Print display life expectancy of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome vs RA-4

[Chris Livsey]

Interesting details:

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/userfiles/file/ilfochrome.pdf

And this on the micrographic film with a layer diagram on page 17, three magenta layers.

http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/20949

And this on testing:

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v17/bp17-14.html

 

[Photo Engineer]

I would say that most of the above is ambiguous to say the least. The tests were of products of widely different generations it seems, and the labels on the last reference in post #80 are all out of wack. I base my information on two sources, my own and that published by ICIS in their books and manuals.

Both Kodak and Fuji made upgrades to the dye formers in their papers in about 2006 and presented data on the advances. Some of the above was presented in the ICIS Book "Image Permanence: Understanding, Measuring, and Predicting Print LIfe". I suggest you all read it if you can.

An update on Ciba. Early data shows a 6 layer structure that moved to 9 layers in the '70s or later. Most recent data refers to 13 layers and the use of a UV absorber just before the cancellation of the product.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd agree. Apples n' Oranges, not to mention that the testing techniques mentioned were somewhat motheaten even twenty years ago when those alleged comparisons were involved. Ironcially, the dyes of the first version of Ciba actually seem more permanent to me, despite the second generation product being easier to use. I still have a box of quite late 20x24 Ciba (Ilfochrome) in the freezer that I haven't had time to print yet.
But it might suffer from crossover by now, even frozen. The P3 chem is probably still good.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I would say that most of the above is ambiguous to say the least. The tests were of products of widely different generations it seems, and the labels on the last reference in post #80 are all out of wack.

Absolutely, but clearly shows the dubious quality of the testing out there, but is it any better than the n of 1 trials (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118090/) end users have been fighting over here? Without some sound science it's up for grabs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This ICIS book and the publications show the science behind it. I have participated in it. It can be quite exact if done properly with replicates and checks and balances. But the more we learn, we only learn that we are making approximations. These approximations show a rather rapid increase in chromogenic product image stability.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Chris, some of us "end users" have far more cumulative experience understanding how some of these products behave over time than any extrapolative sample testing model, no matter how well intended, and maybe just as much science education. And simply living long enough helps, at least until that equation inevitably fails. Humans disintegrate too, if we extrapolate ourselves too far! But I can only hope some of my color prints
outlive me for another generation or two to enjoy. As an insurance policy, I print black and white too!

 

[Chris Livsey]

This ICIS book and the publications show the science behind it. I have participated in it.
PE

It is somewhat difficult to find, if spending money is an issue, and as I print B/W this is more an intellectual exercise than direct application, for me.
There appear to be papers presented under that title at several annual events and they are frequently quoted elsewhere but forgive me if I don't spend the $40 required to read them, I will of course accept your précis and that the industry accepts progress can and has been made which is reassuring.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Chris, some of us "end users" have far more cumulative experience understanding how some of these products behave over time than any extrapolative sample testing model,

In my medical world that is also true, but even over a lifetime a prescriber will not treat as many patients as in a properly conducted trial, although the methods may sometimes not accurately represent real life, patient profiles being carefully chosen.
I do not "dish" yours or others experience at all, it is, like the trials you refer to, difficult to extrapolate the testing circumstances individually to the broader population, my dark dry drawer may not be yours with respect to temperature or humidity nor to any daily or annual cycles of those variables for example. The change in illuminants, artificial, individually over time in ageing and in the types and spectrum of those used currently against historically are also more variables that compound fair comparisons.

Whilst I appreciate the desire for print longevity as long as the negatives are available, and again not always the case I know, another can always be made, that seems to be ignored? Is that the quest for elevating photography to that of art and the arguments for uniqueness of the object, well discussed many years ago by Walter Benjamin : The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction ?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
(Quite why the Marxists have it I know not, although there are links to propaganda and political art)

And an interesting, for some of us, discussion on that:
https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/walter-benjamin-art-aura-authenticity/

(I know- start another thread LOL )

 

[Photo Engineer]

Chris, if you do B&W, you should be interested in image stability. Look at articles by Ctein and also archived at the RIT IPI (Image Permanence Institute). They show many surprising results regarding Silver images.

PE

 

[Chris Livsey]

Chris, if you do B&W, you should be interested in image stability. Look at articles by Ctein and also archived at the RIT IPI (Image Permanence Institute). They show many surprising results regarding Silver images.
PE

I will, but I have my negatives

 

[Photo Engineer]

Their work started due to unexpected deterioration of negatives. So, the work covers all silver images.

Pollution is one of the culprits.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another feather in the cap of Ciba. The claim was that the chromolytic azo dyes were more resistant to common atmospheric pollutants than either chromogenic prints or typical dye transfer prints, esp in combination with accelerating factors like temperature or sunlight. This certainly appears to have been true, at least during that era. But I don't feel comfortable in the debate of whether or not black and white RC prints are now up to the same standard as fiber-based, since I rarely print RC and never display those. Ctein got into that particular squabble quite a bit; but some of his information or opinion might be obsolete by now.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Drew, magenta and yellow dye transfer dyes come from the same family of chemicals and can be selected for the same hue and stability factors. The cyan dye comes from another class which does not bleach in the DB process, but can be optimized for quite a few stability factors.

I know that Kodak worked on improving stability for quite a while and by the demise of the product, they had gotten it right for quite a few years.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh gosh, Ron... If I could just quote the "interesting" face to face conversation I had with a former big DT lab owner on this subject. But I can't. Too much sheer vitriol. For some reason he seems to have had an utterly rabid disapproval of both your opinions as well as mine. Some kind of grudge against the whole world, it seems. But he did have some useful tidbits on alternative dying methods, more like matching paint by having a huge selection of dyes available to custom blend per image rather than controlling the gamut via masking corrections. I simply went with Jim Browning's recommended set of Pylam dyes, analogous to Kodak's, until I finally scrounged enough of the respective Kodak kits themselves to last the duration of my limited matrix film supply. As if I didn't have enough irons in the fire already.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Drew, I knew people with the same opinions, but look at the variation in opinions here on APUG about Cibachrome, Endura and Crystal Archive. And the divergence becomes even greater in the B&W area, believe it or not. That is, if you are up on the latest testing which is now a niche in the photographic world.

I don't think we could come up with a real consensus anywhere on these topics.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh well. A fellow here had a bumper sticker which said, The worst day fishing is better than the best day at work. I could say the same about photography. Even if the print fades, I enjoyed making it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Amen to that!

 

[Nzoomed]

Oh well. A fellow here had a bumper sticker which said, The worst day fishing is better than the best day at work. I could say the same about photography. Even if the print fades, I enjoyed making it.

At the end of the day you can always make another print!
I guess longevity is the main issue for professional photographers who sell their work or portraits etc...

Is there no digital means of using azo dyes?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi. Well yes, digital laser printers were used to expose Cibachrome media itself, just like optical enlargers. You obviously had to begin with a scan.
Most portrait studios and pro photographers didn't give a damn about permanence. They gravitated towards chromogenic "C" prints due to the softer contrast, lower cost, and ability to print directly from color negative film, which was more suited to skintone reproduction. Very few people (including myself) were willing to do portrait prints in Ciba. For clients who had a lot of money, dye transfer was generally the option directly from chromes, though there was a version of it for making matrices directly from color negs. But no, you can't always make another print. Do do a really good job,
one would match the subject and specific film to the output media. If the original shot is still in decent shape, there might be other ways of printing it,
or even modern digital means of attempting to restore it, but it never comes out the same. If someone wrote a score for a cello, it simply doesn't
sound the same on a banjo.

 

[Nzoomed]

Hi. Well yes, digital laser printers were used to expose Cibachrome media itself, just like optical enlargers. You obviously had to begin with a scan.
Most portrait studios and pro photographers didn't give a damn about permanence. They gravitated towards chromogenic "C" prints due to the softer contrast, lower cost, and ability to print directly from color negative film, which was more suited to skintone reproduction. Very few people (including myself) were willing to do portrait prints in Ciba. For clients who had a lot of money, dye transfer was generally the option directly from chromes, though there was a version of it for making matrices directly from color negs. But no, you can't always make another print. Do do a really good job,
one would match the subject and specific film to the output media. If the original shot is still in decent shape, there might be other ways of printing it,
or even modern digital means of attempting to restore it, but it never comes out the same. If someone wrote a score for a cello, it simply doesn't
sound the same on a banjo.

Our family portrait is about 14 years old now and has significant cyan shift, is this typical for such a print?
Obviously another print can be made providing the negative or scan still exists.
Interesting that cibachrome could be done digitally, because all the cibachrome labs ive seen wanted to get an internegative made from my scans to produce the print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That terminology doesn't make sense. Cibachrome was a direct positive process, positive to positive. So it might be hypothetical made from an interpositive generated from a color negative, or directly from a positive chrome via either enlargment or scanning, or from an enlarged positive
chrome duplicate or "dupe". But an "internegative" wouldn't work for Ciba. It would have to be used for an RA4 print, or what some used to call a "C" print.

 

[Nzoomed]

That terminology doesn't make sense. Cibachrome was a direct positive process, positive to positive. So it might be hypothetical made from an interpositive generated from a color negative, or directly from a positive chrome via either enlargment or scanning, or from an enlarged positive
chrome duplicate or "dupe". But an "internegative" wouldn't work for Ciba. It would have to be used for an RA4 print, or what some used to call a "C" print.

They probably just said internegative in laymans terms, I do expect they would have had to produce a positive image somehow.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Or they might have been incorrectly referring to the need to make a black and white mask for high-quality results.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Drew, that is most likely. Cibachrome prints are quite bad without one.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

There were all kinds of tricks, especially with the early version. They'd develop them in Sectol soft. The colors came out macabre or ghoulish, esp
the greens, but you know, it was "artsy" to some. Or they'd pull process the film, which would lower contrast but not solve the inherent color errors remaining, and would often cross the highlights. I'd expose the film normally but vary the agitation/oxidation of the Ciba bleach to control the blues, then pull the rest together by masking. Normally one mask would do; but I've done up to eight on a single image. Lots of fun. Wouldn't be as much fun anymore, given today's harsh sheet film pricing. With color neg RA4 printing I only need to mask about 20% of the time, though this might involve two sheets - a crisp interpositive, then the unsharp contrast-increase mask contact-generated from this. The biggest difference is that color
neg masking has to be done quite subtly, very low contrast. With Ciba you needed either a double-bit axe or a spiked ball on a chain.