Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / September 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Cibachrome vs Fuji crystal archive revisited

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ifan - 11 Sep 2004 22:34 GMT
A couple of years ago there was an interesting thread in this group
about the relative merits of Cibachrome versus Fuji Crystal. I
recently submitted one 2 ¼ x 2 ¼ slide to a local photo lab to have
both an Ilfochrome and a Lightjet 5000/Fuji Crystal Archive 16 x 24
inch print made for comparison. There was no comparison. The Fuji
Crystal Archive was less sharp than the Ilfochrome. The Fuji Crystal
Archive colors lacked the lacked the luster of the Ilfrachrome which
accurately reproduced the brilliance of the original colors.

I understand that Ilfochrome is no longer making the paper and
chemicals for the former Cibachrome process. Is this true? Anyway my
experience suggests that, despite what I read, I am yet to be
convinced that Lightjet 5000 prints on Fuji Crystal Archive equals the
quality of Ilfochrome.

It could of course be that an element in the digital train at the lab
was not accurately calibrated (they did the scans) but I wonder what
the recent experience of others have been.

Ifan
Nick Zentena - 11 Sep 2004 23:30 GMT
> I understand that Ilfochrome is no longer making the paper and
> chemicals for the former Cibachrome process. Is this true? Anyway my

 To the best of my knowledge all they did was change the name.
 
 Nick
Photobossman - 12 Sep 2004 09:58 GMT
The reason the quality does not match is you are comparing Apples to
Oranges. Fuji Crystal paper is designed for Negative film Process type RA 4

The lab that did your work either made a copy neg of the slide or digital
scan than exposed the paper causing additional reduction in quality.

Slide image on RA-4 Paper

Original image(Slide) First Generation
Copy neg (Second Generation)
Expose image on Type RA-4 Paper (Third Generation)

Slide on Cibachrome or Type R paper

Original image(Slide) First Generation
Expose image on Type R paper 2nd Generation

Each Generation results in Loss of Quality.

If they use a digital process the quality would be better than a copy
negative but probably not as good as the Type R product.

http://www.horvath.ca/final/cibachrome.html

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1&parent=PRODUCT_CAT
EGORY_465393&product=7427156


Hope this answers your questions

Gary

>A couple of years ago there was an interesting thread in this group
> about the relative merits of Cibachrome versus Fuji Crystal. I
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Ifan
Jim Phelps - 12 Sep 2004 10:26 GMT
> Original image(Slide) First Generation
> Copy neg (Second Generation)
> Expose image on Type RA-4 Paper (Third Generation)

Are you sure of this?  I understood that a Lightspeed digitized the source
for printing.  There is no need for an internegative.
Jim Phelps - 12 Sep 2004 11:26 GMT
The biggest reason Ilfochrome prints will have more saturated, clearer,
truer colors with a higher level of apparent sharpness (due to increased
contrast) is the use of Azo dyes in the material.  Only Ilfochrome
(Cibachrome) uses Azo dyes in it's color process.

Not all slide materials print well on Ilfochrome due to color crossover
issues.  A good operator can fix much of this, but it takes time and effort.
Contrast can be controlled with masks, but again, time and effort.  Making
Ilfochrome prints is time consuming and costly.  I fear, because of this,
it's days are limited.

Photobossman is correct in many regards.  The comparison of an Ilfochrome to
a print from a RA-4 process is wholly unfair and inconclusive.

Paper and chemicals are still being made to the best of my knowledge.  I
believe it's the last direct positive print material being made since Kodak
stopped making it's R-3 process and papers (not sure if Fuji is still
producing positive print material).  Ilford in England is in the equivalent
of Chapter 11 right now (under administration), but it has not stopped any
productions lines - yet.  The 'Chrome' plant is in Switzerland and a
subsidiary of Ilford.

Jim
Ifan - 12 Sep 2004 21:17 GMT
> Paper and chemicals are still being made to the best of my knowledge.  I
> believe it's the last direct positive print material being made since Kodak
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Jim

Thanks for all your helpful comments. Two follow up questions:

1. The only lab printing Cibachrome/Ilfochrome in Albuquerque - the
nearest to me in New Mexico - has recently closed. If Ilfochrome
printing is still available has anyone any suggestions as to the best
place to obtain Ilfochrome prints?

2. What are the other alternatives for getting exhibition quality
color prints from 2 ¼  x 2 ¼  and 35mm color transparencies?

Ifan
Michael Weinstein - 13 Sep 2004 01:00 GMT
>> Paper and chemicals are still being made to the best of my knowledge.  
>> I believe it's the last direct positive print material being made since
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Ifan

Try Holland Photo: http://www.hollandphoto.com/index2.htm
You'll have to do it by mail because they are in Austin Texas. They do
very fine Ilfochromes including the use of silver masks for high
contrast slides. This is a quote from their website:

Making fine prints from slides has been Holland Photo's specialty since
1981. Our choice as a medium is the Ilfochrome Process.
(Formerly called Cibachrome)

Hope this helps.

Signature

Michael    | "You're going to need a bigger boat."

Photobossman - 13 Sep 2004 05:14 GMT
There are a number of reasons why Labs have stopped processing Type R as
well as K-14

The chemicals are expensive.
Maintaining Quality control Expensive.
Volume of the products dropping.
Environmental issues these chemistries are not very kind to the environment.

Gary

>>> Paper and chemicals are still being made to the best of my knowledge.  I
>>> believe it's the last direct positive print material being made since
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Hope this helps.
Mr 645 - 22 Sep 2004 13:39 GMT
<<<There are a number of reasons why Labs have stopped processing Type R as
well as K-14

The chemicals are expensive.
Maintaining Quality control Expensive.
Volume of the products dropping.
Environmental issues these chemistries are not very kind to the environment.>>>

Lets not forget that Kodak is no longer making K-14 films, I'm sure prepackages
processing materials are on their way out, if not gone already as well.

Ilfochrome?  Isn't Ilford getting out of the analog photography industry to
concentrate on inkjet and other digital products?

Jon
James Robinson - 22 Sep 2004 15:02 GMT
> Lets not forget that Kodak is no longer making K-14 films, I'm sure prepackages
> processing materials are on their way out, if not gone already as well.

Kodak is still making K-14 film. Kodachrome 64 and 200 are both
available.

> Ilfochrome?  Isn't Ilford getting out of the analog photography industry to
> concentrate on inkjet and other digital products?

No.  The company has gone into receivership. That doesn't mean they are
getting out of the business. They will likely split off the profitable
digital and inkjet division from the losing B&W division.  If they can
financially reorganize the latter, it will probably be set up as a
separate company. At the moment, Ilfochrome is made by the inkjet
division in Switzerland, and there is no indication of what will happen
to that product.
Ifan - 13 Sep 2004 06:03 GMT
...  And another thing has just occured to me ... following up on the
comment by Jim Phelps. If a digital file was produced by scanning the
slide, should not the Fuji Crystal archive print have been of an equal
quality?

Ifan
Ifan - 13 Sep 2004 06:04 GMT
...  And another thing has just occured to me ... following up on the
comment by Jim Phelps. If a digital file was produced by scanning the
slide, should not the Fuji Crystal archive print have been of an equal
quality?

Ifan
Jim Phelps - 13 Sep 2004 07:02 GMT
> ...  And another thing has just occured to me ... following up on the
> comment by Jim Phelps. If a digital file was produced by scanning the
> slide, should not the Fuji Crystal archive print have been of an equal
> quality?
>
> Ifan

No.  Like I said, you can't compare an RA-4 print (the Fuji Crystal Archive
is RA-4, the same process as prints from negatives) to an Ilfochrome.  The
dyes used are so widely different.  The process is so different.  Azo dyes
are also used to make the dyes for the clothing industry among other things.

The apparent sharpness you see in the Ilfochrome is due to the large
increase in tonal and Dmax/Dmin contrast.  The yellows are deeper yellow,
the blues deeper... etc.  The vibrance of the colors is also greater and
therefore the eye tends to understand this as increase sharpness (that is,
if the print was properly focused for both prints).

There is another possible variable in the process and that's the base
material used for the Ilfochrome.  There are two base materials used.  The
cheaper of the two is the standard 'RC' or resin coated paper.  This is the
base material used by Fuji for Crystal Archive.  Normally, for
professionally made Ilfochrome prints, they use the more expensive and
durable paper which has a polyester base.  The polyester has (IMHO) a
cleaner and purer white than RC bases (in general).  This will aid in the
reflection of light especially in highlights and produce a more vibrant
overall picture.

The use of the Azo dyes and the polyester base will also produce a print
that (from a quality stand point) is more stable dimensionally and archival.
It will outlast many of us (if not all).

So, in many ways, the Ilfochrome is a much better print.  It's also going to
be much more expensive.  If you're looking for exhibition quality, then the
price may not be as important.  The other option you may have is learn to
print them yourself.  However, this is not something you can learn overnight
and I'd be very surprised to see the local Community College offering a
course.  However, they may offer a course in darkroom skills that would be
the right start.  Another place to start is some of the better local camera
shops.  Ask if there's a local artist who prints Ilfochrome.  They may be
able to do a good job.

BTW,  Love Albuquerque.  I was there a couple of times for school at
Kirkland.  Loved wandering through the Sandia park and hills.  Remember
quite vividly rounding a corner on the road to Sandia peak and there in the
middle of the road was a rather large bear.  We let Yogi have the right of
way...
Ifan - 13 Sep 2004 07:01 GMT
...  And another thing has just occured to me ... following up on the
comment by Jim Phelps. If a digital file was produced by scanning the
slide, should not the Fuji Crystal archive print have been of an equal
quality?

Ifan
Ifan - 13 Sep 2004 07:01 GMT
...  And another thing has just occured to me ... following up on the
comment by Jim Phelps. If a digital file was produced by scanning the
slide, should not the Fuji Crystal archive print have been of an equal
quality?

Ifan
Ifan - 15 Sep 2004 01:03 GMT
> ...  And another thing has just occured to me ... following up on the
> comment by Jim Phelps. If a digital file was produced by scanning the
> slide, should not the Fuji Crystal archive print have been of an equal
> quality?

My apologies for this unintended multiple posts - a glitch in the
uploading process made it appear that the reply was not being posted.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.