ANOTHER Ilfochrome question.

Having tired of the 'Scan , pint, calibrate, scan..." fun of getting slides printed I am considering trying Ilfochrome. It's not cheap but having seen some results it can look spectacular.
If I decide to get a kit I'll try and use it in 1L batches so keeping isn't an issue but I am unsure about filtration so would appreciate advice as follows;

- Is the procedure similar to RA4 i.e you dial in colours to get the right output?
- Can I use the same filters as for RA4 albeit in a different ratio ?
- Can I use my analyser (Durst Labometer) to get the ratios once it's calibrated ?

I enjoy RA4 so I'm guessing Ilfochrome is going to be similar
I plan to use a rotary processor (not a JOBO ) rather than trays for H and S reasons , are gloves an essential ?

Cheers CJB

OK, it's several questions, but I'll give it a go:

Filtration: you will find filtration to be generally much less than RA-4. The box of paper gives a starting point (example: Y15, M05). After a while, you tend to get a feeling for a difference that is common between transparencies from different rolls - what you might call 'enlarger factor' - has to do with the specific color temp of you light source. Two things - filtration is backwards from RA-4, that is you add yellow to make less blue, etc. Second, you need approx twice the filter change to get the same amount of color change as seen in RA-4. You will also sometimes need to use cyan filter to get the right color.


Analyzer: I'm not familiar with your analyzer, so don't know if it can do transparencies, many don't. The Colorline and Colorstar claim they do.

Handling chemistry: I would not put my hands in it. The bleach contains some sulphuric acid. For disposal, add the spent bleach to the spent developer, it will help to neutralize it. Add a small amount of baking soda, and when it stops fizzing, it is safe to pour down the drain. Add water and dispose while running water in the sink. I use a plastic paint bucket to handle spent chemistry because the mixture, if it sits a bit will form gooey scum in the container.

The paper is much slower than RA-4, so you will have long exposures. 1 or 2 minutes is not uncommon, it can be much longer for very large prints. It does have a wide exposure latitude, but is subject to reciprocity at longer than a couple of minutes and tends to require some additional yellow filtration.
Good luck.

Bob

digiconvert said:

- Is the procedure similar to RA4 i.e you dial in colours to get the right output?
- Can I use the same filters as for RA4 albeit in a different ratio ?
- Can I use my analyser (Durst Labometer) to get the ratios once it's calibrated ?

Click to expand...

I'm by no means ahead of you (no hands-on experience with either Ilfochrome or RA4, but thinking about trying Ilfochrome), but I found this item on luminous landscape to be a very interesting read.

If I understand the article correctly, the answers to your questions are:
1) similar, but different (you're printing pos-to-pos, not neg-to-pos)
2) yes
3) once you find the right filtering, you don't really need to mess with it, so: not needed
4) gloves are always a good idea

I used to print alot of Ilfochrome. I thought it was relatively easy after some calibration. I printed only Velvia. I experimented with test prints to find the right color balance/filter settings. I found that these values rarely needed to be changed very much, just tweaked. Of course, when changing papers the recommended filter pack changes and I just made relative changes based on my established setting.

I used a Jobo colorline 5000 analyzer. Once I established the filter pack, I used the Jobo analyzer more as an exposure meter. I would try to fine a Zone V or medium tone on the print and that would set the base exposure time. Burns and dodges were estimated from that reading.

I varied the aperture of the enlarging lens while getting the exposure reading from the Jobo trying to keep the exposure times low to minimize reciprocity changes. There was an article in PhotoTechniques some years ago with graphs showing reciprocity characteristics for Ilfochrome and the concomitant filtration changes. The Jobo analyzer is highly recommended. For the most part, I could print slides one after another with a good print on the first try. Much easier than my current black and white work.

I have printed Ektachrome, Fujichrome and Kodachrome onto Ilfochrome and I agree with the old Ciba/Ilford manuals. Each film takes a different filter pack. Kodachrome should be the most different due to the oddball dye set.

PE

CJB,
Some good help so far.
When you start processing, try the 50% partial reuse idea.
After each print, starting with the first, dump out half of the chem and replace it with fresh. Do it for all three steps. You get more prints this way, and the quality is just as good. I do it for test prints also, and have gone up to 6 continuous processes like this. Really cuts down on the chem cost.
Long live Ciba!
DT

davetravis said:

...
When you start processing, try the 50% partial reuse idea.
After each print, starting with the first, dump out half of the chem and replace it with fresh....

Click to expand...

I second that. If you are doing a significant run of prints or making large prints that use up the chemistry this will save a lot of money and mixing.

With the Jobo analyzer, I could make numerous 8x10's of various negatives, store the exposed paper in a light box, and then print in batches in the larger drums which saves a lot of time and money. If you use the larger drums, make sure to lift the distal end of the drum with your hand so that you don't put undue torque on the lift handle. Also, the Gralab 900 timer works great with a Jobo CPP because you can record all of the steps of the process and the timer steps through each one without any intervention on your part. The other process timers I have seen require you to do something to initiate the next step in the sequence, but not the Gralab.

I have not gotten consistent results with partial reuse, but if it works for you do it, by all means.


Wayne

Wayne said:

I have not gotten consistent results with partial reuse, but if it works for you do it, by all means.


Wayne

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that, did you ever find out what you were doing wrong?

I wasnt doing anything "wrong". I simply dont find used chemicals at the recommended ratio consistent and reliable as fresh ones. Ilford states as much in their literature (or they did). Like I said, if it is good enough for you thats all that matters. Its just not good enough for me.


Wayne

Wayne said:

I wasnt doing anything "wrong". I simply dont find used chemicals at the recommended ratio consistent and reliable as fresh ones. Ilford states as much in their literature (or they did). Like I said, if it is good enough for you thats all that matters. Its just not good enough for me.


Wayne

Click to expand...

Gotcha, just trying to help.
Nothing wrong with having very high standards.

And I hope I didnt come across as implying anyone else has lower standards because I didnt intend that. I just noticed very subtle differences with used chemical mixtures that were eliminated by using 100% fresh ones.

Wayne