Cibachrome Classic Shortages and Substitutes

[Frank Bagbey]

For years I have been telling customers Cibachrome was the only color print the majority of museums would acquire for their collections and the only color print fade resistant and permanent enough to not worry about hanging. Now, my custom lab says because of the shortage of Cibachrome they only want to do Lightjet prints. I must admit the 11X14, 20X20, and 30X40 prints they have recently done look good, but then I do not have a Cibachrome classic to compare them side by side. I am also concerned about the longevity issue. Some input about museum thought would also be of help.

[Andre Noble]

shortage of Cibachrome ?

[tim atherton]

presumably they mean Ilfochrome...

unless it's related to the hitches in Ilfords production etc, it sounds like they are BSing you somewhat?

[Ralph Barker]

My understanding is that purchasing procedures were changed when Ilford resumed production after the short closure at the beginning of the receivership. That was announced in an Ilford press release at the time of resumption of production. My guess would be that the change involved related to credit terms - perhaps payment at time of order. If so, that might prompt some dealers who depended on credit to drop the line and blame production shortages.

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

The original Ciba prints from trans are/were made by using an entirely different process to that of other manufacurers. The Cibachrome print is different in that it has the dyes pre-coated into the emulsion at the manufacturing stage. The processing removes those dyes that are not required for the final image. Cibachrome has been found to be very stable in exposure toUV light and consequently the reason why this prosess is preferred where large prints are being displayed to strong light particularly UV.

Whereas, Kodak R14 and similar types of printing paper, the colours are introduced to the emulsion by the action of the processing chemicals; this process is not considered as stable in exposure to UV light over long periods.

When Ilford took over the Cibachrome materials and processes, they changed the name of the product/process to Ilfochrome and, although the chemical process is said now to be exactly the same to that of the origninal Cibachrome, many photographers consider it open to question.

From my personal experience, the Ilfochrome processes today are well up to the job in every respect - let's hope it will continue.

[bob carnie]

Frank
As Tim stated , they are bull.....ting you , I have a Exell 30 ciba machine , we print traditional enlarger cibas as well we are using a Lambda digital writer to expose ciba from digital files.
Ilford has had its problem lately but I have recieved new product and chemistry and we are now in full production. As a matter of fact we are now using more paper product because of the hybrid technology.
Side point, I do print cyrstal archive , endura, Ra4 with both printing methods, and they do not match up to the ciba product

[chris jordan]

As far as museums go, Ciba/Ilfochrome is the LEAST popular with museums nowadays, because it has one of the shortest archival lives of any current color printing process. Ciba/Ilfo paper has a generally accepted archival life of 29 years (as tested by the Wilhelm Institute), as opposed to about 70 years for Fuji Crystal Archive paper which is used for Lightjet and Chromira prints. Pigmented inkjet prints have about the same archival life (70-100 years depending on papers and inks used), and are also routinely collected by museums these days.

A few years back, Ciba/Ilfo was popular with many color photograhers, and with museums, because it was erroneously believed to be much longer lasting than it actually is. Now that it is known to have such a short archival life (and also to have some other fundamental defects that make it very hard to get good prints from it), few serious color photographic artists still use it. Everyone I know of who used to make their own Ciba/Ilfo printss, including me, switched to the Lightjet when it came out, and since then most of us have gone over to Epson Ultrachrome.

One other side note: Many labs will continue to say that Lightjet prints are the best (longer lasting, better color, etc.), but be careful-- they have a $250,000 investment that they are trying to protect. People who have a choice (without the burden of a quarter-million-dollar dinosaur that they are trying to milk for all its work), usually prefer either Chromira prints or Ultrachrome inkjet prints, in a side-by-side test against Lightjet prints. Unfortunately there are still few labs making Ultrachromes because the machines are far slower, and consequently less profitable. So don't listen to what labs have to say about printing methods; they are biased to what they have invested in. Instead, get prints made in all of the mediums you are interested in, and decide for yourself which looks best.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Steve Lewis]

Hi Guys

As Ilfachrome and its chemistry is produced in Switzerland there should be no problem with supplies. My local Ilfachrome lab says that the only minor problem they had was that a new line of credit needed sorting out direct with the producers, but they've had no problems keeping customers, including me, happy.

Steve

www.landscapesofwales.co.uk

[Kirk Gittings]

"For years I have been telling customers Cibachrome was the only color print the majority of museums would acquire for their collections"

Actuallythis is no longer true. For instance, the Art Institute of Chicago is specifically building a collection of inkjet photography.

[Andre Noble]

"Epson Ultrachrome"

Now is that a bull*^it name to describe a 'photograph' made from ink spray or what?