Any way to make analog prints from slides?

afriman · Aug 3, 2021

If we were still in the heyday of darkroom printing, but Cibachrome was no longer available, I am sure Kodak would have come up with a reversal RA-4 process. The experimentation with reversal processing of conventional RA-4 papers is fascinating, but it hasn't yet led to a practical, reliable method for general use. I would love it to happen, but I'm not optimistic. We are, after all, trying to force a fairly complicated technology into doing something even more complicated that it was not designed for. If only there was enough demand, I suspect it wouldn't have been too difficult for Kodak or Fuji to produce an RA-4 paper that was specially formulated for this, along with appropriately altered chemistry.

DREW WILEY · Aug 3, 2021

Kodak did develop their own direct dye-bleach system, which could have hypothetically competed with Ciba, yet never perfected and marketed it. Kodak among others did widely market a Type R reversal process. Ciba itself was not reversal, but direct-positive, being in the lineage of Gasparcolor. Being far more permanent and dramatic than R prints, it revolutionized positive printing for about 20 years until the digital revulsion kicked in.

afriman · Aug 3, 2021

Yup, those were exciting times. I was just getting into C41 and EP2 when Cibachrome-A was launched and was all the rage. I wanted to try Type R as well, but was afraid I would be disappointed with the results in comparison to Cibachrome. But today's RA-4 is so good, I'm sure a reversal version would be capable of very good results indeed. Well, it's nice to dream!

removed account4 · Aug 3, 2021

Robert Maxey said:
Add digital, however, and they are no longer Autochromes. There is only one way to make an Autochrome. But here is the thing: the process is something many here could try. I've looked into making a modern version using nanoparticles and one of Corning's amazing glasses. That is on a distant back burner however.

Bob

someone is making autochromes. ...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/autochromes.11665/page-13

DREW WILEY · Aug 3, 2021

I miss Ciba, and the transition completely to RA4 had its ups and downs, but did happen to be at an ideal time for me, when both Kodak CN film and Fuji CA papers were finally breaking out of the cocoon so to speak. Porta 160VC was a nice halfway step to Ektar, and the previous version of Fujiflex would soon be updated into something spunkier. So now I'm generally getting results even better than Ciba, and in the full gloss polyester base of Fuji product, are so detailed and saturated that even highly experience people have a problem distinguishing the difference. But if they'd just pause a take moment to think about it, it's pretty obvious. Ciba has black borders, chromogenic products white!

But even old Type R really needed contrast masking for best results. Flashing was a poor substitute.

Robert Maxey · Aug 4, 2021

jnantz said:
someone is making autochromes. ...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/autochromes.11665/page-13

I saw that one. I am glad to see it happen. I once owned a small book about the process that was fascinating reading. My interest was peaked. Interesting enough, there are hundreds of patents of this type of process. All variations on a general, unavoidable theme.

I use to have a Kodak motion picture attachment for their version of the process. Three glass filters in a lens. Special film from Kodak.

Then there is today's version: a three color Bayer Screen above your digital sensor.

Digital is the new Autochrome. :>)

Bob

Robert Maxey · Aug 4, 2021

DREW WILEY said:
So now I'm generally getting results even better than Ciba, and in the full gloss polyester base of Fuji product, are so detailed and saturated that even highly experience people have a problem distinguishing the difference. But if they'd just pause a take moment to think about it, it's pretty obvious. Ciba has black borders, chromogenic products white

What got me interested in the process was the 11X14(?) sample prints they sent dealers. I was amazed at the color and the extremely shiny surface. A blessing in that I love glossy; a curse in that the glossy surface needed to be handled with care. Fingerprints are not a good look.

I really do miss the material.

Bob

Robert Maxey · Aug 4, 2021

DREW WILEY said:
Kodak did develop their own direct dye-bleach system, which could have hypothetically competed with Ciba, yet never perfected and marketed it. Kodak among others did widely market a Type R reversal process. Ciba itself was not reversal, but direct-positive, being in the lineage of Gasparcolor. Being far more permanent and dramatic than R prints, it revolutionized positive printing for about 20 years until the digital revulsion kicked in.

Azochrome. I am trying to find out more about this specific process. Apparently, what they were calling "Azochrome" was partly in answer to image longevity issues. Apparently, Azochrome was developed/perfected just before WW2 and Eastman Kodak began supporting the war. Apparently, longevity was very, very good and processing was very, very simple.

After the war, the process disappeared and the only reference of merit I can find is in Wilhelm's book on image permanence.

Bob

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 4, 2021

DREW WILEY said:
I miss Ciba, and the transition completely to RA4 had its ups and downs, but did happen to be at an ideal time for me, when both Kodak CN film and Fuji CA papers were finally breaking out of the cocoon so to speak. Porta 160VC was a nice halfway step to Ektar, and the previous version of Fujiflex would soon be updated into something spunkier. So now I'm generally getting results even better than Ciba, and in the full gloss polyester base of Fuji product, are so detailed and saturated that even highly experience people have a problem distinguishing the difference. But if they'd just pause a take moment to think about it, it's pretty obvious. Ciba has black borders, chromogenic products white!

But even old Type R really needed contrast masking for best results. Flashing was a poor substitute.

If I wanted to print some of my Velvia 50 shots to get pretty nice prints to mount in my house, which process would be best. I would use an outside service.

Sergey Ko · Aug 4, 2021

MattKing said:
I have to ask - is that 20 x 30 inches, or 20 x 30 centimeters?

Sorry, centimetres of cause!
I understand, that this thread is more about analog process. But to be honest today even slide already anachronism, so what to say about direct printing from it
In 2000-2005 I used slides as archival analog source for further scanning only. It was cheeper comparing with Hi End digital cameras.
Also I am not a PRO since 90-th & I don't like digital style of shooting. But today there is too poor selection of slide film, comparing with negative films.

Sergey Ko · Aug 4, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
If I wanted to print some of my Velvia 50 shots to get pretty nice prints to mount in my house, which process would be best. I would use an outside service.

I think You have to find the best scanning services. Having an excellent source file is a key for best prints.

DREW WILEY · Aug 4, 2021

Alan. We've talked about the high contrast issues of Velvia before. So unless a particular image is of a relatively low overall contrast scene itself, you'd realistically want to opt for serious quality drum scans. Afterwards these can be output either to inkjet prints or several kinds of RA4 papers via big laser printing devices. The kind of pictures you take might come out especially nice laser printed onto Fujiflex, which has a very similar look to Cibachrome. But in larger sizes, that could be expensive, especially mounted or framed. But it would be nice if you could have at least a few on your walls. You'd have to snoop around a bit and examine samples to find the best lab, or just order up a small print first.

DREW WILEY · Aug 4, 2021

Bob - Azochrome obviously involved modern azo dyes, and was of the same general R&D lineage as Gasparcolor and finally Cibachrome / Ilfochrome. That traces itself back to the 1930's, and the dyes were so stable in dark storage that some of those early prints are still in good condition today. Perhaps someone like Peter Krause is still alive who can fill in the historic links. It's hard to find good information about this on the web. The late Ron Mowrey gave some hints about it on this forum due to his own past association with Kodak, and lamented that they never, in his opinion, seriously got behind the concept.

As far as handling prints goes, concerning surface fragility as well as static issues and potential kink marks, the Fujiflex RA4 product is much more forgiving and easier to handle than Ciba ever was. But that doesn't mean someone can be careless with it, especially in big heavy rolls.

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 4, 2021

DREW WILEY said:
Alan. We've talked about the high contrast issues of Velvia before. So unless a particular image is of a relatively low overall contrast scene itself, you'd realistically want to opt for serious quality drum scans. Afterwards these can be output either to inkjet prints or several kinds of RA4 papers via big laser printing devices. The kind of pictures you take might come out especially nice laser printed onto Fujiflex, which has a very similar look to Cibachrome. But in larger sizes, that could be expensive, especially mounted or framed. But it would be nice if you could have at least a few on your walls. You'd have to snoop around a bit and examine samples to find the best lab, or just order up a small print first.

Regarding my Velvias, which service does good printing with Fujiflex?

DREW WILEY · Aug 4, 2021

I just don't know, Alan, because I do my own printing optically on that material. And I'm here on the West Coast. Getting it mounted properly is the trickier part. There are numerous labs listing it as an option on the web. But it takes some software skill to translate the edgy contrast level of Velvia into a cooperative film curve without spoiling the highlight hues and deep shadows. Look up some of those services on the web, ask the pertinent questions, factoring mounting options too, and then test their skill ordering a small sample print alone. It can be stunning when well done.

DREW WILEY · Aug 4, 2021

Back to Azocolor, as my memory gets a little less foggy ... I recall that it could be used in conjunction with regular low-contrast paper developers, much like the first version of Ciba got developed by some with Selectol Soft, albeit with relatively muddy or off-color results rather than clean-hued. The calalytic dye-destruction "bleach" step could be done either using sulfuric acid or powder-form sulfamic acid kits just like amateur P30 Ciba kits. So far, no different from the previous Gasparcolor, although that was a blanket brand name rather than just this specific kind of product, just like Cibachrome once involved not only direct positive products, but a lesser-known chromogenic RA-4 line of papers as well. How far Kodak got beyond experimental prints and into half-hearted marketing is hard to say. But they apparently abandoned the project well before perfecting the coating process to the degree Ciba did.

The far earlier Utocolor dye-bleach process was unrelated because it seems to have relied on differential sunlight UV bleaching of the respective color dyes. Since this was mainly prior to actual panchromatic film, they could only reproduce extant colored transparent items, like flat pieces of stained glass. And it's doubtful that any examples remain simply because it was dependent upon dyes capable of fading under prolonged light exposure. By contrast, Azo dyes require quite a shock treatment to split apart their molecular bonding. Hence strong acid "bleaches". But they still don't do well with UV per se, like direct sunlight or UV-intense artificial light sources, which are unfortunately rather common in display settings.

removed account4 · Aug 4, 2021

Robert Maxey said:
I saw that one. I am glad to see it happen. I once owned a small book about the process that was fascinating reading. My interest was peaked. Interesting enough, there are hundreds of patents of this type of process. All variations on a general, unavoidable theme.

I use to have a Kodak motion picture attachment for their version of the process. Three glass filters in a lens. Special film from Kodak.

Then there is today's version: a three color Bayer Screen above your digital sensor.

Digital is the new Autochrome. :>)

Bob

sounds fun
not sure if digital is the new autochrome, but its interesting enough to keep my interest ..

Robert Maxey · Aug 5, 2021

jnantz said:
sounds fun
not sure if digital is the new autochrome, but its interesting enough to keep my interest ..

I think my comment might of been somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The general principal applies, though.

Robert Maxey · Aug 5, 2021

DREW WILEY said:
Back to Azocolor, as my memory gets a little less foggy ... I recall that it could be used in conjunction with regular low-contrast paper developers, much like the first version of Ciba got developed by some with Selectol Soft, albeit with relatively muddy or off-color results rather than clean-hued. The calalytic dye-destruction "bleach" step could be done either using sulfuric acid or powder-form sulfamic acid kits just like amateur P30 Ciba kits. So far, no different from the previous Gasparcolor, although that was a blanket brand name rather than just this specific kind of product, just like Cibachrome once involved not only direct positive products, but a lesser-known chromogenic RA-4 line of papers as well. How far Kodak got beyond experimental prints and into half-hearted marketing is hard to say. But they apparently abandoned the project well before perfecting the coating process to the degree Ciba did.

/QUOTE]

Azochrome, not Azocolor. Just to be clear. :>)

As for Kodak's efforts to support this material, we really cannot say why EK decided not to market the material. Not sure the coating process would be a big issue for Kodak. Kodak was certainly capable.

Bob

removed account4 · Aug 5, 2021

Robert Maxey said:
I think my comment might of been somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The general principal applies, though.

I went to school with someone who is working on his own version of autochromes as well, ...
sorry, hard to know on the internet, good old emoticons might help
regarding digital, not sure why anyone is so down on it, its just another avenue to make photographs, that gives people flexibility if they don't have a dark room
or the ability to mix and use photo chemistry. but whatever, I'm in the mist of making silver gelatin tintypes using sea water emulsion and coffee so YMMVFTSITWATUD

Ryan Oliveira · Aug 6, 2021

Hi everyone !
I've been thinking about my trichrome project again, and wanted to ask something.

If I expose three frames of panchromatic film under RED, GREEN and BLUE filters, then reversal process the film (making b&w positives of each), I should have a record of each color.

Then, if I add a complementary color layer (filter) to each corresponding positive, and then stack them together, should I get a subtractive color slide image ?
By that I mean, can I layer, on a light table, the RED filtered slide with a CYAN filter, then the GREEN filtered slide with a MAGENTA filter, and the BLUE filtered slide with a YELLOW filter, on top of each other.
Is this how it works ?
I thought about something like Technicolor, I think that's how they did it.

Robert Maxey · Aug 6, 2021

Ryan Oliveira said:
Hi everyone !
I've been thinking about my trichrome project again, and wanted to ask something.

If I expose three frames of panchromatic film under RED, GREEN and BLUE filters, then reversal process the film (making b&w positives of each), I should have a record of each color.

Then, if I add a complementary color layer (filter) to each corresponding positive, and then stack them together, should I get a subtractive color slide image ?
By that I mean, can I layer, on a light table, the RED filtered slide with a CYAN filter, then the GREEN filtered slide with a MAGENTA filter, and the BLUE filtered slide with a YELLOW filter, on top of each other.
Is this how it works ?
I thought about something like Technicolor, I think that's how they did it.

For experimental purposes, you can use whatever red, green and blue filters you have handy. Give it a go, I say.

That said, there are specific RGB filters made just for in-camera and darkroom separations. The Wratten filter charts will help you there. For projection, forget CYM and use RGB.

Technicolor shot through RGB filters and printed with CYM(K) because you simply cannot make prints with RGB color inks/dyes/other colorants.

Very good luck to you.

Bob

DREW WILEY · Aug 6, 2021

The typical sets are either 25 red, 58 green, and 47 blue, or else the even cleaner cutting but more dense and slower exposing set of 29 red, 61 green, and 47B blue.

mshchem · Aug 6, 2021

I've got several framed Cibachrome prints hanging around our house. All the direct from slides were tricky. Optical printing is part of the magic. I get nice inkjet prints from my Dad's Kodachrome slides that I scan with a Nikon Coolpix scanner.

So much easier to start with color negative film.

DREW WILEY · Aug 6, 2021

There are certain hues I just can't bag well enough going straight from color neg film to RA4 print. I don't mind the extra work involved masking chromes in order to obtain very high quality internegatives, but the cost is getting a bit overwhelming, especially in 8X10 format. So I select just a few old 4X5 or 8X10 chromes at a time to work on. Going forward, it's all now color neg for me, as far as new shots go.

Any way to make analog prints from slides?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency