Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania

[Nzoomed]

No, dyes were not removed imagewise. The dye transferred was already the image, and 3 colors were transferred in the best Technicolor process. They also had a 2 color process.

I have mentioned this before. I suggest you read a good history of color photography.

PE

OK, well i should learn that not everything you read on the internet is correct.

Ive got some 16mm technicolor films, they are amazing, have not faded in over 50 years!

 

[AgX]

Nzoomed,

Seen the strong interest you take into the industry and its development, and your lack of technical knowledge or misconceptions on technology, you really should refrain from gathering knowledge from forums but rather start a thorough study using textbooks or private lectures.

 

[Nzoomed]

Nzoomed,

Seen the strong interest you take into the industry and its development, and your lack of technical knowledge or misconceptions on technology, you really should refrain from gathering knowledge from forums but rather start a thorough study using textbooks or private lectures.

Maybe i should, TBH im new to all of this, ive sure learned a great deal since ive started.
I got confused with the whole technicolor thing, because i was reading about Ilfochrome on one website and it basically said that it was a similar process to technicolor.

Anyway moving on, i understand the basic concepts of E6 films and dye couplers etc.

Does anyone else agree that we need optical printing on paper these days, or are the new digital methods just as good?
Ive been told by photographers who used to use Ilfochrome that Fuji Chromira printing on Fujiflex crystal archive paper is just as good and has largely replaced it.

Does anyone else agree?
I want to make some good prints off my E6 that wont fade and i want to get a scanner that a friend of mine has its a canon fs4000us. Are these a good scanner? Its an old model, but the reviews suggest its good and even by todays standard, still scans at extremely high resolution.

 

[Roger Cole]

"Just as good?"

In terms of output maybe. But certainly not as much fun!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Does anyone else agree that we need optical printing on paper these days...

No. Not right now we don't. Not even close.

Right now we need a reliable long-term source of quality photographic color transparency film. Printing from slides is pretty meaningless if slides are extinct, don't you think? In a world of constrained resources, there's a reason it's called the critical path.

And there's a reason that transparency film is on that path. And a reason that begging Film Ferrania to distract themselves from that critical path to address the issue of resurrecting Cibachrome is not.

Ken

P.S. Don't ever let yourself be persuaded to believe anything you blindly read on the Internet. Are you familiar at all with the term peer reviewed? And why the Internet isn't? Listen to PE and AgX. Research and analytical thinking are far more valuable skills to you than just clicking on another silly online button and repeating whatever you see...

 

[StoneNYC]

You mean a Caffenol developer made of Kopi Luwak beans?
:confused:

Yes that but not the beans, just the poop

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok back on track.

I've never understood why the Cibichrome process had to be so complicated or expensive.

What I mean is, if you're just printing a positive off of a positive, isn't it just like exposing a positive from the real world?

Can't you just create a layer similar to the E6 process but layered on a paper base instead of an acetate base?

What am I missing?

 

[Roger Cole]

Ilfochrome was anything but "complicated" as color printing goes. Now as far as making it, I don't know. But dye bleach seems to me conceptually simpler than chromogenic processes, and using it was certainly nearly idiot proof.

I'm not sure if we "need" pos-pos printing papers though once slide film is a bit more available again it's certainly an easy thing to want. But optical color printing in general, yeah, we need that. Fortunately we have it, albeit only neg-pos these days but we have superb negative films.

 

[kb3lms]

Go Ferrania! E-6 Film, focus, focus.

NZoom, check out the book "History of Color Photography" by JS Friedman. It's copyright 1944 so maybe you can find it online somewhere. This book has more detail about color film and processes than you want to know. But good place to start. Keep asking questions though because that is how you learn.

E-6, E-6 .....

 

[StoneNYC]

Ilfochrome was anything but "complicated" as color printing goes. Now as far as making it, I don't know. But dye bleach seems to me conceptually simpler than chromogenic processes, and using it was certainly nearly idiot proof.

I'm not sure if we "need" pos-pos printing papers though once slide film is a bit more available again it's certainly an easy thing to want. But optical color printing in general, yeah, we need that. Fortunately we have it, albeit only neg-pos these days but we have superb negative films.

Maybe they will make something like a CDUII film but who wants to make a copy first before printing, lots of extra work, degradation loss, etc,

This is the ONLY reason I've thought of switching to C-41 sheet film now that I'm printing.

A new Cibi-type print process would be a saver!

 

[Nzoomed]

No. Not right now we don't. Not even close.

Right now we need a reliable long-term source of quality photographic color transparency film. Printing from slides is pretty meaningless if slides are extinct, don't you think? In a world of constrained resources, there's a reason it's called the critical path.

And there's a reason that transparency film is on that path. And a reason that begging Film Ferrania to distract themselves from that critical path to address the issue of resurrecting Cibachrome is not.

Ken

P.S. Don't ever let yourself be persuaded to believe anything you blindly read on the Internet. Are you familiar at all with the term peer reviewed? And why the Internet isn't? Listen to PE and AgX. Research and analytical thinking are far more valuable skills to you than just clicking on another silly online button and repeating whatever you see...

Yes i agree, im just a little Naive at times.
But yes, im TOTALLY in support of Film Ferranias choice of doing E6 first, in fact it wouldnt bother me if it was another 5 years or more before they introduced other C41 or B&W films.

I dont mean to distract ferrania onto Cibachrome either, i was just bringing it up as a future idea.
Im thinking outside the square, as Ferrania want to be a self contained film plant for the next 100 years, then what products would we expect in the future, assuming Kodak and Fuji are no longer making colour film?

Dave even has said here that its not a bad thing that we are discussing all this speculation, as it gives them an idea on what the market wants.
TBH, im not expecting them to bring out every film imaginable, but its good to know where they stand on the future of paper production etc.
Some people are asking for a kodachrome type film, i know we wont see that, and those people are dreamers, lets move on and embrace E6.

I feel that most of our questions have been answered by Dave anyway, hence why for interests sake the topic of photographic paper comes to mind.
Again, its not a top priority at all, but perhaps an E6 paper could be produced in the future to make positive prints who knows, but its exciting either way with what Film Ferrania will deliver.

Ok back on track.

I've never understood why the Cibichrome process had to be so complicated or expensive.

What I mean is, if you're just printing a positive off of a positive, isn't it just like exposing a positive from the real world?

Can't you just create a layer similar to the E6 process but layered on a paper base instead of an acetate base?

What am I missing?

It doesnt work the same way as processing E6 film.
It has far more stable dyes than film itself, the dyes are already incorporated into the paper itself and when developed are removed to form the image.
Film uses dye couplers which form the dyes in a chemical reaction, so the two processes are significantly different. The azo dyes in Ilfochrome are far more stable and dont fade in the same way that film does.

Can anyone shed any light on what dyes todays digital printers use? Its unclear whether they use an azo dye based material.

 

[Nzoomed]

Maybe they will make something like a CDUII film but who wants to make a copy first before printing, lots of extra work, degradation loss, etc,

This is the ONLY reason I've thought of switching to C-41 sheet film now that I'm printing.

A new Cibi-type print process would be a saver!

It sure would!
But as far as RA4 printing goes, you could still digitally scan a slide, invert the image to a digital negative and print it onto the paper that way couldnt you?
I expect this is already being done?

 

[Dr Croubie]

Can't you just create a layer similar to the E6 process but layered on a paper base instead of an acetate base?

I've also wondered that. Paper with E6 chemicals would be great, standardise a lot of workflows and all that. As long as the paper is coated properly so it survives the E6 process and the emulsion sticks, that'll do.
But how is it any different to 'printing' onto another transparency and just mounting that with a white backing? I've considered doing that too.
For one thing, how much does a transparency cost? I don't see any reason why coating it to paper would be much cheaper, probably more expensive. 8x10s are pushing $20 a shot. Enlarger it to 11x14 or even 12x20 and how much is that going to cost you?

I'd also love to be able to print chromes optically, especially as most of my best (colour) shots are on RVP. But I do hate RA4, determining colour and time simultaneously with multitudes of test-strips in a Jobo, each having to dry before continuing and drying out the drum each time and working in the dark too. If Ciba (I've read but never used it) has colour corrections printed on the box, then once a time is worked out for each type of neg that it's, just churn them out, is it really that easy?

 

[ME Super]

I think Stone was asking if it's possible to create a paper that works like E-6. It is possible in theory, I think that's sort of what R-type (reversal) papers essentially did. I could be wrong, PE or someone like him can jump in here and correct me. The results weren't as good as neg-pos though, because color errors had the chance to creep in both in the original making of the positive (transparency), and then in the subsequent positive (print). That orange mask that us transparency shooters are always complaining about is there to give an even orange color (think of it as "base fog" that you print through if printing B&W) that is easy to filter out.

I too would prefer that Ferrania focus, at least at first, on getting a good 100-speed E-6 film out there. I agree that their next task should focus on the higher-speed E-6 films, since there's only the Agfa Aviphot Chrome 200 and some old stock Provia 400X still available. The Provia 400X is discontinued, and rumor has it that the Agfa Aviphot Chrome is not being manufactured any more either.

Once we get a good set of E-6 transparency films out there, then Ferrania should look at making some of our dreams and speculations reality. Long live Ferrania, the Ilford of Color Film!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ok, some answers as far as I can give them here in limited time and space.

Cibachrome is not simple. It is difficult to coat and the process uses quite corrosive chemicals. To make good prints, you must mask the original to fix the errors in color reproduction, and to get a good result, the contrast must be carefully controlled.

A reversal film has a mid scale contrast of about 1.7 and a Dmax of about 3.0. Check the curves out on the Kodak or Fuji web site.

A reversal paper has a mid scale contrast of about 1.0 and a Dmax of about 2.0. Current curves do not exist except on wayback.

To make a print, the E6 product must be printed onto the type R product to give a pleasing result (Cibachrome is included as a type R product here).

Here is where the problem arises. In a type C print (C41), the entire print comes from the straight line portion of the curve but in a reversal (Type R) print, the image comes from the straight line and toe and shoulder which distorts the image, and thus you need an additional mask or you get bad results.

The need for 2 masks degrades sharpness and increases grain as well as increases cost and therefor pos-pos prints never took off as viable high quality imaging. In addition, in the efforts to give this high quality, E6 sacrificed detail in saturated colors and so red images lack detail. (see my previous post on this).

I hope this helps.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

E6 sacrificed detail in saturated colors and so red images lack detail. (see my previous post on this).

I hope this helps.

PE

Well this is the thing i read your earlier post regarding the knitting on a red sweater not being visible on such E6 prints, yet, on the E6 images ive shot so far on Elitechrome, i can actually see real good detail on the clothes im wearing, and we are not talking about knitting, but the actual texture and pattern, along with the sewing can even be seen, so i dont know to what extent this is found with reds, but i wasn't expecting such good results as i have, perhaps what i would see with C41 would even be better? IDK but i cant complain about the results i get with E6.

 

[Roger Cole]

My tastes at the time might have just been sufficiently plebeian but I was able to easily make prints that satisfied me, on both Ilfochrome and Kodak R materials, without masking. At times it would have been handy for contrast but I don't recall even wanting it for color. But like I said, I was probably just not good enough to miss it back then (very early 80s - when I did color again in the 90s it was RA4.)

 

[StoneNYC]

It sure would!
But as far as RA4 printing goes, you could still digitally scan a slide, invert the image to a digital negative and print it onto the paper that way couldnt you?
I expect this is already being done?

Because the idea is NOT to use a computer but use an enlarger...

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok, some answers as far as I can give them here in limited time and space.

Cibachrome is not simple. It is difficult to coat and the process uses quite corrosive chemicals. To make good prints, you must mask the original to fix the errors in color reproduction, and to get a good result, the contrast must be carefully controlled.

A reversal film has a mid scale contrast of about 1.7 and a Dmax of about 3.0. Check the curves out on the Kodak or Fuji web site.

A reversal paper has a mid scale contrast of about 1.0 and a Dmax of about 2.0. Current curves do not exist except on wayback.

To make a print, the E6 product must be printed onto the type R product to give a pleasing result (Cibachrome is included as a type R product here).

Here is where the problem arises. In a type C print (C41), the entire print comes from the straight line portion of the curve but in a reversal (Type R) print, the image comes from the straight line and toe and shoulder which distorts the image, and thus you need an additional mask or you get bad results.

The need for 2 masks degrades sharpness and increases grain as well as increases cost and therefor pos-pos prints never took off as viable high quality imaging. In addition, in the efforts to give this high quality, E6 sacrificed detail in saturated colors and so red images lack detail. (see my previous post on this).

I hope this helps.

PE

Regarding contrast issues, wouldn't shooting at say N-1/pulling whatever you want to call it, solve some of the contrast issues?

 

[StoneNYC]

Finally to Ken's point...

I've actually been thinking it MIGHT actually behoove FILMferannia if there were a gap in the availability of E6 films, very much like polaroid, the "craze" only exploded once the realization that it was no longer available happened and then when it was available once again it became "NEW" again, and exciting. It cost more, with poorer image quality and stability and people still bought it.

If there were suddenly NO fuji left, and no more runs, and then people used up some or all of their stock, and THEN the new FILMferrania (FerraniaChrome100 or FC100?) came out, it would be new and fancy and all sorts of little sales gimmicks like iphone projectors would be created etc just like that iphone TIP printer thing.

It would make transparencies "cool" again.

 

[Roger Cole]

One problem with that is that processing and processing chemicals might well disappear as well. Oh, they're well known and could be brought back for the home user, but to get a commercial infrastructure up and running? It's already reduced a lot, but readily available via mail order. Let's keep processing, and the film, available. It's already sufficiently reduced. Give us a 100 film more akin to E100G or Astia than the Provia and Velvia we can still get and I'll be glad of it and use it. Give us a 400 film even close to as good as Provia 400X and I'll be super happy.

 

[Nzoomed]

Because the idea is NOT to use a computer but use an enlarger...

But people are currently doing just that with digital images.
Digital is not that bad for doing such work and makes adjustments alot easier.
Besides why are people printing Digital images with Ilfochrome?
There has to be a reason, perhaps its because of its archival properties? Or just general image quality? IDK

 

[StoneNYC]

But people are currently doing just that with digital images.
Digital is not that bad for doing such work and makes adjustments alot easier.
Besides why are people printing Digital images with Ilfochrome?
There has to be a reason, perhaps its because of its archival properties? Or just general image quality? IDK

You're confused about a LOT,

First this is APUG so even suggesting digital anything here is a waste of time.

Besides that, no one is printing digital with Ilfochrome... Where did you get that?

People are printing digital images with a lambda/lightjet style digital enlarger into RA-4 paper...

The only people printing Ilfochrome are printing it with an enlarger ...

I don't care what YOU want to do, but the point of my work is to have a more hands on process, that's why I went back to school to learn darkroom printing, "to complete my training" so to speak, and part of that is color printing for my color work.

 

[MattKing]

Ok back on track.

I've never understood why the Cibichrome process had to be so complicated or expensive.

What I mean is, if you're just printing a positive off of a positive, isn't it just like exposing a positive from the real world?

Can't you just create a layer similar to the E6 process but layered on a paper base instead of an acetate base?

What am I missing?

Stone:

1) this would be a good subject for its own thread; and
2) you should probably experiment a bit with attempting to make duplicates using optical means.

If you do, you may start to get a feel for why this is actually quite challenging.

 

[Nzoomed]

You're confused about a LOT,

First this is APUG so even suggesting digital anything here is a waste of time.

Ok, so scanning my E6 films is a waste of time because its digital?
It appears that digital printing is the only way to print my E6 now, so i dont know what you are getting at?
Im trying to come up with a way to optically print E6 onto RA4, and projecting it digitally as an inverted image would do just this.

Besides that, no one is printing digital with Ilfochrome... Where did you get that?

The lab I contacted can print from a digital file, which is great as i dont have to send my filmstrips overseas for printing.
They say they can print from a digital interpositive.
How would they really know for certain if that file was shot on a digital camera or shot on a slide anyway?

People are printing digital images with a lambda/lightjet style digital enlarger into RA-4 paper...

I don't care what YOU want to do, but the point of my work is to have a more hands on process, that's why I went back to school to learn darkroom printing, "to complete my training" so to speak, and part of that is color printing for my color work.

I dont have a darkroom, and for the limited amount of film i shoot its not worth me setting up such equipment. Not to mention that there are very few RA4 labs in New Zealand, let alone myself doing it, would be extremely cost prohibitive. Its not ideal to send my strips of film to every lab i want to get prints from, so printing digital scans really is the easiest way forward for me.