Cibachrome replacement?

[Roger Cole]

Is Kodak R2000 still around?

Nope. Went away in, what, 2006 or so?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm feeling old. I printed on that stuff at my college job back in 1987. Easier to use than ciba. But it ain't no ciba either. Nothing comes close to it.

 

[Roger Cole]

I made lots of type R prints, first time in late high school, circa 1980. In fact there was a night time mostly adult ed class in beginners darkroom and I had an English teacher keep telling me I could take it. I finally told her, "Mrs. Fair, I could teach it." Oddly enough, I ended up doing just that, for one night anyway. The teachers who taught it found out I printed color and invited me to come in and make a color print to demo. I exposed one of their slides at home, loaded the paper into my Unicolor drum and took that to the class and processed it. I think it was Type 1993 in those days. Sigh.

 

[lightwisps]

I wonder if enough people raised a royal hue and cry if Ilford would resurrect Ilfochrome. Like their Large Format film sign up in advance type of thing. If anyone tries to beat to the front the line, count on broken limbs. Don

 

[EdSawyer]

Aren't there still labs doing it, like Clyde Butcher or someone? I have some ilfochrome paper in my freezer I would part with....

Ed

 

[lightwisps]

Sorry Ed, for paper I am set. I will buy any and all chemicals though. Problem is getting the things over the border to Canada.

 

[lightwisps]

Greg, yes the company did split. The surviving company has a sharp eye however for analog photography and maybe, just maybe if enough interest is shown they would see a profitable bottom line. We can hope. Don

 

[Roger Cole]

And then we woke up. Dream on. I don't see Ilford Imaging ever going back into color. I'd be delighted to be wrong, but suspect I am not.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Has anyone here considered cross processing Endura? It gives a similar effect with the right transparency and the right processing.

See threads here and on PN. Lots of data and pix..

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Perhaps if people spent less time pining away for what is gone and never to return (Cibachrome, Kodachrome, etc) and started using more of what is still available we might be able to prevent more products from going extinct!

Every time some one uses a cheap knockoff of a quality product you hasten that product's end.

 

[Tom1956]

Perhaps if people spent less time pining away for what is gone and never to return (Cibachrome, Kodachrome, etc) and started using more of what is still available we might be able to prevent more products from going extinct!

Gerald, that is a great thought and I agree... but I'm afraid that the virile cancer known as the computer will continue to eat away at all fields of endeavor (except government, of course), until the purpose in living is gone. I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of other arts and hobbies have been laid waste, life seems emptier now. If photography is pointing and triggering a peripheral gadget, plugging it in to the mainframe, pulling it into photoshop for a few minutes of manipulation so you can pacify yourself you just did "art", then hitting print, then that is something that leaves me empty somehow.
PE just mentioned a process to commandeer a piece of the paper used in those photo-imagesetters, and actually making something of it.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Hybridized (A-to-D printing is giving "Ciba" a good kick in the backside (much needed in my opinion). Very little computer work involved in hybridization and the results are astounding — and that's from people looking at Ilfochrome prints beside the new breed (don't forget, I have something like 480 Ilfochrome prints, more matted than framed). The world has indeed moved on, fast, since Ilfochrome wound up.

 

[Simonh82]

Ilford imaging went bust a few weeks ago Dead Link Removed. Cibachrome isn't coming back that way.

 

[Rudeofus]

Results from RA4 reversal can be seen (there was a url link here which no longer exists), and to be honest they don't even get close to my own personal (extremely unprofessional hobbyist) results with Ilfochrome. I have been looking at Ilfochrome homebrew, FD and Fixer are a done deal, and for dye bleach I have a bottle of Phenazine dissolved in Ethanol waiting for experiments. It is nice to know that some people are willing to part with their frozen paper, as I am a bit low on paper which sort of discourages experimentation.

 

[kuparikettu]

I have a contact here in Europe who's planning to order some RA-4 Ilfoflex and could cut it for us if we find two or three people more. Ilfoflex, not being paper, should work quite well for reversal RA-4 as it isn't paper (thus no mottle). Contact me soon if interested.

 

[lightwisps]

Great minds think alike

Trying to find the same stuff in Canada. Maybe we should keep in contact? I am Don at lightwips@yahoo.com. Good luck to you and your friend. Don

 

[lhalcong]

If Ilfochrome and Cibachrome were so great and so many people miss it dearly, how come it disappeared before negative and RA-4 . This means to me that not as many people were using it compared to C41/RA4 which still exist. ?

This is intriguing to me and yes, I am new to the darkroom and being 43 I did not get a chance to print chrome or even ever seen a chrome print... I live in Miami Florida, where can I go and see one.? I am so curious to see what I missed...

There are two questions in this posting.

 

[Roger Cole]

RA4 persists because of printing old negatives, the remaining disposable cameras, and printing digital files on computerized lightjet and similar printers, which is a big market. C41 probably accounts for the majority of film still shot by consumers other than artists and hobbyists.

At one time transparency film (particularly Kodachrome) was superior to, though fussier than negative films so pros and serious amateurs shot mostly transparencies. That hasn't been true in decades and as negative film improved and started to reign superior overall (if not always as impressive or suited to a particular use) the demand for slide film and prints from it wained even in the film era. Digital was the final straw.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

C41 is also vastly cheaper than Ilfochrome ever was. Fancy printing a 3m pano on Ilfochrome? A cool $3,400.
Pros using analogue still do shoot transparencies, Roger. They won't touch C41 because it doesn't have the punch. I may occasionally use Portra 160 in pinhole, but never seem to gravitate back to negs the same was as Velvia glowing on the lightbox.

 

[polyglot]

Fujiflex/Ilfoflex IS RA4, which is why it still exists. See those big bus-stop ads, etc? That's the stuff.

RA4 is still widely available because it's the cheapest decent colour process for prints, therefore all the digital wet printers use it via laser or LED exposure instead of via a negative. Their volume is huge, therefore we still have it and will continue to do so until dry (inkjet or dye-sublimation) processes become cost-competitive for very large volumes of prints. "Printing old negs" doesn't even begin to factor into its commercial viability (labs would just scan them), it's all down to lab consumption rates.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak makes two similar products for printing negatives.

PE

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Is there a product that is an E6 emulsion, but on a paper base? Something similar to chrome dupe film which is low contrast. I've used Fuji CDU dupe film and it's gorgeous.

 

[bvy]

Does anyone have an example of a print made on Ilfoflex using the RA4 reversal process? Do share...

 

[Photo Engineer]

All paper based materials for pos-pos printing have been discontinued years ago.

To be correct, a pos-pos print from Ilfoflex would be cross processing.

PE

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Do they still make interneg film at least?