Printing Slides

[nickandre]

Alright I've accumulated a small stack of slides to print. I regularly do RA4 printing and I've tried the reversal version of that process with limited success. I was going to print digitally but the results I've gotten out of the scanner might be equated with dog barf. The scanning program I have is doing something to destroy the raw data of the scanner and I can't figure out how to disable it (gotta love vuescan.)

Anyways, how might I get them printed? Should I send them off to some lab? Should I try the reversal RA4 process again? Should I make an interneg and then print that? Which is going to give me the best most accurate print? I don't think I have the capital to try Ilfochrome, nor the necessary contrast masking pin registration equipment. Any ideas?

 

[lightwisps]

May I suggest that you look into Ilfochrome prints? Incredible depth and archival qualities. If you are interested, we print them. You can always reach me at lightwips@yahoo.com

While Ilfochrome is expensive, it in my opinion is the absolute best. If you want to do your own printing, feel free to contact me to pick my brain.

Don

 

[tim_walls]

Alright I've accumulated a small stack of slides to print. I regularly do RA4 printing and I've tried the reversal version of that process with limited success. I was going to print digitally but the results I've gotten out of the scanner might be equated with dog barf. The scanning program I have is doing something to destroy the raw data of the scanner and I can't figure out how to disable it (gotta love vuescan.)

Anyways, how might I get them printed? Should I send them off to some lab? Should I try the reversal RA4 process again? Should I make an interneg and then print that? Which is going to give me the best most accurate print? I don't think I have the capital to try Ilfochrome, nor the necessary contrast masking pin registration equipment. Any ideas?

The necessity for contrast masks with Ilfochrome is overstated as far as I can tell (probably born out of a requirement for labs to justify their extortionate markup for printing Ilfochromes over the already extortionate materials cost,) but in any event my copy of 'The Complete Guide to Cibachrome Printing' suggests that if you use an unsharp mask you can do perfectly well using nothing more complicated than a bit of masking tape to stick the two together on one edge and then sticking the sandwich of slide+mask together into a slide mount. (Assuming your enlarger has a carrier for mounted slides of course.)

I intend to validate that theory with practice as soon as I can afford to buy some more Ilfochrome chemistry - certainly can't argue with you about the cost of the damned paper & chems . I believe it is made from dyes personally extracted from the Unobtainium plant by virginal handmaidens.


Anyone, one suggestion you might want to try is to get your slides professionally scanned (e.g. by someone with an Imacon) and then try out digital printing. I'm probably going to give this a go soon (mainly because I don't have a 4x5 enlarger so I'm a bit stuck for alternatives for large format - contact printing Ilfochromes I've been not entirely successful with, in my limited attempts I've been cursed with Newton's rings in the prints.)

 

[pentaxuser]

Interestingly I was reading a booklet on Cibachrome-A II materials( printing paper) and P-30 chemicals. It is dated 1984. The booklet was making the very point that Tim Walls makes. It said: " Cibachrome-A II print materials incorporate a recently discovered self-masking layer...At the same time lower print contrast ensures that overall print appearance is always pleasing, even when the contrast of the original slide may not be ideal.

With the likelihood that maybe even further improvements have been made in the ensuing 25 years I would have thought that contrast masking might only be required for a minority of slides.

Of course I cannot offer any actual experience on my part to back this up but it just seems to me that if prints from slides were that complicated then even in the 80s and 90s demand for Cibachrome would have been pretty low given that chemicals and paper have always been relatively expensive.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[Nathan Potter]

Unless you've got your whole digital workflow down to a high degree of accuracy and a high quality scan of your chrome you'll probably do better with an Ilfochrome print. But there are also some limitations to Ilfochrome. As mentioned, contrast control is one of the biggest headaches, followed by high material costs.

Contrast control via a registrated mask is generally required for chromes that exceed a density range of about 2.0. Unfortunately that is most chromes. But if you can select a low contrast chrome I'd recommend sending it out to a first rate lab that still deals with Ilfos and see what you get. For best image brilliance I'd ask for Classic Deluxe High Gloss CLM.1K print material (the most common museum quality material).

For contrast range above 2.0 Dmax a mask is advisable depending on how much print contrast you can tolerate, but shadow detail disappears real fast. 35 mm chromes are tiny so are a real task to register accurately even with a substantially unsharp mask. I do masks using Tmax under tight dust control and reregister under a binocular microscope. Even masking will lope off some of the highlight detail, especially if done heavily, in an effort to bring up some of the shadow detail in the print. The masking technique requires some considerable skill depending of course on how critical you are about print quality.

The actual Ilfochrome processing is not so difficult using a light tight drum and the three key solutions - developer, bleach and fixer all about 2 min. at 36 degrees C. But the temperature of the first developer needs to be controlled to 36 C +/- .5 C. I would not worry too much about a +/- 1 C variation though. You can use the YMC filter recommendation on the box to good advantage if the paper and chemistry is within date but I do a test matrix of CC filters before I do an actual print and look for the combination that produces a neutral grey. I mostly use a halogen lamp in the enlarger but my other custom made lamp sources require substantial tweaking of the CC filter pack.

Done well I'm of the opinion that virtually nothing beats a fine Ilfochrome from a transparency although while of a different texture the best digital prints can be pretty stunning.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

 

[gr82bart]

Anyways, how might I get them printed? Should I send them off to some lab? Should I try the reversal RA4 process again? Should I make an interneg and then print that? Which is going to give me the best most accurate print? I don't think I have the capital to try Ilfochrome, nor the necessary contrast masking pin registration equipment. Any ideas?

I would re-try the Ilfochrome process. If you have the equipment for RA4, I'm not sure what other 'capital' you would need for Ilfocrome. I had a roller tube and plastic graduated cylinders when I did Ilfochrome. Not a lot of capital. Never had the masking stuff you mentioned. I didn't know it was 'necessary'.

Otherwise get a better scanner (or scanner software), learn PS or GIMP (settle down people) and send the file to a lab that does wet process printing on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. You can print on Kodak Endura Metallic paper. Results are fantastic and IMHO much better than Fuji paper (not starting a war people - settle down). Though each final print on this paper will cost you about $50-75.

This is what I do, since once the scans are in my computer, I can work on them and send them to the lab via the internet as I travel. Can't do that with a darkroom. If I had more time, I'd start into Ilfochrome again.

Good luck.

Regards, Art (Reminds me that I have about 40+ prints I have to pick up at the lab ... )

 

[nickandre]

The capital is $200 for a two liter chemistry kit and $300 for a 100 sheet box of 8x10 paper.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Try giving Freestyle a call. I think that they offer it a little cheaper than the 1-(800)-292-6137

 

[nworth]

Alas, color reversal paper is becoming expensive and hard to find. As far as I know, Ilfochrome is the only example currently available. It does an outstanding job (although the commonly available variety may be a bit harsh for some scenes), but it is both expensive to process and hard to find. PE has obtained some OK, but less than great, results by reversal processing of Kodak Endura paper, doing the first development in Dektol and the second in RA-4 developer. Two other possibilities exist. The most obvious is digital. Very good scanners and printers are around fo a couple of hundred dollars each. A good calibration outfit will cost about as much. They will produce excellent, but different looking prints. Another possibility is to copy the slide to color intermediate film, Like Eastman 5272, and print the negative. A bit is lost in the translation, but it generally works well. One problem is that 5272 requires ECN-2 processing. The developer and bleach formulas are available on the Kodak website, and you might be able to make a fair equivalent. C-41 would probably develop the film, but the quality and stability of the result is questionable.