To my knowledge, the finest print from slide reproduction is tri-color dye
transfer printing. Outraguously expensive, archival (mueseum) quality,
exquisite color fidelity. Very nice if you can 1) afford it and 2) find the
artist/craftsman to do it for you. Next best alternative is Ilfochrome
(Ciba) classic, custom hand-made using appropriate masking techniques. Just
expensive, archival and exquisite color. It is the only reason I keep my
chemical darkroom now. The Fuji and Kodak direct positive materials are
inferior in evary regard. I won't have them.
Digital reproduction is very good now. I have A4 (8x10) prints, digitally
produced from negatives, that are every bit as good as the chemical
processed print. They cost more. Archival properties are at best the same,
probably worse - its too early to really tell yet. They do not match a well
exposed slide properly printed to Ciba Classic materials. I honestly know
of nothing that *can* match a well made Ciba. Even the interneg route is
inferior (IMO) than a machine Ciba. Having said that, in the hands of a
genuine craftsman, an interneg print can be pretty danged good. Where are
you most willing to compromise - cost, color fidelity, contrast fidelity,
archival storage, availability of materials, service and skills, and so
on....??? I guess if there was only one answer we would have the range of
choices.
John P
PS Foxy - Always trust your instincts <g>
______________________________________
My Grandfather taught me to live by two rules. Rule #1: Don't tell folks
everything you know.
Foxy <foxcroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wondered:
>I needed to get some photos blown up. I when to our local camera store (2
hr
>drive), and they didn't do Cibachrome. But they did a Fuji process using
>digital scanning. Better than Cibrachrome I was told.
>
>I when in for a look. They showed me some samples. One was a photo of a
kid.
>I asked "Why isn't his hand in focus?" - the answer was camera shake. I
>should have gone with my instincts at this point.
>
>So I was going to get two copies of two slides. I came back. These turned
>out great I was told. I had a look. The original slide of penguins was
razor
>sharp. The quills of their feathers stood out against the out of focus
>background. In the digital picture it was all blurry, so the drama of the
>shot was greatly reduced. They said the printer printed at 400 dpi, but I
>could see "grain" not on the K64 slide.
>
>So the debate starts. They grab a lupe from the shelf to look at the slide.
>It looks great. "I'll grab a bigger lupe" he says, and grabs a high mag low
>quality thing. "No" I say. "I don't think so" So we put the slide on the
>projector. "Not too sharp" says the shop guy, while the screen is moving.
>"Try it on the pro lupe downstairs" I say.
>
>Finally, they agree the sharpness is awful. So they reprint. It is better,
>but not a direct print quality. So I take two copies of one photo
>(acceptable, but not great) and leave the others. And pay accordingly.
>
>The lesson? Stick with my instincts. Go with what I know is right.
>
>Foxy
>
>P.S. Robert, I don't think I'll get in the photo in in time. Doris, sorry
>but I'll send you one of these. It'll be too long before another trip.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|