Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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