Digital chromogenic print: is it really that good?

[Kevan]

So..C prints...I saw recently at a museum exhibit a number of images printed in this method and I got to thinking this might just be the direction I need to go with some of my own images. I was pretty much dazzled by how good those images were presented. I had professionally printed, using inkjet, the following image and frankly I'm a bit disappointed. It was bright, but not "pop!" bright. I know that viewing an image on paper versus a monitor is a different experience, but I want to try closing that margin and I'm thinking going C print might deliver a better pop. I understand it will likely cost more, but do you folk think it's worth the try? Anyone with such experience, any suggestions as to what I should ask for in processing and paper type?




Thanks

[Kevan]

Anyone?

[charro callado]

I have no idea, but I'm interested in an answer too.

[Kevan]

O-kay...let me rephrase the question then. Who here has ever printed their work using chromogenic printing? What did you think of the results? Are there variables in the process people should be aware of that makes a difference to the image?

Charro and I are curious.

[tonylong]

I'm thinking that since the process originated in the film era and since digital imaging and inkjet technology have been so "married", especially on the level of the consumer, people with knowledge about this in any technical sense are liable to be scarce! I know that some print labs use "older" printing technology but I don't know if that involves the "chromogenic" process or not!

[Wilt]

Having made C prints and R prints in my own darkroom, I can tell you that there is considerable difference in 'zap' even in the alternatives. I loved the Ilfochrome (a.k.a. Cibachrome) R prints for certain shots taken with certain reversal films, but I also was familar with its limitations. I preferred type C prints over type R prints, particularly for portraiture. But for saturated colors, type R is better than type C, and the Ilfochrome is known for its intense saturated colors (which is why it was not good for portraits). Dye transfer prints, now exceeding rare to find anyone still doing this, are the epitome of color print quality.

Personally, I prefer the photographic (light sensitive) process prints like Fuji Crystal over inkjet prints. It avoids metamerism and the 'layering' of black pigment on the surface of the paper.

[tonylong]

Wilt, are you saying that you would prefer the "photographic (light sensitive) process prints" over the "chromogenic" prints as well?

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by tonylong

Wilt, are you saying that you would prefer the "photographic (light sensitive) process prints" over the "chromogenic" prints as well?

Chromogenic prints are light sensitive process prints! Films are chromagenic, as well as light sensitive photographic papers. Chromogenic film and paper contain one or many layers of silver halide emulsion, along with dye couplers which are capable of forming visible dyes in combination with processing chemistry. Both C-41 and RA-4 are chromagenic processes.

Agfa somewhat confused the world by referring to their 'black and white' film which could be processed in C-41 chemistry as 'chromagenic'; what made it different was simply its ability to use C-41 color chemistry for a monochromatic photo...all the color negs and reversal films and papers were chromagenic as well, for color photos.

[tonylong]

Ah, OK, so basically Kevin is asking about "photographic (light sensitive) process prints" over inkjet printing...?

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by tonylong

Ah, OK, so basically Kevin is asking about "photographic (light sensitive) process prints" over inkjet printing...?

That is MY interpretation (and which is why I made the initial comment about the zing of different processes and papers being different even among chromagenic alternatives)...not sure if he has some other concept in mind, and applied the general label 'chromagenic' to some other specific concept.

[Kevan]

Thanks Wilt and Tony. That's exactly what i'm referring to..the "light sensitive" process of printing. Like everything else, I'm sure there would be variables even in terms of mentioning chromogenic and I think...if I understand Wilt correctly (I'll have to reread the explanation a couple more times.lol!), That type R processing might be better suited for the image above.

Fortunately, I'm close to NYC where I can find such processors, but it's for dang-sure you're not going to find these guys just anywhere.

Thanks for the response and insight.

K

[Wilt]

It is not so hard to find photographic print makers who use conventional light sensitive paper, not inkjet...Costco, for example!

[woos]

Originally Posted by Kevan

So..C prints...I saw recently at a museum exhibit a number of images printed in this method and I got to thinking this might just be the direction I need to go with some of my own images. I was pretty much dazzled by how good those images were presented. I had professionally printed, using inkjet, the following image and frankly I'm a bit disappointed. It was bright, but not "pop!" bright. I know that viewing an image on paper versus a monitor is a different experience, but I want to try closing that margin and I'm thinking going C print might deliver a better pop. I understand it will likely cost more, but do you folk think it's worth the try? Anyone with such experience, any suggestions as to what I should ask for in processing and paper type?
Thanks

IMHO inkjet is the best possible, other than perhaps traditional black and white. For inkjet, a lot depends on the paper used. The paper has a large effect on perceived saturation, on d-max, contrast, etc. Look for paper with a bright white point, high d-max, and a more glossy surface, if you want "pop".

[woos]

Originally Posted by Wilt

It is not so hard to find photographic print makers who use conventional light sensitive paper, not inkjet...Costco, for example!

The prints from the fuji frontier / noritsu wetlabs aren't superior to good inkjet prints. HOWEVER, the prints from the frontier and noritsu wetlabs are indeed superior to the inkjet based "minilab" systems you might find at some locations (Fuji frontier DL430/DL600 Noritsu D701/D100something, etc) though, that's for sure!!!

Reason being that those inkjet based "minilab" systems only have 4 or 5 inks and are very low resolution, and prioritize speed by far over all else, like quality. (You can set the Fuji DL systems for resolution/quality priority, but it's still super low rez looking). Looks better than dye-sub though that's for sure.

[Kevan]

I had thought about turning to such printers such as these:

http://www.laumont.com/services/Printing.html

http://www.kenallenstudios.com/servicesPpricelist.html

Thoughts?

I do have a local guy who is very attentive to my concerns and tries his best to assist me. We talk about particular images and what I'm hoping to achieve. He does have clients that supply their own paper, they want him to use, and maybe that's what I should be doing too. He has a large inkjet printer, the specifics I don't have on the top of my head right now.

I tried initially a bigger more "pro" shop near me, but the level of attention was poor.