35mm worked for Galen Rowell and his work has been the most influential for me out of any colour photographer. Pretty much all his images were shot on Kodachome 25 or Velvia.
The 35mm format is excellent for reversal-to-Ilfochrome printing if you adopt an holistic approach to quality from image conception to finished frame job and display. Working within its limits and using the best quality optics you can afford, I am absolutely certain people can do the same thing I am doing with 35mm, if only they adopt the discipline and drive. A lot of people think my framed 30x45cm Ilfochromes were shot with large format, but no — not ever.
I am not a fan, never have and never will be, of the reversal-to-scan and print methodology — lasers, inkjets, Pegasus or whatever they call it. Gamut loss from the reversal palette to RGB is too great and bothersome to try and correct. Only Ilfochrome will carry through the image faithfully.
Correcting some odd observations, large format lenses do have the defining edge in resolution and linear sizing for printing, but how many people actually print to the enormous Ilfochrome image sizes from large format — which is to say, getting the very, very, very best result from their investment? Here in Australia, I know of some very, very wealthy photographers who print mega-expensive panorama Ilfochromes from 6x12cm. Good on them. Way to go. The whole point of shooting reversal film, especially, on large format is lost — a travesty — if you only scan and output to inkjet, laser or whatnot, too often as an after-thought to a lot of effort. If big Ilfochromes from LF don't appeal, stick with 35mm and work within your budget and the format's boundaries.
Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 05-08-2010 at 02:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
I have to entirely disagree, you can reproduce all the information on a transparency or negative with the right equipment and skill.
If E-6 films contain a larger gamut than RGB can have, then that means E-6 films contain more imaginary colours that you simply can't see than RGB, which already has a gamut larger than both what a monitor can display and human vision.
I would argue it doesn't though, as RGB and Lab contain bigger gamuts, as it's not physically possible to reproduce fictional colours in the physical world, thus there would be no such colours in a scene to be actually photographed, nor could a film reproduce those colours in it's dye layers. As it's beyond physical limitation.
Last edited by Athiril; 05-08-2010 at 02:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Xtolsniffer there is BPD Phototech in Warrington that still do Cibachromes. Photonet has a thread on it with some good and some not so good comments on its quality but that is par for any discussion site. There is bound to be somebody or bodies who was/were less than impressed.
A guy with a stall at Martinmere Wildfowl Trust near Southport has cibachromes for sale which were done by BPD and I thought they were superb.
Not cheap by comparision with scanning and RA4 but probably longer lived and a good cibachrome has no equal in looks. Not necessarily better in every case but it cannot be replicated in my opinion.
For anyone not familiar with Galen Rowell he was a excellent writer, photographer, climber and general outdoors man. I was really sad when he passed and still miss reading his articles.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Great minds think alike (Referring to #31)
Originally Posted by brianmquinn