PDA

View Full Version : LF and Color (Cibachrome) Printing



Scott Demel
29-May-1999, 09:17
What is the relation of LF, color transparency and cibachrome (or other) printin g? Here's my dilemma:

I have been shooting 35mm for years and it has evolved with my personal subject interests and professional work. As an architect, I am constantly photographing buildings and other aspects of the built environment. In shooting 35mm, I alwa ys shoot slide film. This is mainly because I do not have access to or have the resources (time, money, space) to set-up a darkroom for processing/printing. W ith a slide, there is no extra hand in the process to alter the image. What I s hoot is exactly what I receive back from the lab. If I need a high quality prin t, I will have a good Cibachrome made.

Recently, I have done some 4x5 B&W work with another photographer for some histo ric building documentation. I find myself drawn to the whole process, control a nd quality possible with LF photography.

However, my real interest lies with color. I've been searching for viewpoints o n shooting LF color transparencies and having contacts or enlarged prints made f rom these but I have not seen much information. Most "die-hard" LF seems to dea l with B&W. I doubt I will do my own processing/printing. My attraction to LF is the control it offers but by not processing/printing, I am giving still givin g up control over half the photographic process... and gaining control is the wh ole reason for LF. With all of that said, what kind of results could I expect from shooting LF transparencies and having Cibachrome (or other) prints made? I s this common practice? Or am I just missing the point of LF?

Any opinions or viewpoints are welcome.

Jan erala
29-May-1999, 10:02
No Scott no, you are just finding them. As Cibachrome (also Ilfochrome) is an increadible sharp material it favours specially LF. The larger the film, the more naturality, tonality and detailed Ciba. The most beautiful Cibas comes from 8x10 and bigger slides. The problems of control in color photograpy lies most in the mastering of contrast. Develop your E-6 film with a 1 stop pull processing, that is 5 minutes in the E-6 first dev. Every good custom lab. will do this. This will give more than 1stop in exposure latitude. A slight color shift against minus-magenta will occure; if this bother you, filter it away. Find a lab that prints Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) LowContrast material CF1k in process P-3 or P-3X. This will give exellent resultat,even the more popular P-4 is not bad either. Once you get the LF-Ciba combination you will never leave it.

David Grandy
29-May-1999, 10:26
Hi,

I think that it would be a great thing to go to LF for colour transparencies but the main concerns that I have with LF trannies are lack of exposure latitude and "what do I do with it now?".

With 35mm I bracket each slide exposure but bracketing your LF becomes a lot more expensive, especially if you jump to 8X10 rather than 4X5. And if prints are your final goal - rather than magazine reproduction - I'd suggest colour negative film. The new Kodak Portra 160 VC has a extra snap of contrast, lots of exposure latitude, works well in mixed lighting and if you have it printed on glossy paper rivals Cibachrome. There is a very good article about Portra and Fuji coour films in the most recent View Camera Magazine that you might want to read.

Ellis Vener
29-May-1999, 19:40
I have all my color transparency work printed on Fuji Supergloss type R materials. My impression is that it is a less contrasty material than Cibachrome (AKA Ilfochrome). Since until very recently I used mostly Fuji films, the dye sets are a better match so I have had more accurate reproductions of my original image. Rather than attempting the pull process technique discussed above I try to control the contrast range when making the exposure in the first place, by first keeping in mind that a print is going about a stop (or more) less latitude than the film is capable of recording, and also by a very slight (1/3rd to 1/2 stop) overexposure (rather than underdeveloping.) to this end I habitually rate Velvia @ ISO 40. The only problem with this technique is needing to be careful to keep the highlights from blowing out.

Jan erala
30-May-1999, 12:37
There4s no need for bracketing and no outwashed highligts if you don4t develop your trannies full 6 minutes in E-6. I think this 6 minute concept is more a scheme of the filmindustry to obtain higher nominal speed for their films than regards for good qualities. I consider 5-5min 15seconds to be more of a "normal" first developer time for E-6. The film speed will be half of the nominal, but you will have really more exp.latitude, specially on the highlight side. Generally, it4s not a good practice to say negative is better than trannies, or vice versa. They shall be considered more like a different method of expression. Despite this view, I have never seen any in color that outstands a good polyesterbased ciba made from a LF original. ( Ellis, why do you use Velvia? It4s the most contrasty E-6 film I know.)

Ellis Vener
30-May-1999, 15:34
Jan. I use Velvia because I like the sharpness, the resolution, the color, the relative lack of reciprocity failure problems and because I don't tend to have the contrast problems you mention. maybe i have been shooting RVP long enough to make this films characteristics work for me? Anyway, films are like opinions: everybody's got (a favorite) one.< /P> I also use Astia (generally when I shooting interiors or people) & Provia when I need more speed. I have recently rediscovered (in 35mm) Kodak E100s and E100vs but since they don't come in a reliable Quickload format I haven't used them in 4x5, in 35mm they are very nice films; very clean color.

james mickelson
30-May-1999, 18:30
First of all, why do you think you need to go to 8x10 to get good prints from your shots be they color reversal or neg films? I have my slides done to 16x20 Cibachrome due to the fact that they are touted to be the most archival of the printed mediums. I love the color rendition and sharpness with Velvia and I don't bracket unless the light is changing dramatically and I want to capture some real subtle values with luck. I shoot 35mm to 8x10 color reversal material mainly Velvia, e100sw, and Provia for speed increase. I like the portraiture I see from the PPA photographers in the local chapter and they seem to like Portra and NPH and NPG. I shoot mostly landscape and if the scene is too contrasty I pre-expose to beef up the shadows and then shoot to keep the highlights under control and let the shadows fall where they are. If the shadows are important I have the lab printer make a shadow mask and print that. Everyone has there own pet ways so go for what gets you the print you want. There's no one right way (although my way is better. Just ask me. I'm an artist.). No really, you should shoot a couple of different materials and have them printed and see what you like. That's the only way to know what matches your style of photography.

QT Luong
1-Jun-1999, 15:06
I think there are three reasons why there are more B&W LF photogs than color LF photogs: (a) until now B&W gives you more control. you cannot manipulate color than much before it looks unatural. (b) the quality gain of LF is more important in B&W. (c) B&W is generally considered more "artistic" (whatever it means). However there are many people producing fine art ilfochrome prints from LF. To see how good that can be, have a look at the work of Christopher Burkett. The LF page has a link to his page, which has a list of galleries.

The future of color printing lies in digital. The digital lab gives you the precision tools that you need to control precisely color in a way which was not possible before. You can print on whatever medium you prefer, including ilfochrome. Right now, it is somewhat expensive, but the prices will drop, and the information contained in your transparencies will never be outdated.

Josh Divack
3-Jun-1999, 13:20
Scott, I have been shooting 4x5 Provia exclusively for the past four years and having a good lab do "gallery" 16x20 Ilfochrome prints made of the winners. The finished product is spectacular.

After training in B&W darkroom technique, I too decided to go the color route because I did not have access to a darkroom and had space, time and financial constraints in building a 4x5 setup. I have almost never regretted shooting LF transparencies rather than B&W, not only for the sheer beauty of the processed film as well as the clarity and depth of the Ilfochrome print, but also for the reason that many people seem to equate LF with B&W, and seeing the color product is an eye-opener. Just as an aside, I took a LF workshop last summer where I was the only one out of twelve that was shooting color transparencies, but the whole class was quite impressed (and had never seen) the unique look of a 4x5 transparency sitting on a light table.

Larry Huppert
6-Jun-1999, 21:11
Joshua,

Get a box of 4 x 5 Scala B&W transparency film and give that a try. I find it as interesting as color transparency.

Scott Demel
19-Jun-1999, 09:12
Many thanks to all of you for your various responses. I know the topic of the question was large and open-ended but it opened the conversation to the variety of viewpoints I hoped to see. This has been very helpful for me.

Thanks again .scott

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2011, 22:48
Bump for updates!! Long live ciba!

Drew Wiley
1-Nov-2011, 08:44
Shoot your slides normally. If they're properly exposed in relation to the scene contrast
and normally processed (not pushed or pulled) you've got the most to work with). The
only way to make a high quality Ciba is by masking. But now that it appears that Ciba
is finally on the way out for good, your only realistic option is a high quality drum scan
and printing onto one of the RA4 papers. Fuji Supergloss is an excellent substitute for
Ciba if you want that high-gloss effect. The other option would be high-quality internegs from your slide, but I would be very surprised if any commercial labs still offer
that kind of service, and when they did, it was generally mediocre. For your kind of
work, 4x5 film might be the most versatile. It's much easier to get than 8x10. You
won't see much difference unless you plan on making really big prints.

Asher Kelman
1-Nov-2011, 09:05
Shoot your slides normally. If they're properly exposed in relation to the scene contrast
and normally processed (not pushed or pulled) you've got the most to work with). The
only way to make a high quality Ciba is by masking. But now that it appears that Ciba
is finally on the way out for good, your only realistic option is a high quality drum scan
and printing onto one of the RA4 papers. Fuji Supergloss is an excellent substitute for
Ciba if you want that high-gloss effect. The other option would be high-quality internegs from your slide, but I would be very surprised if any commercial labs still offer
that kind of service, and when they did, it was generally mediocre. For your kind of
work, 4x5 film might be the most versatile. It's much easier to get than 8x10. You
won't see much difference unless you plan on making really big prints.

Drew,

There's enough 8x10 around, one just has to stock some extra film in one's refrigerator. I'm not going to divert my goal for Ciba just yet but will shoot Portra too and try out the Fuji route too.

50 inch wide, is itself a great reason for trying to accomplish the best with Ciba while we can. The Ciba lab in Glendale lab-ciba (http://www.weldoncolorlab.com/?gclid=CIu4oJ3plawCFQRShwodREsAvw) can do contrast control with internegatives.

Asher

Drew Wiley
1-Nov-2011, 10:09
Asher - I keep a pretty good stockpile of various 8x10 films in my freezer, along with
whatever color papers will fit in there. With scanning and Lightjet etc if doesn't make
much difference whether one shoots 4x5 or 8x10 because of the limitations of the
workpath itself. For direct enlargements it does. Right now I'm trying to figure out
where to squeeze in a 40-inch RA4 processor, but I don't have realistic room for
anything bigger. So far I've been making 30x40 CA prints in a drum just like Cibas.
End of an era for me. I don't even have any 30x40 Ciba prints left to show anyone,
except for a few old ones on my own walls. All sold out. Got plenty of 20X24's and
smaller however. I'll just have to lick my wounds and move onto Fuji Supergloss,
and shoot 8x10 color neg films. Ektar is great stuff but a bit finicky until one learns
a few basic exposure and filtration tricks. But optically printing it optimally requires
some masking skills. Simple enough for me, but a beginner would need to dedicate a
few months of time at least to the learning curve.

Asher Kelman
1-Nov-2011, 10:23
A With scanning and Lightjet etc if doesn't make
much difference whether one shoots 4x5 or 8x10 because of the limitations of the
workpath itself.

Drew,

Where are the losses? In scanning or in printing?

Asher

Drew Wiley
1-Nov-2011, 11:27
You can get loss anywhere in the workflow. A high-end drumscan should preserve all
the detail etc on the original, but any ordinary form of digital output will only hold so much detail on the print itself. Saying this will inevitably start a food-fight. But it's a
secondary question of the general look itself: optical enlargement vs Lightjet etc.
The third option (a rare one) is a digital large-format enlarger per se, which is probably
the lowest-quality option available except for a poor scan due to banding issues.
Ciba can be done any method but the last, but I suststantially prefer the optical route.
The advantage of Lightjet/Chromira/Lambda etc with Fuji Supergloss is that you can
start with either a negative or positive original and make all the necessary contrast
and balance corrections in PS, and it appears the printing papers will be with us for
some time. But these Type C papers won't be of any value if you still plan on a big
camera obscura direct exposure experiement, due to their negative image. The whole
digital vs optical choice with high-gloss papers is really more of a personal esthetic;
a really good Lightjet or Chromira lab tech can make a Supergloss Crystal Archive print look analogous to a Ciba, at least well enough to fool any casual viewer. Ciba in big
sizes is quite fragile and more difficult to handle than Supergloss, and shifts more with
aging. A lot depends on the tones and hues of the original. Ciba has richer blacks and
more intense reds, yellows, and oranges. Crystal Archive seems to be more realistic,
but lacking a little punch unless its masked or PS tweaked. I obviously prefer the optical and masking route myself.