Life after E6 and large format transparencies

[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.