Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]A while back, Mark wrote: >>Please do not spare our precious low tech cloth shutter sensibilities about >>the Lightjets! >>Inkjets with Lasers!? >>How do they compare with the Ciba or a c print or other printing. I am very >>interested and my guess is others would be too!. >>Mark Rabiner I answered with two web sites, http://www.calypsoinc.com/ and http://www.cymbolic.com/ . <<But failed to answer the Ciba - LightJet comparison question. LightJet prints are awesome in their own right. They have a sense of smooth realism to them. As I mentioned earlier, my 48x60's are so sharp it is mind boggling.>> <<LightJets do not inherently have the contrast of Ciba's. No mask needed. Perhaps a Photo Shop tweak or two. A good Ciba print looks "alive". A good LightJet is gorgeous, but lacks that "photo-quality" look. When making very large Ciba prints, enlarger optics and enlarger spec's play heavily on the quality of the result. A 48x96 (max size) LightJet will look exactly like an 8x10 LightJet. There are no optical/mechanical gotcha's in the way. Only scan size and computer profiling. Once done, size is not an issue.>> <<For sheer photographic beauty, I'll choose a Ciba print any day. They just have that look.>> Ciba prints are more expensive than LightJet prints as well. That is, after the scan. Jim - ------------------ The lightjets "pop" - a 'realism' for sure. It's like looking at a framed photograph with bad lighting - then the light hits the photograph and...ohh I've never noticed that! Of course this is with the implication that the whole scan/file size/prep/output is within a given closed loop system. The benefits, as you mentioned are the ability to go very small and very large (within xxxmb allowances) without the variables. From the lighjets done I think in general this ranks above the ciba. A couple of reasons which are perhaps exceedingly subjective. I won't comment on the actual differences in developmental specifications of any sort because... I can't really. This I think I may be alone on here but I'm just sick - it just bothers me - when I here cibas! cibas! cibas! I love cibas too! Or Ilfochromes. Please don't take this the wrong way but a ciba ciba campaign makes me want to crumble up a nice ciba. Perhaps this has something to do with my relatively close proximity to NYC which - whatever. You gotta be bad... Anyhow I find it a bit strange that an ultraaa gloss ciba (which is what we mean by ciba) is considered so realistic. I've not had any of the glossy with the lightjet. But cibas are a mirror. This may be "photo-quality" - and of course that's something pre-defined anyhow. I tend to think that people are ciba ciba-like often because hey - they're cibas. Reality is so glossy? The c's definitely deserve their reputation - they do something that another R-print can't match in certain respects. This is not so easily verbalized but it's there - also you can store them in a vault so you're descendents can appreciate them in the sunlight. My point is not gloss-related - I just typed that in 'cause I's thinking like that. Just throwing my hat in with the lightjet. There's the archived master image thing which is quite positive for certain goodies at least. There's also the multitude of possibilities in using your images by going this route. The benefits just go on. Yes there are oppositions of all kind - especially the digital implications. But that will go away. It's then something of a degree - coolscans and epsons and tangos and lightjeets. i've looked at thing from a dual perspective - in that I take the picture and then it's someone else's thing. maybe a half-process...makes me want everything else to be quickly definite predictable stable and archived. If its good - leave it so as not to cause any worry over having any variables that have traces of arbitrary qualities. this is of course said by someone who's not too good in the digital light/dark desktop room area.