Re: [Leica] Kodachrome print help

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

If you are really set on making colour prints, IMHO, you are better off
using a colour negative film.  That's what they are designed for.  I
recommend Fuji Reala.  However, if you insist on using slide film, I have
had good results with the R3000 process, using Fujichrome paper.  Very rich
colours, and contrast was fairly under control.

The best Cibachrome printers use a technique called masking, in order to
fine tune the contrast.  When it is done right, Cibachromes (Ilfachromes)
can be very beautiful.

Dan C.

At 06:09 PM 17-09-98 -0400, you wrote:
>I have been shooting B&W exclusively with my M6 for 15 years and in the
>past six months decided to start experimenting with color. I've been
>shooting Kodachrome 200 and 64. After viewing many test slides via a
>projector, I decided upon Kodachrome 64, and have been doing a lot of
>shooting with this slide film and extremely pleased with the chromes. For
>the first time however, I have just gone to a professional lab, supposedly
>the best in the city (Lumichrom in Breslau, just outside Kitchener), to get
>some 8X10 prints. After spending $250, they look like crap, very dull and
>flat, with low contrast. Was I ever disappointed. I'd been told that
>Kodachrome prints go more contrasty, so I was very surprised by the
>results. Now, this lab produced the prints with an interneg. I'm now
>looking at getting some Cibachromes done, but I'll have to courier the
>slides to Montreal and I'm wary about dropping another $300 if the quality
>is shit. Is there any method where the print quality can match the beauty
>of the chromes? I'm dying to know, because if it's not possible, my days of
>color are over and it's back to shooting B&W exclusively. (On a worse
>related nore, my slides were returned to me with greasy fingerprints on
>them. Unbelievable.)
>
>Dave Fisher
>Waterloo, Ontario
>Canada
>tekapo@golden.net 
>
>