Printing Ektachrome

PolyFilmLabs · May 22, 2024

Hi,
I'm not a big printer, but I am interested in learning. The caveat is though I shoot mainly ektahchrome...

Does that consign me to a lab printer vs an enlarger? I assume there are no papers at all anymore for printing from slide - just the experimental RA4 Reversal process?

btaylor · May 22, 2024

You are correct, there are no current darkroom materials made for printing slides. Which sucks, but the home market for RA-4 is so minuscule it is easy to understand why reversal printing materials are gone. I shot a lot of 35mm Kodachrome back in the Cibachrome days, a lovely combination.
I think your choices are hybrid scan and print or make dupe negatives to print RA-4, but that seems a bit much.

MattKing · May 22, 2024

btaylor said:
I think your choices are hybrid scan and print or make dupe negatives to print RA-4, but that seems a bit much.

I expect btaylor means internegatives, not dupe negatives, but otherwise this is correct.
Apparently Portra 160 can be used to make good quality internegatives.

btaylor · May 22, 2024

MattKing said:
I expect btaylor means internegatives, not dupe negatives, but otherwise this is correct.
Apparently Portra 160 can be used to make good quality internegatives.

Thanks for the correction, yes, should have been “internegatives”

Paul Howell · May 22, 2024

The only internegative film is negative to transparency so you will need to use a color negative film, last I used was porta 400, my thinking at the time 400 is somewhat lower contrast that Ektar 100.

Oz Etkin · May 22, 2024

PolyFilmLabs said:
I assume there are no papers at all anymore for printing from slide - just the experimental RA4 Reversal process?

That's correct. I've done a little bit of RA-4 reversal (90 sec Sprint print dev & stop, RA4 processing in room lights), and it's not that difficult to get good looking colors, but the process produces extremely high contrast images. With Ektachrome already being a pretty high contrast film, I've found it pretty difficult to get useable results. The processing solutions also seem to become exhausted quite quickly.

Here are some of my better prints:

... and some of the not good prints:

You can see that even the better prints have issues with extreme contrast, and as the developers become exhausted there are issued with color balance.

If you really want to try this yourself, this article covers another RA-4 reversal process which seems to yield better results: https://silvergrainclassics.com/en/2023/02/ra-4-reversal-printing-jeff-neale/

I've given up on RA-4 reversal and have been investigating the dye transfer process, but I highly doubt I will be able to make that work.

It's a shame that there isn't any current color positive printing process. I've gotten much better results from enlarging my negatives than I have ever gotten from any scanning method and would love to see enlargements of my slides of the same quality that I get from my negatives.

koraks · May 22, 2024

Oz Etkin said:
have been investigating the dye transfer process

Carbon will probably be easier. Heck, I know it's easier. And that's a tall order already, especially if you don't want a computer somewhere in the process.
I'm not even sure if a dye set for dye transfer is feasible anymore today.

PolyFilmLabs said:
Does that consign me to a lab printer vs an enlarger?

Scan & digital print in whatever way you fancy; inkjet, send out for RA4/chromogenic, etc.

PolyFilmLabs said:
just the experimental RA4 Reversal process?

Yeah; see above. Can be fun if you're into experimental stuff, but if you just want to make straight-faced color prints in the darkroom, better shoot color neg film.

eli griggs · May 22, 2024

I

Oz Etkin said:
That's correct. I've done a little bit of RA-4 reversal (90 sec Sprint print dev & stop, RA4 processing in room lights), and it's not that difficult to get good looking colors, but the process produces extremely high contrast images. With Ektachrome already being a pretty high contrast film, I've found it pretty difficult to get useable results. The processing solutions also seem to become exhausted quite quickly.

Here are some of my better prints:
View attachment 370872

View attachment 370874
View attachment 370877

... and some of the not good prints:

View attachment 370878
View attachment 370879
You can see that even the better prints have issues with extreme contrast, and as the developers become exhausted there are issued with color balance.

If you really want to try this yourself, this article covers another RA-4 reversal process which seems to yield better results: https://silvergrainclassics.com/en/2023/02/ra-4-reversal-printing-jeff-neale/

I've given up on RA-4 reversal and have been investigating the dye transfer process, but I highly doubt I will be able to make that work.

It's a shame that there isn't any current color positive printing process. I've gotten much better results from enlarging my negatives than I have ever gotten from any scanning method and would love to see enlargements of my slides of the same quality that I get from my negatives.

Are dye transfer due materials still being made and, if so, would you please share links?

koraks · May 22, 2024

eli griggs said:
Are dye transfer due materials still being made

Heck no, that stuff is long gone.

There's a German couple who make their own materials (esp. matrix film) and make dye prints commercially, but they apparently refuse to sell any materials so they can hold on to their monopoly. http://bettinahaneke.com/
Then there's the American whose name I consistently forget who apparently still does some printing using AFAIK old stock Kodak materials. A year or two ago he was still active; I've seen one of the prints from a run made back then.

Confusingly, there's a modern, digital process that's also referred to as "dye transfer" that has absolutely nothing to do with the process as we're discussing it presently, other than that dyes are involved in it.

This is one process I'm almost tempted at trying to somehow recreate. Almost...

Oz Etkin · May 22, 2024

koraks said:
Carbon will probably be easier. Heck, I know it's easier. And that's a tall order already, especially if you don't want a computer somewhere in the process.
I'm not even sure if a dye set for dye transfer is feasible anymore today.

I agree. I was hesitant to try carbon because I didn't want to deal with potassium dichromate, but that new Printmaker's Friend thing seems to be pretty good (and nontoxic).

Dye transfer still has the advantage of being able to make multiple prints from one set of matrices, but making the matrix film seems to be quite difficult.

As for the dyes, I suspect that acid dyes used to make tie-dye shirts may work. Although this may be wishful thinking as those products are the only acid dyes I can find reliably in sets containing cyan, magenta, and yellow.

koraks said:
Then there's the American whose name I consistently forget who apparently still does some printing using AFAIK old stock Kodak materials. A year or two ago he was still active; I've seen one of the prints from a run made back then.

Ctein? I think he ran out of dye transfer stuff a few years ago. I just checked his website and he is still posting incredible photos, but I assume they are all digital now.

James Browning also seems to have kept the process alive for some time and has a website with extremely detailed information about the process (http://www.dyetransfer.org/Site/Dye_Transfer_Resources.html).

koraks said:
if you just want to make straight-faced color prints in the darkroom, better shoot color neg film.

Ditto. I find that prints made from Ektar negatives are similar to what I get from Ektachrome slides.

koraks · May 22, 2024

Oz Etkin said:
I was hesitant to try carbon because I didn't want to deal with potassium dichromate, but that new Printmaker's Friend thing seems to be pretty good (and nontoxic).

There's also DAS as a replacement for dichromate. I've switched from dichromate to DAS for carbon transfer and never intend to go back. Virtually everyone who does color carbon also uses DAS because it's more consistent than dichromate.
Printmaker's friend should be nice, too, but it's more of a replacement of gum bichromate. It's a different thing - but just as awesome.

Oz Etkin said:
Dye transfer still has the advantage of being able to make multiple prints from one set of matrices

Yeah, well, carbon has that benefit too, of course. The main advantage of dye transfer is/was that the making of those copies is a little less involved than with carbon (or gum).

Oz Etkin said:
I suspect that acid dyes used to make tie-dye shirts may work

Yes, they might; what I don't know is how their stability and chroma compare to the real thing. But sometimes second best is still nice. This is one of those things that keeps tickling the mind. It's the making of the matrix film that worries me the most, though. I'm pretty sure I could get the rest to work, at least in part, and with sufficient time & dedication. Not sure about that film, though. It might be feasible if I drop the requirement of enlargement and do that on an existing product, and then contact that to a contact-printing, non-panchromatic (or even only UV-sensitive) matrix film. That's the most feasible route I've thought of so far.

Oz Etkin said:
James Browning also seems to have kept the process alive for some time

Yes, him. He's apparently still printing, sometimes. Not sure how active his business is, though.

Samu · May 23, 2024

I have no experience from RA-4 reversal, but I want to try it. The results I have seen are mostly bad, but some people have made very good looking prints. This means it is possible. I have always shot slide film, but of course, color negative is what I use mostly. I actually begun printing color from slides, with Cibachrome, in the late 1980's. Just spooled 18 rolls of Ektachrome from a 100 ft roll of motion picture Ektachrome 10DD I bought. Paid about 205€ + freight for the bulk roll.

I have a lab across the street with a Frontier setting (C-41 minilab, scanner and RA-4 printer). I just want to compare the results.

If somebody has experience with RA-4 reversal printing from slides, I have one question: Is a standard black & white developer OK (such as Adox Neutol NE) what dilution and time should be used, or is it essential to use some other kind of developer as the 1st developer of the process?

So far, I have made some prints with internegs, with Porra 160, but the results tend to be grainy, at least with a 35mm negative. Much worse quality than those printed by lab, or with Cibachrome, when it was available.

Samu · May 23, 2024

Oz Etkin said:
It's a shame that there isn't any current color positive printing process. I've gotten much better results from enlarging my negatives than I have ever gotten from any scanning method and would love to see enlargements of my slides of the same quality that I get from my negatives.

I do agree. But as the photofinishing industry went to scanning, and printing with a laser or LED to negative paper, positive paper became obsolete. The prictures can be easily inverted to negatives when printing digitally. Also, in some countries, inkjet printing is popular (USA). In Europe, RA-4 is still widely used, and is not disappearing any time soon. The papers are made for photofinishers, as the market for darkroom printing (even from negatives) is too small to sustain the production of materials. Cibacrome haf also some serious environmental issues.

What I really hope, is that E6 film will not die. Kodak has their film, but question lies with Fuji. Will Provia and Velvia be some day readily available again, or will they cancel these films too? If so, will the filmmakers shoot also reversal? Ektachrome exists mainly because of the movie industry. Even though the Alaris version of Ektachrome is not exactly the same film, it is necessary for Kodak to have this market in order to produce E6 stock at all.

koraks · May 23, 2024

Samu said:
Ektachrome exists mainly because of the movie industry.

Does it? Not saying you're wrong, but I was under the impression that the few productions that are shot on film, virtually all use negative film and go to digital intermediates from there. The latitude of negative is beneficial in that case.

MattKing · May 23, 2024

Samu said:
Ektachrome exists mainly because of the movie industry. Even though the Alaris version of Ektachrome is not exactly the same film, it is necessary for Kodak to have this market in order to produce E6 stock at all.

Kodak Alaris actually initiated the process of bringing it back, and the differences between the films only relate to the distribution, the packaging, the edge printing, perhaps the perforations (I'm not sure about that) and the instructions to motion picture labs about the differences when compared to Vision stocks they will see in respect to things like wash water in motion picture processing lines.
A still film processor will obtain exactly the same results from the two different versions - edge printing and perforations (possibly) aside.
The emulsions are identical and the two versions can be made from the same master rolls, after slitting and before perforating (possibly) and edge printing.
I'm not sure whether they do split master rolls between the two versions - it is probably more efficient to devote each master roll to its own production line.

Samu · May 23, 2024

koraks said:
Does it? Not saying you're wrong, but I was under the impression that the few productions that are shot on film, virtually all use negative film and go to digital intermediates from there. The latitude of negative is beneficial in that case.

We still photographers seriously need slides. But Kodak is Kodak, and their connection to the movie world is well known. It is much less used than Vision3 in motion picture, but reversal stock is still used.. What i find strange, is selling Alaris 135-36 version for about 28-30 € a roll, when spooling the movie stock costs about 10 € per roll. For slide film though, I have always though the Japanese make a bit better film. I really hope Fuji is going to have their stock back on the market. I don't want to be a doomsday prophet. and I don't believe E6 dying next yeat. What I want to say, is that the demand from the motion picure industry will keep at least Ektachrome available, when it is impossible to predict what Fuji will do.

Samu · May 23, 2024

MattKing said:
Kodak Alaris actually initiated the process of bringing it back, and the differences between the films only relate to the distribution, the packaging, the edge printing, perhaps the perforations (I'm not sure about that) and the instructions to motion picture labs about the differences when compared to Vision stocks they will see in respect to things like wash water in motion picture processing lines.
A still film processor will obtain exactly the same results from the two different versions - edge printing and perforations (possibly) aside.
The emulsions are identical and the two versions can be made from the same master rolls, after slitting and before perforating (possibly) and edge printing.
I'm not sure whether they do split master rolls between the two versions - it is probably more efficient to devote each master roll to its own production line.

The Alaris and Eastman Ektachrome have slightly different antihalation and other filter dyes in the film. If you develop these films, you will see that the movie version will color the water dark green, if a prewet is done. It will then color the first developer magenta. Alaris stock will just dye the water pink, and it does not affect the developer. This has no effect on chemistry, and the pictures on both stocks look the same. But this does indicate the film is not exactly the same.

Samu · May 23, 2024

koraks said:
Does it? Not saying you're wrong, but I was under the impression that the few productions that are shot on film, virtually all use negative film and go to digital intermediates from there. The latitude of negative is beneficial in that case.

If you ask me, I would never shoot a movie on reversal stock. Negative is so much easier because of the much wider latitude. You can always make the prints as needed (or digital copies, as they do nowadays). As a curiosity, home movies, such as Super8 and the Japanese equivalent, Single8, were both based on reversal stock. Of course, nowadays it is just fools like me, who still have their projector and a Siper8 camera from the 80's still working. But yes, I would suggest shooting on Vision3, and sending the cut negative for printing to Andec, instead of shooting to reversal stock. But for landscape, slide film can't be beaten. I love to mount my slides, and project them. This is art. (Give me back my Provia, my favorite slide film..._)

And when talking about the narrow latitude of slide film, I screwed up two days ago. I had loaded bulk Ektachrome in metal cartridges made by Foma few months ago. My on the go camera for 135 film is Pentax P30N. My old reliable Pentax ME Super light meter does not work no more. Great camera, but who can fix these. Say, if you know. OK. but what happened, was that I loaded the film accidentally in a cartridge, with a DX code 400, and forgot to put ta[e on the DX code to prevent my camera from reading it. Without DX. it will treat all films as ISO 100. All pictures were totally ruined, for just an underexposure of two stops.

MattKing · May 23, 2024

Samu said:
The Alaris and Eastman Ektachrome have slightly different antihalation and other filter dyes in the film. If you develop these films, you will see that the movie version will color the water dark green, if a prewet is done. It will then color the first developer magenta. Alaris stock will just dye the water pink, and it does not affect the developer. This has no effect on chemistry, and the pictures on both stocks look the same. But this does indicate the film is not exactly the same.

That may relate to anti-static treatments or other film transport related issues that can differ between film stocks designed for motion picture film stocks designed for still film use.

Samu · May 23, 2024

MattKing said:
That may relate to anti-static treatments or other film transport related issues that can differ between film stocks designed for motion picture film stocks designed for still film use.

Yes' But it also means there si some difference between these films. But, as I said, both films look exactly the same after developing.. This means, that they don't just cut the film from the same roll. Also, the availability issues for Alaris and Eastman stock have been at very different times. Og couse, the chain is different, but I am talking about months, when one of the variants was not available. At the moment, both are raadily available, except for Super8 and 16mm 100 ft rolls of motion picture Ektachrome.

MattKing · May 23, 2024

The finishing - slitting, perforating, edge printing and packaging - are all automated and dealt with in connected equipment, one stage after the other. If there are any differences in anti-static and film transport treatment, they may very well be dealt with during those finishing stages, not in the earlier coating stage.

MultiFormat Shooter · May 25, 2024

Samu said:
Of course, nowadays it is just fools like me, who still have their projector and a Super8 camera from the 80's still working.

It looks like I'm in good company!

DREW WILEY · May 25, 2024

Slide or chrome film is wonderful for seeing what you actually got. And the current version of Ektachrome is a superb product available in sizes from 35mm all the way to 8x10, albeit quite expensive in large sheet fashion. And the fact they coat it on thick PET sheet stock too is entirely independent of cinema needs.

For sake of reproduction in print form, a high quality scan and outputting onto RA4 paper via an industrial quality laser printer is the optimal way to go, although there is obviously also the more common inkjet route.

Superb internegs for sake of RA4 darkroom printing can indeed be generated on Portra 160 sheet film... But there is a steep expensive learning curve, and you generally need a supplemental contrast mask on black and white film, which brings in a whole suite of associated equipment : a transmission densitometer, precise punch and register film gear, a color temp meter, and ultra-clean darkroom habits.

I took that route because I still had quite a number of exceptional 8x10 chromes on hand, plus lots of 4x5's, which hadn't been printed yet. But the last direct positive process - Cibachrome - was dying off. The handwriting was on the wall; so going forward, I only shot color negative film instead. But the interneg versions from chromes really stand out.

There are obviously alt methods too, to generate color prints from slides - dye transfer (still barely alive), tricolor carbon, casein prints, gum bichromate etc.

Printing Ektachrome

PolyFilmLabs

btaylor

MattKing

Moderator

btaylor

Paul Howell

Oz Etkin

koraks

Moderator

eli griggs

koraks

Moderator

Oz Etkin

koraks

Moderator

Samu

Samu

koraks

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Samu

Samu

Samu

MattKing

Moderator

Samu

MattKing

Moderator

MultiFormat Shooter

DREW WILEY

Printing Ektachrome

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency