Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: Why are professional labs unwilling to do pigment dye transfer and Cibachrome?
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:05:40 -0700
References: <MBBBJHIBKCKEAEOKKBPOIEDDDFAA.bdcolen@earthlink.net> <F262hm8Ua8d9Ee4zadT0001b393@hotmail.com>

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

Replies: Reply from Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> ([Leica] Re: RE: Why are professional labs unwilling to do pigment dye transfer and Cibachrome?)
In reply to: Message from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (RE: [Leica] Why are professional labs unwilling to do pigment dye transfer and Cibachrome?)
Message from "Albert Wang" <leica_phile@hotmail.com> ([Leica] Why are professional labs unwilling to do pigment dye transfer and Cibachrome?)