What's new
CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Film Technical Information

C

chenly

Does no one do Ilfochrome/Cibachrome anymore?'

"Then I found out about Typr R enlarging."

WTF? Ilford's (formerly Ciba/Geigy's) direct positive process blows the doors off EVERYTHING. People?
 
C

chenly

Does no one do Ilfochrome/Cibachrome anymore?

"Then I found out about Typr R enlarging."

WTF? Ilford's (formerly Ciba/Geigy's) direct positive process blows the doors off EVERYTHING. People?
 
G

garyh

Member
I agree with you Chris. Cibrachrome prints just blow everything else away by miles. But I don't think that they are for everyday use as they are quite expensive. But I have a magnificent 20x24 print made from a Kodachrome 200 slide that is now close to 20 years old. It is framed and under glass of course, and it is just as tack sharp and brilliant color as when I had it made.

I believe that one of the problems is that a company has to make alot of them for it to be profitable. I use to use a local guy who stopped making them. He told me that the problem was that the chemicals don't last long and so it isn't economical to make three or four prints a week - you need volume. Also, the best Cibachrome prints are on the HIGH contrast Ciba paper, which requires more masking and skill to get it right. The lower contract paper, which I tried once, doesn't compare.

I have seen ads for places that make them in the back of Outdoor Photographer and I believe Shutterbug. But you're right - nothing compares.

Gary
 
J

jeff

Active Member
As far as I know there's a place in Toronto that still does Ilfochrome. It used to be Toronto Image Work but I think they handed it off to a guy a floor up from them in the same building. That's what I was told. I have some Ilfochromes they're quite nice. Jeff
 
J

John_bird

Im a bit out of touch with the current color reversal film and hope for some opinions on the relative merits of different emulsions in the past I used mainly Kodachrome 64 for normal use and various Ektachromes for higher speed
 
C

colin

Well-Known Member
John, As a long time(45yrs) Kodachrome user, I believe there is nothing to touch it. People rave about Velvia and I use it for the convenience of E6 processing, however, when I'm enjoying a slide show and my Kodachromes come up on the screen, it's like WOW! The sharpness, the resolution, the gradation, the neutrality of colours, the smoothness, it's everything. Even the smell when you get back the box of slides.(Jay Maisel used to comment on that) But given the difficulty in finding current stock of Kodachrome 25, I use Velvia...it is good stuff.
I even manage to keep a supply in the deep freeze of Kodachrome 64 in 120 size!
Kodachrome's shortcoming was not the film but the company behind it. Kodak couldn't give a s=*t about it's customers and I'm sorry to say that my freezer is full of green boxes, rather than yellow boxes as was the case 10 years ago.
Colin
 
B

benwang

Well-Known Member
Since someone bring out the subject about Kodak couldn't give a s=*t about their customers, I couldn't agree more. I use to us the negative file Royal Gold 100. It was a great film! the colour is great, the grain is tiny and as Colin said, everything! However, I had some really bad experience about it, once in a while the roll could not "move" when develope!? Some of the negative for some reason attract dust like hell! and some time my camera will stretch the film (not too sure is it my camera or film, but it only happen in royal gold), and it has never happen to other film. Although I like the file very much, however the QC is so bad and there were so many disappointment, I gave up and use the reala instead! I don't like it as much as the royal gold, yet it is the next best thing and at least it is trouble free! and the QC is a lot better then Kodak. I guess Kodak is concentrating its effort to gain market in DC market, and they will slowly fade out the film market!
 
A

albert4321

Well-Known Member
I use the Provia as my default film. Good all around E6 film with good latitude and finer grain than the Velvia 50. You can push (+2) and poll (-1) the film without color shift. Now I am trying the new Kodak E family films. The E100G and E100GX is very fine grain, and great color and neutral skin tone. For products/food, I use E100VS, color saturation is better than Provia as the "VS" suggested.

For negative, I love the Fuji 160 NPC. I was told the 400NHP is a good all around film for people, and products, etc. The Kodak Portra family films are all good, especially the 400BW. I am testing the Portra 400UC now. Sometime I just love the very saturated color for products or interior shoots. For portraits, I use both Fuji 160NPC and Kodak 160VS. Kodak films are always more expensive. :-(

I always use professional films for their quality consistence. They are more expensive and can be difficult to find. I just buy them in bulk and keep them in the fridge.

My 2 cents for films.
 
W

wbesz

Well-Known Member
Albert,
Just wondering, do you use a film scanner for your films,
if so, how does Fuji 160 perform?
Cheers, William
 
A

albert4321

Well-Known Member
William,

I scan all my films as an alternative to digital capture. All newer films, including the Fuji 160NPC/NPS, Provia, Astia and all Kodak Protra, scan well. They have this "4th layer" supposed to improve scanning and prevent scratch.

I shoot a lot of 4x5 and C645. Digital back for MF and LF are way out of my reach. I use pro lab to scan my 120 and 135 films which they give me a 18M TIFF file for each image. I then edit my pics in PS 7 if necessary and print them with my Epson. For 4x5, I scan them with my Epson 2450.

I spend a lot of $ for films development and scanning. But the result blows any top DSLR.
 
C

coyot

Well-Known Member
> Albert, What does your lab charge for developing and Scanning a 120 roll? Do you also get prints and a contact at the same time.

Thanks,

Michael.
 
A

albert4321

Well-Known Member
Michael,

For 18M TIFF per image scan, my lab charges me $28 for a roll scan of 120 or 35mm. It comes with two contact sheets. One inside the CD juke box. The other is in a 4x6 print. Developing is $5 each. I can get prints for additional fee. But usually I don't need 4x6 prints.

For low Rev. scan (5M), it is $15 per roll scan.

They use the machine costs over $250k. So the quality is good. They usually apply a appropriate profile and custom scan each images for me. Often time they will fix my mistakes, unless I tell them to do a straight scan. The result is incredible, clean and ready to print. For ex&le, they will adjust the contrast so that the white wedding gown and black tux have full details. It is hard to do in PS7 (even I am pretty good in Photoshop) unless you do burn and dodge or use slip filters in the dark room. It saves me a lot of time from scanning myself and sitting in front of the computer.
 
J

John_bird

THANKS to every body who helped out with advice about color reversal film.
Hi Colin and the others that mentioned Kodak it's not that they dont care about Kodachrome, they hate it they have consistently tryed to kill it since the introduction of Ektachrome, simpler hence more profitable process with the dye's in the emulsion.
Also like Jay Maisel.
 
C

colin

Well-Known Member
John, Hadn't realised that Kodak had tried to kill Jay Maisel!!!!!!!!!!!lol
Sorry, couldn't resist. But you're right about the reasons; sad really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top