Cibachrome vs Digital Prints

[DOYLE THOMAS]

I made my first Ciba print in 1976 and had the privlige of attending Chris Burkett's masking workshop. In terms of sharpness there is no doubt that Ilfocrome will make a sharper print. In terms of actuance however (imho) digital printing takes the cake. I print to an Epson 7800/mat ink. That is the one thing I don't like about Ilfo is the glossy finish creating glare. I have tried many products in an attempt to reduce glare, none sucessful.

Doyle

[paulr]

In terms of sharpness there is no doubt that Ilfocrome will make a sharper print. In terms of actuance however (imho) digital printing takes the cake.

I'm curious to hear your definition of these terms.

Personally, I've never been able to make a darkroom print that's as sharp as a digital print (from the same negative). Going through the process demonstrates how much sharpness is lost to the enlarger optics. My comparisons are based on 4x5 negs scanned with a consumer grade scanner (wet mounted) vs. a high end enlarger setup (aligned, glass carrier, apo lens). I have a nearly complete body of work printed both ways for anyone to compare with their own eyes.

[David Luttmann]

I'm curious to hear your definition of these terms.

Personally, I've never been able to make a darkroom print that's as sharp as a digital print (from the same negative). Going through the process demonstrates how much sharpness is lost to the enlarger optics. My comparisons are based on 4x5 negs scanned with a consumer grade scanner (wet mounted) vs. a high end enlarger setup (aligned, glass carrier, apo lens). I have a nearly complete body of work printed both ways for anyone to compare with their own eyes.

That is true. Optical laws won’t allow it. I have yet to see ANY optical print at 16x20 or larger that can maintain more detail and/or acutance than a scanned version printed to Light Jet or Inkjet at the same sizes.

[paulr]

I have yet to see ANY optical print at 16x20 or larger that can maintain more detail and/or acutance than a scanned version printed to Light Jet or Inkjet at the same sizes.

and mine are all smaller than that. my 4x5 digital prints are sharper than contact prints from the same neg. they look more like contact prints than the contact prints, if that makes any sense.

[QT Luong]

Your 4x5 digital prints may look sharper because of higher accutance obtained through sharpening, but the contact prints contain much more detail. If you put a 6x lupe to both, you will see pixels in the digital prints, whereas the contacts will still show continuous detail that was invisible to the naked eye. I've done that myself on Ilfochrome.

However it's true that because of limitation of optical processes, above a certain enlargement size, the digital prints will be sharper.

[Greg Miller]

Some people think that making adjustments on the computer is the same process as adjustments in the darkroom, I think they are wrong. There is a lot of work and skill that goes into a file before digital output, and the adjustments can be saved once the final is ready. There is no skill after the final process....just hit print when you need a print. With darkroom, you have to use your skill everytime you put a piece of paper on the easil. Everyprint gets the hardwork and skill...and mainly the love to goes into a final piece of art.

There is skill required in both technologies for making the final print look like the artist wants it. With digital the skill is in the expsoure of the image (film or digital), developing (if film) or RAW processing, pre-print Photoshop work, plus the skill in understanding how the printer/ink/paper combination will actually affect what the final print looks like. With the darkroom you have the exposure, developing, and darkroom skills.

The fact that the actual print requires more effort in the printing stage seems irrelevant to me. And any variation in the print due to the human element can be perceived as error just as much as being perceived as a desirable touch of the artist.

[tim atherton]

The fact that the actual print requires more effort in the printing stage seems irrelevant to me. And any variation in the print due to the human element can be perceived as error just as much as being perceived as a desirable touch of the artist.

Exactly, I always thought the aim of any high end custom hand printing lab/atelier working for the best photographers out there (either in-house or outsourced) was absolute repeatablility - something they prided themselves on in printing for the greats.

In addition, once the requirements were worked out and mapped, it was usually the job of skilled assistant to produce those prints in a most "mechanical" fashion.

Variations from print to print are a mistake to be avoided.

[Bruce Watson]

... but the contact prints contain much more detail.

I find that argument a bit specious. What's important here is how the prints look to the unaided eye at a reasonable viewing distance. If your unaided eye/brain visual system can't resolve the detail, it really doesn't matter whether it's there or not.

I'll agree that digital prints look sharper then their darkroom counter parts. For me I think this is much more due to the scanning process: I drum scan my 5x4 film which holds the negatives in the exact plane of focus, edge to edge and corner to corner. This is far better alignment than I could ever get in any of the darkrooms I had access to no matter how much time and effort I put into enlarger alignment. The optics are better too since they are optimized for a single pixel at a time (regardless of film format) and not for projection of a large format negative over a large sheet of paper. Sharpening algorithms are a tertiary effect.

But the appearance of sharpness is but one aspect of a print. For many people I suspect that apparent sharpness isn't going to be a deal breaker, one way or the other; both methods allow for excellent sharpness after all. It's going to come down to aesthetics, plain and simple. And each photographer is going to have to apply his/her own best judgment and make her/his own choice.

[jetcode]

Take into consideration the fact that getting fine control with Ilfochrome printing is considerably more difficult than in the digital darkroom. You might have to be a master printer (like Burkett) to achieve results that compare to average digital prints. Ilfochrome and digital prints do have a different look.

I can attest to that, Bay Photo in Santa Cruz used to have an Ilfochrome machine for public rental use and I did my best to achieve quality results but they were still short of high quality; operator experience noted.

[QT Luong]

I find that argument a bit specious. What's important here is how the prints look to the unaided eye at a reasonable viewing distance. If your unaided eye/brain visual system can't resolve the detail, it really doesn't matter whether it's there or not.

The contacts do have a special quality to me in careful, but normal viewing. I think it is the combination of detail and no artificially boosted accutance. But it's a kind of moot point in practice, since I much prefer to print big anyways.