Anyone do Ilfochrome Classic Prints?

K

kino eye

kino eye
Local time
7:41 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
29
I shoot a lot of Kodachrome and am looking at getting prints made this way. But want to compare against scanning/ink jet.

1. Anyone have experience doing it this way?
2. Who's good?
3. How were your results compared to scanning and ink jet printing?

Thanks
 
Many years ago (about 25) when Ilford sold introductory kits for Cibachrome, I tried it. I still have some prints I made from those using Kodachrome, that are as vibrant today as they were then. It wasn't that hard to work with either.

If Ilfochrome is really the same, there is not a color printer that can touch them.
 
Slow, both in exposure and in processing.

Unparalleled in quality.

For exhibition prints, easily the winner.

But because I don't do exhibition colour prints any more, I don't do Cibas any more.

Cheers,

R.
 
I've been wondering the same. It seems that Ilford (not the Harman Ilford, I think) still sells the products. And I think it can be done with a condenser enlarger (non color head), by using a Cibachrome color printing filter set. I got one in a "box of stuff" as part of an enlarger purchase at a photo flea market ($20 for an enlarger !). Thats about all I know about the process, if anyone knows more, please let us know.

Cheers.
 
You're in Vancouver, home of the most famous Cibachrome / Ilfochrome artist of modern times: Jeff Wall.

AFAIK, he owns his own large format Ilfochrome transparency printer. I can't believe there would be nobody in Vancouver to help him, and by extension help you.
 
I don't have any current experience with the new Ilfochrome, having just recently put together the my first darkroom in years but Cibachrome prints were very easy to make and the quality was first rate, better than any other color process i've ever seen with the possible exception of dye transfer . I am hoping to make Ilforchrome prints in the near future as my budget allows and I recommend you try it asap. Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints can be breath-taking art and you must try it yourself to appreciate its magic.

Cheers
 
I've had Ilfochrome/Cibachrome prints on the wall for 15 years or so with no fading or other deterioration. The advantage to having Cibachrome prints made commercially was that it offered the possibility of what I think used to be called contrast masking which tamed the relatively high contrast. I have printed them myself and if you're prepared to put up with the usual colour printing hassle of washing out and drying drums between printing test strips and final prints, it's relatively straightforward. The only problem (and I assume it's still the same) used to be the fact that the emulsion on the paper is incredibly delicate when it's wet and it was very easy to slide it off the print to leave a strange blue image behind.

As everyone's said, the quality is second to none and the archival quality is the same.

In the UK, BPD Photech (http://www.bpdphotech.com/) still offer a Cibachrome service at a very reasonable price. (No connection with them except as a very satisfied customer.)
 
Thanks for the info so far. I've been chatting with a few friends of mine here in Vancouver who also mentioned the process of making prints fairly simple. There was a very good lab here (perhaps the one Jeff Wall used) but they closed down a few years ago. I did find that Elevator in Toronto does Cibachrome prints still and lists it on there site. I've also heard they can make prints from a digital source image on that paper. http://www.elevatordigital.ca/printing.html
 
Have a friend in Czech who still does her's personally, and the Jobo slot processor I have can be used for Ilfo/ciba, have no idea what the enlarger settings need to be.

Prints are a premium.

You also have the option of scanning and printing RA4, but the idea of Ciba was excellent quality and less steps?

Regards, John
 
I am a lab manager at our camera club in the Technics University of Tampere. We recently purchased an Ilfochrome-Kit and papers from Nordfoto, Germany.

So far I personally have just done one single print with help from my friend who was the "pioneer". Before this, we have been doing RA-4 for some time.

I wouldn't say Ilfochrome is too slow. The processing time is about double from RA-4, which means something like 3x2,5 minutes + some rinses in between. Determining exposure and filterings is easier than with RA-4, because Ilfochrome is less sensitive to changes on these settings.

You can get info about the papers and chemicals and their storage life from the Ilford forums. They wont last forever, but probably a lot more than the package says - if you get air out of the bottles etc.

Not a very cheap process, but when you really want to print good lides, you should be willing to pay the price.

Ilfochromes are said to be the best colour prints that there are. They will also last long time. Years is nothing - speak of hundred or a couple.

Quite contrasty, extremely glossy, great colours. Sensitive for scratches and fingerprints.
 
If you decide to do this yourself, get Photo Techniques Vol. 20, No. 2 for the article Reciprocity Failure in Ilfochrome - the techniques described really helped with mitigating colour crossovers. Bear in mind that only the polyester based 'paper' has good archival storage properties and that inkjet prints from good printers on proper paper are rated at 200+ years for dark storage.

A significant problem with all non-inkjet colour printing methiods apart from dye transfer is that contrast is linked to hue. Inkjet prints display much better colour fidelity, do not display colour crossovers and have better contrast than Ilfochrome. It is certainly possible to make fantastic Ilfochrome prints that do not noticeably display these problems, but it is really a medium that places a lot of demands on the printer.

There are a lot of lost processes that were longer lasting. These days, for colour, there are few reasons to use anything other than inkjet.

Marty
 
Last edited:
Hmm, so now Ilfochrome is not long-lasting? I think most of Ilfochrome-paper they sell now, are polyester-base. What I hear is up to 500 years and more.

It also has a definite own look in it, with the highly glossy material.

Is is also quite fun to print your own pictures in a darkroom, even thought RA-4 in trays is a bit more fun and easier/faster than Ilfochrome in a tank. Also, handcraft is different from sending scans to a lab to get them printed.
 
I used to do them long ago, when they were still called "Cibachromes," and the prints I have from that time have held up well. I liked printing the old Agfachrome 100 from the 1980s on Cibachrome, because it was a relatively low contrast film that brightened up a bit in Ciba and didn't require much manipulation in the way of dodging and burning or masking. Here's an example (the camera was a Pentacon 6, probably with the 50mm Flektagon), printed I guess in the early 1990s--

mcross.jpg


I think a lot of the contrast problems that people have with Cibachrome comes from the fact that they're using high contrast-high saturation films and printing them to a high contrast-high saturation medium. Among current films, I'd be shooting Astia to print to Ilfochrome.

Anyway, I'm thinking I should start doing it again and get some more of my slides down on Ilfochrome while I still can. I can print digitally as well, and I like the variety of paper surfaces I can have with inkjet, but a nicely done Ilfochrome is a beautiful thing.
 
I tried Astia and Sensia. On medium contrast polyester base. The results from Astia are much better in term of contrast. For most of the time I get consistent results without interfering with the exposure during enlarging. I don't know anything about masking.
 
>Hmm, so now Ilfochrome is not long-lasting? I think most of >Ilfochrome-paper they sell now, are polyester-base. What I hear is up to >500 years and more.

No, Ilfochromes are long lasting, and yes, all he currently available materials are on the polyester base. What I was trying to say (but obviously didn't say clearly enough) is that good inkjet prints are likely to last just as long, and that dye transfer and pigment (traditional, not inkjet) prints will last longer than Ilfochromes. Dye transfer and traditional pigment prints are way too arcane for any normal purpose, but along with inkjet prints they also free the printer from colour crossovers and hue/saturation/contrast all being tied up together.

>It also has a definite own look in it, with the highly glossy material.

Indeed - if you like the look it's hard to go past.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
If you decide to do this yourself, get Photo Techniques Vol. 20, No. 2 for the article Reciprocity Failure in Ilfochrome - the techniques described really helped with mitigating colour crossovers. Bear in mind that only the polyester based 'paper' has good archival storage properties and that inkjet prints from good printers on proper paper are rated at 200+ years for dark storage.

A significant problem with all non-inkjet colour printing methiods apart from dye transfer is that contrast is linked to hue. Inkjet prints display much better colour fidelity, do not display colour crossovers and have better contrast than Ilfochrome. It is certainly possible to make fantastic Ilfochrome prints that do not noticeably display these problems, but it is really a medium that places a lot of demands on the printer.

There are a lot of lost processes that were longer lasting. These days, for colour, there are few reasons to use anything other than inkjet.

Marty
Click to expand...
Hi Marty,

it's been a while since you posted this - do you happen to still have said article?

Thanks,
r.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom