Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,124   Online: 985
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,040
    Well done Ilfochrome is a thing of beauty. Well done ones are rare. I have tons of so-so ones and only a few good ones. I print Fuji Crystal RA4 now with none of the Ilfochrome problems.

    I used to control contrast with uncoated lenses and overexposing/underdeveloping E6 in my Jobo. The transparencies look terrible, but print wonderfully. No masking required for a normal contrast print. The original Ektachrome 100 was the film, not the saturated junk they sell today.

    The other problem I solved was the curves cross for the the different layers. You will not be able to balance both highlights and shadows at the same time. Brown hair would always go red when flesh was right. A 2% flash through a 50cc cyan filter fixed it. This works just like any other paper flashing in that it changes the shadows and has little or no effecton the highlights. Remove the transparency to do the flash, but leave the filter pack in place.

    Good luck and report progress.

  2. #22
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,708
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Moravec
    Well done Ilfochrome is a thing of beauty. Well done ones are rare. I have tons of so-so ones and only a few good ones. I print Fuji Crystal RA4 now with none of the Ilfochrome problems.

    I used to control contrast with uncoated lenses and overexposing/underdeveloping E6 in my Jobo. The transparencies look terrible, but print wonderfully. No masking required for a normal contrast print. The original Ektachrome 100 was the film, not the saturated junk they sell today.

    The other problem I solved was the curves cross for the the different layers. You will not be able to balance both highlights and shadows at the same time. Brown hair would always go red when flesh was right. A 2% flash through a 50cc cyan filter fixed it. This works just like any other paper flashing in that it changes the shadows and has little or no effecton the highlights. Remove the transparency to do the flash, but leave the filter pack in place.

    Good luck and report progress.
    And I'll bet you don't have to do any of the above for Neg-Pos prints.

    Compare the colors of the Neg-Pos prints with the original and do the same for an Ilfochrome print and you will find that the Ilfochrome, as you say, is beautiful but you will also find it inaccurate and 'overdone'.

    You will also find that the color density separation is 'less natural' on the Pos-Pos prints.

    All of this is inherent in the Pos-Pos printing process unless masking is used. The direct positive systems such as E6 and Kodachrome were not designed for printing without this masking process, and even with it, it is limited to only close approximations to the original.

    The Neg-Pos system was designed for printing without all of the extra pains and was designed to reproduce colors and tones accurately with the least amount of color and toal error.

    PE

  3. #23
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    All of this is inherent in the Pos-Pos printing process unless masking is used. The direct positive systems such as E6 and Kodachrome were not designed for printing without this masking process, and even with it, it is limited to only close approximations to the original.
    My experience as well PE and one of the reasons I no longer do Ilfochrome for printing my landscapes. I now print using Fuji Crystal Archive and a Chromira. I know the purists complain about using a digital printer, so much that those of use who use one are not welcome to participate in some APUG functions (like the gallery); what they fail to realize is that we really don't have much choice. I find my only choices are to print using Ilfochrome (you have pointed out the issues with this approach), print using Fuji Crystal Archive (on a digital printer) or just use an ink jet printer (which I refuse to do). Color workers really don't have the variety of choices the B&W worker has.

    FWIW, the only professional landscape photographer that I am aware of still using exclusively Ilfochrome is Christopher Burkett (there may be more); he says that he spends 10 months a year just printing and only 2 months actually photographing.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  4. #24
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,708
    Images
    65
    Robert, I find that making an internegative on Portra VC or UC with a slight pull in development makes a good print on Endura.

    I use a daylight exposure on my enlarger (100C + 20M) and f22 at 0.5" to get a very nice negative. Prints are quite good. You do have to fuss a bit to get the best negative image centered in the scale of the film, but once achieved the results are very satisfying for a good transparency.

    You can also do some interesting effects, all without digital.

    PE

  5. #25
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,540
    Images
    11
    An internegative is the last thing I would consider.
    I have clients that still print landscapes with me traditionally and digitally onto cibachrome paper and endura as well.
    If the input is digital I would continue the workflow via the Lambda to cibachrome.
    If the input is transparancy or slide , I would first inspect the original, if it is in good shape and not spent time in a projector , I would print traditional enlarger to cibachrome.
    If the transparancy or slide is in poor shape , I would then scan and print through the digital printer to cibachrome.
    The best internegs I have seen are done by contact and not projected, (the steps to have an extremely clean interneg and then to a magnification of 16x20 from 35mm is quite difficult on any paper.)
    Dust is a cibachrome printers nightmare and with internegs as well as any dust prints black and is almost impossible to remove at the print stage.

  6. #26
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    Robert, I find that making an internegative on Portra VC or UC with a slight pull in development makes a good print on Endura.

    I use a daylight exposure on my enlarger (100C + 20M) and f22 at 0.5" to get a very nice negative. Prints are quite good. You do have to fuss a bit to get the best negative image centered in the scale of the film, but once achieved the results are very satisfying for a good transparency.

    You can also do some interesting effects, all without digital.

    PE
    Yes PE. But at what cost?

    Degradation of image quality - using an internegative? There is a reason, that I and most landcape photographers shoot Velvia; image quality. Portra VC or UC don't give the good enough results. Image quality is the reason I shoot 4X5.

    What about hardware costs? Can you tell me where I can get a processor that will handle 30x40 or 40x50 inch prints, at a reasonable cost?

    Or do I just send my transparencies to the mainland, and hope that of the dozens I print, none would get lost in the mail or by the printer?
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  7. #27
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,708
    Images
    65
    Oh, I agree with both of you completely.

    I was considering it from the standpoint of having a lot of slides that I want printed and not wanting the expense or 'color' of Ilfochrome. An internegative is the only realistic conventional choice other than scanning and printing digitally which is what we ruled out here already in a previous post. So, I addressed the alternative remaining, ie. internegative. Yes, dust and retoucing are problems, but it can work well.

    When I was there, in production at Cape Canaveral, all transparencies had internegatives made of them, and all negatives had interpositives made of them. They made quite impressive reproductions in Nat. Geog among other places. Of course there is no true internegative film available anymore so the use of the VC or UC is the only means available now. Digital killed the true internegative and interpositive films for still use.

    I have scanned slides and made digital prints and surprisingly although I don't like all digital, I find that a very good transparency scanned at high res and printed digitally is quite good.

    My best results and preference is traditional color neg, either 400UC or VC or 160UC or VC. I rarely shoot reversal anymore.

    PE

  8. #28
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    I have scanned slides and made digital prints and surprisingly although I don't like all digital, I find that a very good transparency scanned at high res and printed digitally is quite good.

    My best results and preference is traditional color neg, either 400UC or VC or 160UC or VC. I rarely shoot reversal anymore.

    PE
    I have found the same thing. For example, I had this image http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...00&ppuser=2235 printed on both Fuji Crystal Archive with the Chromira printer and an Epson 9000, at the same size. The Fuji Crystal Archive print just blows the Epson away. Unfortunately, color negatives just don't give me the fine nuances of color, nor the sharpness that I have come to expect from Fuji Velvia. My ultimate goal is the best quality I can. Additionally, I want all my prints from a given transparency to look the same regardless of size; hard to do when you are making individual prints by hand. AA may have changed his prints from one to another, but that isn't what I want.

    I apologize if I have offended anyone,
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  9. #29
    Eric Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    124
    Images
    16
    You sure did not offend me

  10. #30
    davetravis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Castle Rock, Co.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    656
    FWIW, the only professional landscape photographer that I am aware of still using exclusively Ilfochrome is Christopher Burkett (there may be more); he says that he spends 10 months a year just printing and only 2 months actually photographing.

    Wow! This thread has come a long way from encouraging someone to try Ciba's!

    I have never claimed that my Ciba's represent the real color found in the natural world. What's the point in that?
    Velvia + Ciba = INTENSITY! While I do try to balance close to the slide for ease of repetition, I've always considered the final print as an artistic expression of the original image. On the show circuit people are always saying "Wow, these don't even look real." To which I reply, "That's the point." The most annoying question I get is "Did you do that in Photoshop?" And like Burkett, I also spend more time in the dark, than in the light. But that's the trade-off. If Ilfochrome ever goes away, I'll copy my slides to negatives and do RA4 Fuji's with much less enthusiasm.
    FWIW...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin