[Leica] Re: Why are professional labs unwilling to do pigment dye transfer and Cibachrome?

[Allan Wafkowski <allan@sohogurus.net>]

A nice meaty post. Very well done.

Sorry, I've got PAWs on the brain.


Allan


On Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 02:05 PM, Jim Brick wrote:
> I make darkroom Cibachrome prints, darkroom Fuji Crystal Archive 
> prints, and digital scan - LightJet prints on Fuji Crystal Archive 
> paper. Anything that looks good as a LightJet print will also look good 
> as a Cibachrome print. The reverse is not true. I have several 
> Cibachrome prints that cannot be equaled via a scan, Photoshop, 
> LightJet print. They (Calypso/West Coast Imaging) have tried until they 
> were blue in the face, but failed.
>
> I personally make all of my Cibachrome prints up to 20x24. I have to go 
> out for 30x40's. Hopefully this will change in the future.
>
> There are numerous types of Cibachrome Classic paper. Resin Coated (RC) 
> in medium contrast. This is not classed as a 200 year+ archival paper. 
> The medium contrast emulsion is Ilford's latest emulsion and is 
> spectacular. And there is Polyester paper. Polyester paper is the 
> expensive stuff, 2.5 times the cost of RC paper. It comes in three 
> contrasts, low, medium, and normal. Low and normal come in sizes up to 
> 30x40. I mostly buy it (low and normal contrast) in 20x24 size and cut 
> it down for 16x20 and 8x10 prints. I also buy it in 11x14 as it is 
> wasteful to cut 11x14's out of 20x24 stock. Polyester based medium 
> contrast paper only comes in sizes up to 16x20. Ilford's best emulsion 
> and they supply it only up to 16x20 on the archival polyester base. But 
> you can buy it in 20x24 on the RC base. This makes no sense 
> whatsoever!!!
>
> It is the polyester normal contrast that is archival to 200+ years. The 
> low and medium contrast emulsions on the polyester base are close, but 
> not quite as good. Followed by the RC paper base.
>
> Then there is Cibachrome Rapid paper, which is what most professional 
> labs use since the dry-to-dry process is only 3.5 minutes. It comes in 
> glossy & pearl on the cheap RC base and in super glossy on the 
> expensive and super archival polyester base. One contrast, normal. This 
> means masking for many prints.
>
> I also print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper and I have LightJets made on 
> Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I personally hate this paper. It is a very 
> thin RC paper and when handling large prints, it is easily kinked. 
> Cibachrome Classic paper on polyester is fantastic stuff. A white 
> opaque plastic backing to a rich emulsion. And the super glossy surface 
> looks like it is always wet.
>
> Trying to color balance a print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper is an 
> exercise in frustration. It responds to 1cc as if it were 10cc. It is 
> difficult to make subtile changes.
>
> Fuji Crystal Archive paper is not nearly as archival as Cibachrome 
> (Ilfochrome) polyester based, super glossy, normal contrast paper. This 
> Ciba paper is guaranteed 200+ years fade proof.
>
> I find printing on Cibachrome Classic paper very rewarding as it is 
> easily manipulated via dodging and burning and various masking 
> techniques allow you to attain the exact result that you want. Assuming 
> it is in the transparency in the first place. Filter packs are always 
> low. 15M+10Y is typical. A 5cc change is very subtile so there is a lot 
> of room to work. And with the low and medium contrast surfaces, masking 
> is not normally needed.
>
> I do custom Cibachrome printing for a few selected clients. These 
> people tried the scan/LightJet route, were disappointed, so keep coming 
> back for more Cibachromes. I am v-e-r-y expensive and have only a 
> limited amount of time to do other people's work. I'm not looking for 
> any new customers.
>
> Most of my LightJet prints are prints too large to produce on 
> Cibachrome. This is my only reason for going to a LightJet print.
>
> Jim
>
> ps... West Coast Imaging uses Calypso as their LightJet printer, unless 
> they bought and set-up a LightJet lab of their own within the past six 
> months. Many times, when at Calypso, I have seen packages addressed to 
> WCI and I asked Rebecca if they (Calypso) did WCI's printing, and she 
> said yes. It might be simpler to send your work directly to Calypso as 
> they have a new scanner and do scan/LightJet's for many many of the big 
> name photographers. Art Wolfe, Galen Rowell, Franz Lanting, Charlie 
> Cramer, Bill Atkinson, etc... Just a thought.
>
>
>
>
> At 10:59 AM 4/11/2002 -0500, Jeffery Smith wrote:
>> B.D.,
>>
>> I cannot find anything that approximates the quality of K64 printed on 
>> glossy Cibachrome. I miss doing Cibachrome.
>>
>> Jeffery
>>
>> At 09:59 AM 4/11/02, you wrote:
>>>  Can a digitally colored print approximate
>>> the quality of the pigment dye transfer or Cibachrome prints? 
>>> Personally my
>>> gut feelings is that they are not.
>>>
>>> Alfie
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Alfie, what is this 'personal gut feeling' of yours based on? 
>>> Have you
>>> done a side-by-side comparison of a high quality digital print with a
>>> pigment dye transfer and Cibachrome, all printed from the same image?
>>> Perhaps if you did that, you'd understand why you are having 
>>> difficulty
>>> finding labs that still work with the older technologies.
>>>
>>> B. D.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html