Re: [Leica] Re: Positive vs. Negative

["AWSteg" <upstream1@mindspring.com>]

Who do you prefer for Ciba's or R prints?  I shoot 90% slide and have iffy
results with prints.  One month they are great the next horrible. . .depends
on who is doing it.  Also cost is an issue, as is shipping back and forth
when living in the boondocks.

Al Stegmeyer
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brick" <jim@brick.org>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 11:02 PM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Positive vs. Negative


> There have been advances in negative color film that allow it to exhibit
> very fine grain properties for enlargement. The problem is several fold.
> The main one is that with chrome film, your original looks like what you
> photographed. You don't have to guess at the color balance. It is right
> there in front of you.
>
> When I have a lab make a 11x14 first Ciba print from a transparency, I ask
> for a match to the original. No mask, no color balance change, nothing.
> This gives me the information that I need to continue (or stop) working
> with the transparency. The original print will tell me if I need a
contrast
> mask and if I need to shift the color one way or another. It also tells me
> how far I can enlarge it as the sharpness is observable in a 11x14.
>
> At this point, I decide how large I'm going to print and via what method.
> If the photograph is worthy of prints larger than 30x40, I'll have an
> archive drum scan done (300MB for 6x6 & 4x5 transparencies,) ICC profiled,
> and a 11x14 LightJet proof made. The archive scan gives me an hour of
> onsite Photoshop time to adjust the image. But so far, I've never used it.
> As I've said previously, I print the same transparency as Cibachromes and
> LightJets. People like different looks. I have one photograph that defies
> printing via scan and LightJet. It is because of a mask phenomenon only
> producible via optical enlarger.
>
> Transparencies have a color punch, color contrast, color brilliance, that
> color negatives cannot duplicate. For me, the latitude gets in the way. In
> looking through my Ciba prints, I have only masked about 10% and I use
> Velvia exclusively.
>
> Jim
>
>
> At 07:28 PM 6/12/00 -0700, Joe Codispoti wrote:
> >Sorry all, this has nothing to do with personalities.
> >
> >I have been wondering lately why some photographers, Jim included, expose
> >chromes instead of negative film when (publishing aside) the final result
is
> >a print.
> >
> >In 35mm, one has to decide whether to make internegs from slides or other
> >processes in order to make prints, or make slides from negatives in order
to
> >project them.
> >
> >In medium, and especially in large format, projection is not the norm.
> >Therefore, what is the advantage of using chromes and resorting to
> >internegs, Ciba, or digital negatives to make prints when starting with a
> >negative seems more logical including the latitude that if offers?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Joe
> >