Life after E6 and large format transparencies

[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