Is there really no way to do ilfachrome/cibachrome printing anymore?

[captain ZZM]

The ilfochrome/cibachrome materials were very expensive and the process time consuming (when masking was needed). So perhaps it is even cheaper, or similar in cost (compared to making, say, 12 cibachrome prints) to get a really good quality dedicated film scanner and then output digitally to photo paper (i.e. Fuji Frontier process), or to high-quality inkjet printing. Which you can outsource.

The other alternative is reversal RA4 and there are threads on this.

Yet another alternative is internegatives.

And finally, if you want prints... why not negatives?:

One reason is that at the time the camera loaded a roll reversal, it is clear not all camera can be change the film holder.

 

[twelvetone12]

Is there anyone selling endura metallic in sheets? Reading this thread has awaken again my interest in ra4 printing!

 

[Berri]

Is there anyone selling endura metallic in sheets? Reading this thread has awaken again my interest in ra4 printing!

not as far as I know, you have to buy a roll and cut it yourself. It's very easy I do it all the time! and it's cheaper

 

[thuggins]

To print slides in the darkroom, the two most painless ways are RA4-reversal and internegatives.

At one time, there may have been no alternative to internegatives, but I suspect that back then most folks shot slides for the same reason I do. Direct viewing of a slide is an experience that nothing can compare to, the colors, the saturation, the clarity cannot be approached by any other means. As a friend once observed, it's like being there looking at the real scene. In the event that you just really needed a print (perhaps to send to grandma), putting up with the quality lost thru the internegative would have been a necessary evil.

Recently I've broken out my slide copier and used it with that imaging technology that dare not speak its name. I email the result to the drug store down the block and in an hour pick up one of the best quality prints you'll ever see. These are much better that the prints from slides I used to get made at the professional photo lab (that used to be at the same place the drugstore is now).

 

[BMbikerider]

I use Endura RA4 Gloss direct from the roll, but what I have done is made a light tight box with a roller inside and the paper feeds out from a slot at the bottom of the box dispenser, emulsion side down, straight onto a roller bladed guillotine using a card 16" long to get the size right.. The slot, just 3mm wide x 12" has a 1.5" wide cover which I replace after cutting the number of sheets I require. I also use Gaffa Tape over the cover to ensure no light gets in. The lid is just wider than the actual box with a 2" lip. It can take a 12" wide roll x 88mtrs long which is a fantastic length for the price they charge in UK. You do need a certain degree of carpentry skill to make it (I had mine made for me by a cabinet maker).

It really is a God Send because the price of a roll I buy (£79) when cut into sheets is about 1/5th of that of sheets of 12 x 16 ready cut and boxed. Out of the roll I can cut approx 286 sheets sized at 12"x16". I have found Kodak Paper is far more 'forgiving' than FUJI and is on a heavier base as well

 

[ChrisBCS]

Are there any issues doing RA-4 processing with trays or is a rotary the only way to go?

 

[Wayne]

Are there any issues doing RA-4 processing with trays or is a rotary the only way to go?

There are several threads on processing RA-4 in trays, including several very recent ones. For many who have tried it, it is the only way to go. I'm one of them.

 

[ChrisBCS]

Excellent! I will start searching! Humblest thanks.

 

[ChrisBCS]

*Rubs eyes* You don't need a color head for RA-4?? Well that is good to know since I am still browsing for an enlarger.

 

[flavio81]

*Rubs eyes* You don't need a color head for RA-4?? Well that is good to know since I am still browsing for an enlarger.

Color head makes color correction easier.
It also allows you to control contrast with B/W prints and multigrade paper.

But it seems some people mostly print straight with RA4 with no color filtering at all ? I've never tried RA4 at home so no idea.

 

[afriman]

Color head makes color correction easier.
It also allows you to control contrast with B/W prints and multigrade paper.

But it seems some people mostly print straight with RA4 with no color filtering at all ? I've never tried RA4 at home so no idea.

Filtration is essential with any kind of colour printing. Colour heads provide the most convenient form of filtration, but you will also be fine with a filter tray and set of colour printing filters. When I started out, my ancient enlarger didn't even have a filter tray. So I made a "mount" from two hardboard frames between which I sandwiched the filters and placed it on top of the condenser. It was clumsy, but it worked.

 

[Berri]

I've just seen some prints made on fujiflex material, it looks very close to ilfochrome, maybe you want to look into that as well

 

[miha]

RA4 prints from ektar 100 on endura metallic are awsome! try it, it'll make you forget ilfochrome

My experience differs. Endura Metallic is a very special surface, not universally applicable. This is from 4'x5' Ektar.

 

[trendland]

Silly question, really. From Ron's cryogenically preserved head which they find in the underground bunker behind the stacks of instant peel-apart Kodachrome, Velour Black and Haloid.

I perhaps remember this film too.
Blade Runner you are talking about ?
But replicants were not alowed to use
Ra-4 as I remember corect - they use this digital stuff with 10.000x1000Megapixel resolution.
...

 

[Arklatexian]

I used to love printing my slides on Ansco Printon (back in the late '50s). It's more likely to make a comeback than Ilfochrome.

As I remember, Printon was an opaque plastic coated with an AnscoColor emulsion. In those days, Kodak made a similar type color print when you sent slides to Kodak Processing for printing. Is my memory correct?......Regards!

 

[mhanc]

I too was heartbroken and devastated. I quit color work for several years to savor my bitterness. And then I pulled my panties back on and started shooting negatives.

lol - i am at somewhat the same place; however, i absolutely refuse to give up on slide film... bitterness is a quite powerful motivator.

The world without cibachrome seems a duller place...

yep, definitely a duller place, particularly when you add in all the other great films, papers, etc that have also been lost. several of the options i have used:

1. there is still one lab in the US that i know of still printing cibachromes or at least was doing so somewhat recently: the lab ciba. very expensive and someone else is having all the darkroom fun but you get a real ciba print. also, this is not a long term solution as materials will eventually run out.

2. as mentioned by others here, color negatives on ra4 paper. in addition to the kodak papers, you might also try fuji pearl and fuji super gloss. fwiw: i find the whites of the kodak metallic paper are too silver/grey - the fuju are pure white. for me the super gloss comes closest to a ciba print.

3. if you want to combine the best of both -- slide film and ra4 paper: scan your transparencies and have the files printed on the above mentioned ra4 papers. here, you get the color palette of slide film [which is the whole point, imo] and prints that are impactful in the same way as ciba prints. very inexpensive but again someone else is having the "darkroom" fun.

yeah, yeah - i know #3 is not 100% analogue and i really apologize for mentioning it in this venue... but, you are still using slide film [which really needs supporting] and color papers. heck, you can even rationalize this to yourself by thinking that the only thing really being replaced in a 100% analogue process is the enlarger... light in through film and out onto the paper, right !?

4. finally, as also mentioned above, go old-school and simply project the slides as originally intended. kodachrome was introduced in 1935 while the cibachrome process was not available until the early 1960s. last month, i introduced my college age kids to a night of projected slides. they actually put down their phones [after taking a picture of the event and posting it somewhere online to show how cool and hipster their dad was!]. they were completely blown away by this new-to-them way of viewing photographs -- it was the shared experience that was most eye opening. hey, sometimes you have to walk a long way to come back a short distance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Besides printing directly from color negatives, I,m now making Portra internegatives from old chromes and getting excellent results, with much smoother tonality and hue accuracy than inkjet, and none of the idiosyncrasies of Ciba. If you want the impact of Cuba, use Fuji Supergloss (RA4). You need a different unsharp masking protocall from Ciba - lower contrast and straight-line.

 

[ChrisBCS]

Besides printing directly from color negatives, I,m now making Portra internegatives from old chromes and getting excellent results, with much smoother tonality and hue accuracy than inkjet, and none of the idiosyncrasies of Ciba. If you want the impact of Cuba, use Fuji Supergloss (RA4). You need a different unsharp masking protocall from Ciba - lower contrast and straight-line.

This sounds very very interesting. So properly exposing a Portra internegative from a Velvia transparency, then printing from the internegative on RA4? Does it retain the saturation an pop of transparency film?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I do it frequently. Kodak suggests a pull process of 15 seconds, and a daylight filter pack, but it seems to work well.

PE

 

[ChrisBCS]

Hmm... Looks like its time to buy some velvia in 120. I really want the saturation level of velvia in a positive print.

 

[bvy]

Besides printing directly from color negatives, I,m now making Portra internegatives from old chromes and getting excellent results, with much smoother tonality and hue accuracy than inkjet, and none of the idiosyncrasies of Ciba. If you want the impact of Cuba, use Fuji Supergloss (RA4). You need a different unsharp masking protocall from Ciba - lower contrast and straight-line.

I want the impact of Cuba [sic]. Let's see these excellent results.

 

[mhanc]

I want impact of [Ciba]. Let's see these excellent results.

+1 -- have not done internegatives in many years, and then only at a commercial lab. the results were less than... impactful. its encouraging to hear a more contemporary color negative film is working out better.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you're interested in internegatives, I would not begin the learning curve with Velvia! That's the hardest chrome film to master. All this is simple in concept; but you have to methodically fine-tune each successive step - first by learning ordinary color neg RA4 printing, then the specific masking protocol for your chromed, then how to precisely expose the internegatives and print them. It's less expensive than Cibachr, but more like power steering where tiny differences in color balance or mask density can have a significant effect.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmm... Looks like its time to buy some velvia in 120. I really want the saturation level of velvia in a positive print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I 'm stuck indoors today, and have been looking at a particular framed Ciba print which somebody coveted but at the last minute couldn't afford. Similar images which I'm now printing either from Ektar (often TMX masked) or from Porta 160 internegatives are conspicuously better. I've even redone some. Don,t confuse this with old-school chromogenic work. The hues are exceptionally clean.