A Comparison of Ilfochrome and Fuji type 35 papers
Dex Wesson
Background: I have been doing Ilfochromes of Fuji Velvia chromes for
about 6 years. I've used a variety of Ilford papers (CPM.44M, CPS.1K
and CLM.1K) and both chemistries (P-3 and P-30) before settling on
CPS.1K in P-3 with silver masking. I've done a few hundred prints
with Ilfochrome and have a ongoing love/hate relationship with it. By
no means an expert, but learning.
Ilfochrome is known for its slow speed (long exposures), high contrast,
saturated colors, color crossovers, archival qualities, and expensive
cost. I have heard good things about the Fuji type 35 Super Glossy
paper but, no one has published any comparisons, so I decide to do
my own testing. Since I have been lurking here for many years,
learning much, I decided that I should share what I found out. Note
that I did received a box of paper from Fuji for testing (free;), all other
supplies were at my cost.
The testing was done with Fuji type 35 Glossy (not the SG ;(),
Ilfochrome CPS.1K paper, Kodak R-3000 chemistry, Ilford P-3
chemistry, all processed with a Jobo CPP-2. All density
measurements were done with a Eseco TRC-60 Speedmaster
densitometer off the enlarger and a Bessler PM1-A on the enlarger.
Objective: To compare: speed (exposure/development), contrast,
color rendition, and costs. Archival qualities are generally believed to
be better for Ilfochrome but I have no methods to test it. Since both
papers I am interested in, are on a dimensionally stable polyester
base rather than paper as in RC prints, the only longevity question is
dyes. I assume I won't be around long enough to tell the difference.
Method: First I photographed a Macbeth color chart using outdoor 12
noon light on 4x5 Velvia. This was processed normally in the CPP-2
with Kodak 6 step E6. This chrome and a 4x5 Stouffer "Transmission
Projection Step Wedge" were used for printing.
Step one was to print the chrome of the Macbeth chart for neutral
density at the gray swatch closest to a "18% gray" density. This was
done to get a comparison of the color rendition on both materials of
the color swatches on the Macbeth chart. While the Macbeth gray
scale is interesting, it's not diverse enough for testing.
Step two was to print the Stouffer step wedge. I picked a particular
step that approached the same density as the above gray swatch .
That step was used to obtain a neutral print (Cyan = Magenta = Yellow
density). Note that the step wedge has steps of .15 units of density
(about 1/2 stop) and being a silver wedge, its completely neutral - no
color.
Results:
Exposure speed: On my setup, a Bessler 4x5 VXL with the universal
color head, I have 750 watts of halogen light, which is about one stop
more intensity than most enlargers. Ilfochrome uses all that and
more, especially when doing masking which is almost a prerequisite
with Velvia. The standard exposure was about F16 at 30 seconds
with Ilfochrome and F45 at 16 seconds using Fuji type 35. This gives
the Fuji paper about 3-4 stops speed advantage. I almost need to add
some neutral density just to do burning and dodging with the Fuji
paper.
Developing speed:
Ilfochrome: @ 30c Fuji @ 34c
pre-rinse 0:30 sec 0:30 sec
1-st dev - 1:50
developer 2:45 -
rinse 0:30 3 x 0:30
color dev - 3:45
bleach 2:45 -
rinse 0:30 2 x 0:30
blfix - 2:45
fix 2:45 -
rinse 2 x 0:30 2 x 0:30
wash 4:00 4:00
dry * 5:00 2:00
total 19:45 18:20
* a heat gun was used for drying both papers. Ilfochrome has a red
cast until dry, Fuji has a gray cast till dry.
While both have the same number of chemical steps (3), the R-3000
additional rinse's and the large quantities of water (3-4 x processing
amounts) for the Fuji are more difficult,. R-3000 chemistries other
than Kodak's may be easier.
I used 70ml per 8x10 of R-3000 as per Kodak instructions.
Unfortunately Kodak discourages mixing partial volumes. For the
Ilfochrome I used 110 ml per 8x10. Slightly less than eluded to by
Ilford. Ilford gives instructions for mixing partial amounts which are
very welcome. I don't use P30 for Ilfochrome due to it's added
expense in a total loss system and other well known problems I don't
recommend reuse unless, of course, you like every print to be
different. Generally the Ilfochrome process is more convenient - see
costs below.
Contrast: I used the prints of the Stouffer step wedge for this.
Generally I printed on each paper to just get a discernible difference in
steps 1 and 2 (.15 and .30 density) while maintaining neutrality at the
step that was approximately 18% gray. I then read each print for
white, cyan, magenta, and yellow. The ideal print would have been
neutral across the colors and follow the steps wedge's density.
Unfortunately that paper doesn't exist. Plotting the data in Excel
(available on request) I determined that both papers enter the straight
line portion of the curve at about step 2 (.3 density).
The Ilfochrome hits the shoulder about step 14 (2.00) for about 6 stops
of range. The Ilfochrome crosses the ideal curve at about step 5 1/2
and rapidly goes above it. This gives the Ilfochrome much deeper
shadows much faster.
The Fuji hits the shoulder at about step 15 (2.15) for about 6 1/2 stops
of range and crossed the ideal curve at about step 9 1/2 and keeps
very close to the ideal curve.
While both papers are comparable for dynamic range, the Fuji paper
has a much smoother dynamic range and does not block up the
shadows as bad. this is visually verifiable too. You will still need to do
masking for high contrast images with both papers, but I believe the
Fiji will require less `strength' in the masking, although this has not
been verified yet. I did do a few straight prints with the Fuji of various
chromes, and from experience only, I think it gave me better images
than straight prints from Ilfochrome. I didn't do any Ilfochrome ones,
due to cost for throwaway images since I use masking for all my
prints.
Color rendition: Anyone who has worked with Ilfochrome, struggling to
reproduce colors from a chrome, will recognize my frustration. In my
early days (pre masking and very much a neophyte) I went through 15
sheets of paper trying to print one image. I never was able to do it.
Ilfochrome (like all other papers) does not print each color (CMY)
faithfully across the entire density range. At some densities the cyan,
magenta, or yellow may start to fall off, away from the ideal rendition
Ilfochrome also has a reciprocity problem. As exposures get longer,
the colors deviate requiring different filtration. This can be a real
frustration when burning in areas for a long time which requires
changing intensity AND color filtration. Ilford's documentation
mentions this but is very unspecific on how much filtration is needed
for a specific time. Most printers I know avoid exposures above 60
seconds at all costs. This means you have to get out of the prime
area for you enlarging lens to get more light. Not too bad on 4x5 but a
real killer on 35 mm. Enough ranting.
For this comparison I used the Macbeth chart for a visual comparison
of the color patches on both prints to the original chart. Note that
exact reproduction is not possible and meaningless so this is kind of a
`seat of your pants' comparison. You are in the second generation of
the image and must take into account the Velvia's reproduction
capabilities too. All were viewed under a 5500 K light source.
The Ilfochrome was very good. High saturation and pleasing colors,
as expected. The gray scale on the chart showed slight color shifts in
high and low density patches but this is more relevant with the step
wedge prints.
The Fuji was almost as good. Note that when I received the paper
and found it was not the super glossy surface (polyester base) I asked
for, I knew I would be comparing two different types of apples. The
Fuji rep checked with the factory and assured me that the emulsion
was the same on both papers but the SG paper would have more
apparent saturation and contrast due to the base. This is one of the
reasons I use the CPS.1K Ilford paper. Not withstanding, the plain
Fuji glossy paper did very well in comparison with Ilfochrome.
So far its a wash between papers. When charting the CMY values of
both step wedge prints, the differences really show up. The
Ilfochromes magenta and yellow rise above the ideal curve and stay
there until D-Max. Unfortunately the cyan recrosses the ideal curve at
step 10 and shoulders off. This leads to Ilfochrome's dreaded `purple'
shadows. This really limits the usable contrast range to about 4 stops,
unless you like off color shadows. This could be a function of my print
time, but short of a search light, I'm max'ed out for light sources. The
only solution I can see to this is color contrast masking but my cash
flow, dedication and pin registration equipment is not up to it.
The Fuji, on the other hand, really shines here. All the CMY curves
are really close together and close to the ideal curve through the entire
range to D-Max. This means the entire 6 1/2 stops are usable.
Both papers show light color casts in the lower density areas since
neither follow the ideal curve exactly.. The Ilfochrome tending
towards cyan and the Fuji towards minus cyan. The average deviation
of CMY over the usable dynamic range for Fuji being .03 density units
and Ilfochrome .07. Fuji win's this one.
Cost: I live in a large metro area (Mpls - St. Paul MN, USA) but talking
chrome printing around here leads to glazed over sales droid eyes.
For that reason B&H in New York is my prime source. Calculating the
cost of paper and chemistry and ignoring shipping, it runs $2.23 for an
Ilfochrome 8x10 in CPS.1K and $1.98 for Fuji SG Super Deluxe - a
wash considering all the other effort to print a good image.
Preliminary Conclusions: I feel the Fuji paper is well worth further
explorations. It's neutral color range will surly help in printing some
previously unprintable images. The increased speed and usable
range will help in some images that previously needed such a `heavy'
mask that the resulting image was oversharp and flat. Ilfochrome (or
to your customers, Cibachrome) has such a good name that if you sell
to the public, the name itself sells. This can be very important. I won't
give up on Ilfochrome, but I'm adding Fuji to the stable soon.
Hope this helps someone, sorry its so long.
dex
--
"If there is a God, the Cardinal de Richlieu will have much to answer for. If
not...well, he had a successful life."-Pope Urban VIII
Plz remove nospam to reply
Dex Wesson
In article <19971029140...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mvpgr...@aol.com
says...
>
>Dex-
>Nice job. Thanks for taking the time to share your practical experience. As an
> Ilfochrome user, I have often wondered about alternatives to it. You were
> using Ilfochrome Classic (vs. Deluxe), right?
>mvp
Thanks, Yes, I compared it to CPS.1K - the classic normal contrast.
dex
Brad Isley
On 29 Oct 1997 03:22:43 GMT, dwe...@tc.umn.edu (Dex Wesson) wrote:
Never tried Ilfochrome due to the infamous crossover problems and
cost. Decided to try Fuji after some homework.
>* a heat gun was used for drying both papers. Ilfochrome has a red
>cast until dry, Fuji has a gray cast till dry.
Fuji looks kinda brown to me when wet. Is it just me? :-)
>While both have the same number of chemical steps (3), the R-3000
>additional rinse's and the large quantities of water (3-4 x processing
>amounts) for the Fuji are more difficult,. R-3000 chemistries other
>than Kodak's may be easier.
>
>I used 70ml per 8x10 of R-3000 as per Kodak instructions.
>Unfortunately Kodak discourages mixing partial volumes.
I have been using Photocolor Chrome-'R' developer and either Kodak's
R-3000 blix or Photocolor's universal blix. Then Photocolor devs
come with partial mixing directions and 1/2 strength directions
which takes more time but decreases cost.
...[deletia]...
>Cost: I live in a large metro area (Mpls - St. Paul MN, USA) but talking
>chrome printing around here leads to glazed over sales droid eyes.
>For that reason B&H in New York is my prime source. Calculating the
>cost of paper and chemistry and ignoring shipping, it runs $2.23 for an
>Ilfochrome 8x10 in CPS.1K and $1.98 for Fuji SG Super Deluxe - a
>wash considering all the other effort to print a good image.
If you want to reduce contrast, consider using Photocolor's chemistry
(or maybe even Kodak's) at a dilution of 1:1 (or more?) with increases
in exposure. I don't have a densitometer, so I can't measure what's
going on. I also don't have pin registration gear, so I don't make
masks. My attempts at reducing contrast helped a bit. Photocolor
says their developers can be used at 1:1 with double the time. I
tried this to save cost as well as doubling the exposure (with
standard time) to reduce contrast. To speed up things a bit, I
process R-3000 at 40C. Still, it takes about 12 minutes to run a drum
through.
My material (paper and chemistry) cost for an 8x10 is about $1.35
using the 1/2 strength developers 1-shot and using normal strength
blix twice.
This information is great. I appreciate it - especially the data you
shared from your densitometer.
lahowards
Good article, thanks for the information! I have considered Fuji type
35 paper but cannot find it in boxes less than 100 sheets. I can't get
into the darkroom as often as I would like so it would take awhile to
use 100 sheets. Can it be purchased in quantities of less than 100
sheets? If not, how long would it last if properly stored? How should
one store it?
Thanks,
Steve Howard
laho...@prodigy.net
Steven H Silberg
I'm trying to follow this thread, but i am unfamiliar with the term "Color
Crossover" could someone please define it for me.
Thanks
--
**************************************************************************
* Steven....@mvs.udel.edu * Library Conservation Assistant *
* si...@udel.edu * University of Delaware *
**************************************************************************
Brad Isley
Simply put, if you print a slide of various densities of neutral grey
and get a perfect color balance on the middle density grey, the denser
greys will have a color cast and the lighter greys will have a cast of
the opposite color. The cast is more or less noticable depending on
the subject. If I remember correctly, Ilfochrome tends to go blue in
the dense areas and yellow in the lighter areas.
The word "crossover" refers a plot of density vs. log exposure for the
three primaries in which one line "crosses" another, resulting in one
color cast in dense areas and the opposite color in the highlights.
Ideally, all three lines should be parallel.
Take our blue/yellow example for Ilfochrome.
Let's make 2 assumptions:
1) Assuming I got it right and the dense areas go blue and the
highlights go yellow; and
2) Assuming Ilfochrome uses blue, red, and green color dyes
(I really am guessing here, but it works as an example)
You can plot the density (y axis) of these three primaries over log
exposure (x axis). Since we're working with reversal material, the
lines will start on the left at low exposures with high density and
slope downward to the right to low densities with increasing exposure.
The red and green plots run parallel to each other. The blue line
holds high further to the right and runs down steeper than the other
two. Blue stays above the red and green on the low exposure areas,
causing the blue shadows. Then as we approach the middle grey
density, it crosses over red and green (it has to, or middle grey will
not be grey). As we move to more exposure giving densities lighter
than middle grey, blue dives below red and green, giving yellow
highlights.
hope I came close and this isn't too confusing.
On 5 Nov 1997 10:58:03 -0500, si...@copland.udel.edu (Steven H
Barry Sherman
Brad Isley <b...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Simply put, if you print a slide of various densities of neutral grey
>and get a perfect color balance on the middle density grey, the denser
>greys will have a color cast and the lighter greys will have a cast of
>the opposite color. The cast is more or less noticable depending on
>the subject. If I remember correctly, Ilfochrome tends to go blue in
>the dense areas and yellow in the lighter areas.
[ deleted excellent discussion of the sensitometric origin of the
term "cross-over" ]
The most frustrating and maddening manifestation of this
phenomenon is that color balance will shift as you change
exposure. That's not too terrible, though, as once you get
the exposure right you can tweak the color and be done
with it. Typically, as I'm doing test prints to get the
exposure down, I'm also tweaking the color so that I approach
the right exposure at about the same time that I'm approaching
the best color balance. I don't usually see a really great
problem in the highlights and shadows when dodging and
burning are not required. Not usually enough to be
objectionable to me.
But what can just about drive me to distraction is the effect
when you dodge and burn Ilfochrome.
If you dodge back those puffy white clouds because they're
too light (remember - this is a direct positive process so
you dodge to darken and burn to lighten) they wind up looking
a really ugly dingy yellow-brown. Then when you burn the
shadows they go blue.
Because of this, if a transparency requires lots of
manipulating in printing, frequently true because of the
short scale of Ilfochrome papers relative to the possible
scale of the a transparency, you have to change filtration
while manipulating to cancel out the color shifts.
This is not too difficult when burning: you just dial in
more yellow before starting the burn and you quickly get a
feel for how much yellow to add to cancel out the blue shift.
(And, hopefully, you remember to reset the "base filter
pack" before exposing the next sheet of paper. :-)
But when you dodge back those clouds you're left with a
yellow tinge and how to fix it? Disgustingly enough, about
the only approach is to dodge them back more than is
needed, leaving them even more yellow. Then you burn them
with a bunch of blue to counteract the yellow.
Then you go and pour yourself a really stiff drink and
contemplate the pleasures of working with a paper which
doesn't exhibit cross-over, such as Fujichrome or (gasp
in horror) even RA4 material. :-)
Silver masking ameliorates the situation considerably.
By, effectively, reducing the scale of the transparency
you reduce the amount of manipulations required to fit
it on the paper. But it's passing rare that I don't have
to dodge or burn a print so it's passing rare that I
don't have to deal with those !@#$$#@$@#$!@!@ color
shifts.
Whenever possible I prefer to use Fujichrome and avoid
the problem altogether. Unfortunately, more than 50%
of my prints seem to work better with the greater
color saturation and/or brilliance of Ilfochrome and
I wind up mixing lots of those stiff drinks. :-)
Barry
--
Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | Art does not reproduce what we see.
b...@oes.amdahl.com | It makes us see. -- Paul Klee
My opinions, not Amdahl's |
John Sparks
Barry Sherman (b...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
>But when you dodge back those clouds you're left with a
>yellow tinge and how to fix it? Disgustingly enough, about
>the only approach is to dodge them back more than is
>needed, leaving them even more yellow. Then you burn them
>with a bunch of blue to counteract the yellow.
Have you ever tried mounting a filter to your dodging wand and use the
filter instead of an opaque dodger when dodging? I guess you would use
a blue filter (maybe buy a pack of 3x3 CP filters sold by Ilford for
Ilfochrome and cut them up). You might need some neutral density in
addition to the colored filter and would need to dodge longer to get the
same effect. We used to do this sometimes in the lab where I used to
work for correcting color casts in architectual interiors caused by
different bulb types that we hadn't quite corrected right when we made
the photograph (these were EP2 prints but it should work for anything).
John Sparks