hope@gatech.UUCP (06/29/83)
I have used LaserColor labs (Ft. Lauderdale FLA) to make prints from slides,
and the results are spectacular. They use an interesting process which
includes making a negative of the slide using a laser, instead of light.
[For more info, write to them. They'll send you the whole packet of info.]
The smallest print available is 8 x 10 (or 7 x 11, if you want full-frame
reproduction.) Price-> For a mounted (on stiff, white board) 7 x 11 print
it comes to about 20 bucks, including UPS mail. That's not bad, expecially
since the print is very well protected. Once again, the quality is excellent.
[Of course, it always helps to have a good quality slide...]
Happy clicking!
Theodore (Ted the Hopeless) Hope
CSNet hope@gatech
ARPA hope.gatech@UDEL-RELAY
UUCP gatech!hope
...!allegra!gatech!hope
...!decvax!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!hopehope@gatech.UUCP (06/30/83)
I recently posted an article describing LaserColor Lab's method of slide
printing, and misleadingly mentioned "uses laser instead of light" (or
something like that.) I apologize for that stupid statement. What I REALLY
meant, was "uses laser light instead of tungsten light." Also, I have received
responses asking about the address of this place. I can't remember off-hand,
but they advertise in all the major photo magazines. I'll post it ASAP.
Theodore (Ted the Hopeless (yes, I know what a laser is)) Hope
CSNet hope@gatech
ARPA hope.gatech@UDEL-RELAY
UUCP gatech!hope
...!allegra!gatech!hope
...!decvax!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!hopetomb@tekecs.UUCP (Tom Beach) (10/22/85)
> > Reversal color print processes are not as good as negative print > > processes. MY OPINION: Don't bother to flame if you disagree! > > Ever hear of Cibachrome? The results are luminous. Furthermore the > dye stability is such that it won't fade when hung in a brightly > lit room. It is ONLY a positive-to-positive process, and VERY > expensive. Sigh! Yep, I'm familiar with the older Cibachrome (not the supposedly "new and improved" stuff though. :-) I stand by my previous statement. Now Cibachrome has higly saturated and **VERY** intense colors, and when used with properly selected slides -- GEE WHIZ GOLLY WOW!!!! On the other hand, contrast increases and if your slide is already pushing contrast to the limit more of the subtle whites lose detail and/or more of the subtle blacks lose detail. I was also disappointed with Cibachrome rendition of scenes which tended to be mostly misty pastels, characteristic of nature photos taken in the Pacific Northwest. I agree completely with your assesment of the importance of dye stability and agree that Ciba may be unexcelled in this area. Unfortunately my opinion remains that for my work at least, I still prefer internegatives and standard print materials. -- Tom Beach email: ..tektronix!tekecs!tomb "The past is another country; they do things differently there."
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (10/23/85)
In article <5767@tekecs.UUCP> tomb@tekecs.UUCP (Tom Beach) writes: >I agree completely with your assesment of the importance of dye stability >and agree that Ciba may be unexcelled in this area. Unfortunately my >opinion remains that for my work at least, I still prefer internegatives >and standard print materials. I've spoken of this before, so I'll be brief. Consider Ektachrome 22 paper as a pretty good compromise for prints from slides. First there was Kodak 2203 paper, made in USA, and Ektachrome 14, made in France by Kodak Pathe/France. For some years, the Ektachrome 14 was not available in USA. Then, Ektachrome 22 replaced Ektachrome 14. Allegedly better colors and obviously lower contrast. Published report: In Darkroom Techniques, a bimonthly mag published in Chicago, Preston Seaton (I think) published an article comparing the color rendition of the same slide using 2203, 14, 22, and the new Ciba. The 22 result was in his opinion clearly the best. Of course, you just can't confirm this by looking at the magazine reproductions. Personal experience: This was in both cases with 2203, which is definitely inferior to 22. First, while I was still using color negs and printing from them, and was just starting to print slides directly, I had an interneg made from a slide and compared the best print I could do from it to a direct reversal print. The latter was far better. The interneg was made by Kodak. Second, a friend of mine, using a Mamiya with interchangeable backs, took a number of pictures both on Ektachrome and on color neg film. He is very experienced at printing from negs. We compared his best prints to prints I made from his Ektachrome transparencies on 2203. The 2203 was the winner. He concluded that in future, he would use negs only for portrait work, where he wanted subdued colors. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner