P
paul_drouillard
Hello Mike,
>> What a lot of people don't know is that there >> are some Ilfochrome labs that actually print >> digitally on to the same material
>That is true, and that's why it's always a good idea to ask them specifically how do they make these prints.
Must admit, I haven't ever seen a Cibachrome done digitally. I would think that it's possible to get outstanding quality from a digital output.
--> The other "R" process, commonly known as R3 and > R3000 etc. was a standardized process common to > at least Kodak and Fuji etc.
>That actually confused me a little. Do you mean that it's no longer used? Then what type of R process A&I uses for instance? ( http://www.aandi.com/custom.html#2 ) I know that these "Type 35" papers that Fuji makes are processed in R3 chemistry, so I'm not sure what you meant?
Wow!!, great to know there are still labs doing R printing as described by A&I. And their prices seem pretty good too knowing how difficult a process it is. Guess I could have been more clear. Ilfochrome is exclusively an Ilford product. The other "R" process like R3, and R3000 etc. is a universal process like C-41 and E-6 etc. I came close to bringing the process to my lab but the codes started to show it as special order even a few years ago. Knowing the way stuff is being slashed, I would have expected them to have knocked this one off too. Good to know it's still available. If you haven't tried it, u'll probably be pleasantly surprised.
--->>Interesting. Never heard of them before, perhaps I should give them a call. Incidentally, do you know anything about Holland Photo in Austin, Texas? ( www.hollandphoto.com ) or Created For Life in Australia? ( http://www.createdforlife.com/services.htm )
Not familiar with either of these labs. I would imagine you would be in good hands because in my eyes, any lab owner that's daring enough to offer Ilfochrome is likely the really caring type.
--->Speaking of digital printers, I was always curious to hear first-person info about differences in print quality on these printers. So far I have seen only LightJet prints (seem to be most popular here in California), so I wonder what's the difference in terms of colour/contrast and detail between say Chromira (LED), LightJet (laser) and whatever CRT printer you're using?
That's one heck of a question and I really don't consider myself even close to an authority on the subject. I've seen a lot of really good prints, and bad prints too. Problem is, often times one doesn't know where they came from. Trade shows usually dazzle you with images that rarely have any common thread with day to day production. And naturally they are the best of the best like file prep etc. I'm sure they all have their strengths and shortcomings only to be discovered if you hang around long enough. Our CRT does a pretty good job overall but it does have it's quirks too. You can tell a lot from a printed I-T8 target.
Which one is the best? I hate to be a cop out but in my best opinion all I can say is "that depends". They all have the ability to render images plenty sharp. I think it's believed that laser is considered the sharpest and usually the fastest in production speed, though that may be wrong now that the Chromira has recently multiplied it's production speed by a factor of 5 and able to retro fit existing units too, so I'm told. One of the problems with laser outputs has been achieving rich blacks (D-Max). Because of the speed of the laser, papers have been reformulated (digital RA-4) to deal with reciprocity failure from exposures times that are in nanoseconds. It (D-max) may now be an issue of the past but the replacement costs of laser guns are still a real issue. But don't discount the LED printers, (Chromira, Pegasus etc). I've seen some great stuff from these printers too. LED printers are generally considered more stable and less expensive to purchase and maintain.
I seem to notice Lightjet and Lambda (laser) printers are more often found in commercial labs, probably because they incorporate more text etc with imagery, LED and CRT in wedding / portrait / school labs which require smooth realistic images.
Again, the printers and their capabilities are all water under the bridge if you don't have the best in files. And that's another world altogether.
Paul
>> What a lot of people don't know is that there >> are some Ilfochrome labs that actually print >> digitally on to the same material
>That is true, and that's why it's always a good idea to ask them specifically how do they make these prints.
Must admit, I haven't ever seen a Cibachrome done digitally. I would think that it's possible to get outstanding quality from a digital output.
--> The other "R" process, commonly known as R3 and > R3000 etc. was a standardized process common to > at least Kodak and Fuji etc.
>That actually confused me a little. Do you mean that it's no longer used? Then what type of R process A&I uses for instance? ( http://www.aandi.com/custom.html#2 ) I know that these "Type 35" papers that Fuji makes are processed in R3 chemistry, so I'm not sure what you meant?
Wow!!, great to know there are still labs doing R printing as described by A&I. And their prices seem pretty good too knowing how difficult a process it is. Guess I could have been more clear. Ilfochrome is exclusively an Ilford product. The other "R" process like R3, and R3000 etc. is a universal process like C-41 and E-6 etc. I came close to bringing the process to my lab but the codes started to show it as special order even a few years ago. Knowing the way stuff is being slashed, I would have expected them to have knocked this one off too. Good to know it's still available. If you haven't tried it, u'll probably be pleasantly surprised.
--->>Interesting. Never heard of them before, perhaps I should give them a call. Incidentally, do you know anything about Holland Photo in Austin, Texas? ( www.hollandphoto.com ) or Created For Life in Australia? ( http://www.createdforlife.com/services.htm )
Not familiar with either of these labs. I would imagine you would be in good hands because in my eyes, any lab owner that's daring enough to offer Ilfochrome is likely the really caring type.
--->Speaking of digital printers, I was always curious to hear first-person info about differences in print quality on these printers. So far I have seen only LightJet prints (seem to be most popular here in California), so I wonder what's the difference in terms of colour/contrast and detail between say Chromira (LED), LightJet (laser) and whatever CRT printer you're using?
That's one heck of a question and I really don't consider myself even close to an authority on the subject. I've seen a lot of really good prints, and bad prints too. Problem is, often times one doesn't know where they came from. Trade shows usually dazzle you with images that rarely have any common thread with day to day production. And naturally they are the best of the best like file prep etc. I'm sure they all have their strengths and shortcomings only to be discovered if you hang around long enough. Our CRT does a pretty good job overall but it does have it's quirks too. You can tell a lot from a printed I-T8 target.
Which one is the best? I hate to be a cop out but in my best opinion all I can say is "that depends". They all have the ability to render images plenty sharp. I think it's believed that laser is considered the sharpest and usually the fastest in production speed, though that may be wrong now that the Chromira has recently multiplied it's production speed by a factor of 5 and able to retro fit existing units too, so I'm told. One of the problems with laser outputs has been achieving rich blacks (D-Max). Because of the speed of the laser, papers have been reformulated (digital RA-4) to deal with reciprocity failure from exposures times that are in nanoseconds. It (D-max) may now be an issue of the past but the replacement costs of laser guns are still a real issue. But don't discount the LED printers, (Chromira, Pegasus etc). I've seen some great stuff from these printers too. LED printers are generally considered more stable and less expensive to purchase and maintain.
I seem to notice Lightjet and Lambda (laser) printers are more often found in commercial labs, probably because they incorporate more text etc with imagery, LED and CRT in wedding / portrait / school labs which require smooth realistic images.
Again, the printers and their capabilities are all water under the bridge if you don't have the best in files. And that's another world altogether.
Paul