or as complex as you wish, just like black and white printing.

I already commented on optical enlargement these days from chromes. It is possible to make internegs better than ever. But don't expect any commercial service to go to that trouble. They'll logically want to scan and go to laser printing RA4 paper. But if someone is interested in the sheer no-holds-barred qualitative options of the real home cookin' route, the slow way, it can be done superbly the interneg method.