From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Prints from Slides
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:00:25 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec15.162429.1510@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Hi
>I just processed some slides I had taken in VT (when
>the colors were changing) and they came out 
>stunningly (mostly primary colors blue, green
>and red which were really radiant).  I wanted to
>send some of these as prints as chrismas gifts so I
>took it over to the photo shop who printed directly
>from the slides for about a little over buck a print.  
>They suck.  They seem to be totally underexposed
>and the color is dingy and dark. Is this normal or
>did the shop not do a good job? Should I take them to
>a good place like Helix or Calumet?  I subscribe to
>Popular Photo and the prints they made from slides 
>are great. What should I do.  These are great photos
>and I would still like to make prints out of them.
>Thanks for any advice.

I post this article periodically when the subject of printing from slides 
comes up and it's been a while since I posted it.  Here's this quarter's
installment:

You have several options for printing from slides.  Each has its benefits
and its drawbacks.  In general, though there are several rules which apply:

*  You cannot compare pictures that you see in magazines which originated as
   slides with prints that you have printed from slides.  This is because the
   techniques are totally different.  Our use of the word 'print' as a verb
   describing both actions is completely misleading.  The two usages are
   more homonymous than they are synomymous. 

*  Unless you're willing to spend a lot of time, effort and/or money,
   "if you want slides then shoot slide film and if you want prints then
    shoot print film".

*  Regardless of technique, it may be difficult to get a print which really
   captures the beauty of the original slide.  Slides are viewed by passing
   light through them.  They will reveal a brilliance which you just can't
   get by bouncing light off a piece of paper.  They will also reveal a 
   range of tones greater than possible from paper and for the same reason.
   Thus, an ideal candidate for printing would rely more on subtle tonal
   gradations and/or colors than on bright highlights and dramatic contrasts.
   A favorite picture of mine is a slide taken of the sun shining through
   a sheet of falling water.  I've given up on printing it as the brilliance
   just isn't there in the prints.

*  You get what you pay for.  And when it comes to photography you will more
   often tend to pay more and less often tend to pay less.  (Trust me, I 
   know :-)

The options (of which I'm aware):

1.  Inexpensive inter-negative:
    This is what your local lab did.  Basically, they shoot a 35mm negative
    of your slide and then print it.  Usually you lose a lot of sharpness
    and often the contrast suffers - the look is either very "flat" or
    very "harsh".  Also, the color balance may be off - there can be a definite
    "tint" to the print.  I've been most unhappy with prints made this way.
    Never again.

2.  Expensive inter-negative:
    This is done in "custom color labs" frequented by pros.  The cost will be
    more - maybe $5-$10 to shoot the negative and probably $8-$15 to make an
    8x10 (in inches) print.  They should give you the inter-negative along
    with the print so that you can have more prints made if you desire.  The
    negative will be made on larger (probably 4x5 (in inches)) sheet film.  
    Results will be much better but there may still be some loss of sharpness 
    and contrast may not be as good as in the slide.  I've not been terribly
    thrilled with the results from this process (at least as it's been done
    by the lab I've frequented).  You should be able to find such a lab
    in the Yellow Pages.  Other posters have reported greater pleasure from 
    this technique than I.

3.  Direct printing (color reversal):
    In this process a paper that prints from positive originals will be used.
    The process is commonly called "R3000" or "R3".  No intervening negative.  
    Sharpness will be maximum.  Contrast may suffer - the pictures may become 
    too contrasty with shadow areas going all black and highlights too bright.
    If the original slide is of relatively low contrast then this system will 
    work well.  Pictures shot in direct sunlight will probably not be 
    reproduced well because of the contrast problem.  Both Kodak and Fuji make 
    papers which can be used for this process.  Cost will be around $15-$20.  
    Any city of any size should have one or more labs which will make this 
    type of print for you.  Look in the Yellow Pages.  I've not used this 
    technique.

4.  Direct printing (color reversal) II:
    There is another color reversal material which merits separate discussion:
    Cibachrome.  Made by Ilford, this is a unique material which offers very
    long life - minimum 50 years (compared with about 10 years for everything
    mentioned above - dyes fade/turn color).  Colors are of unequalled
    brilliance and depth.  Contrast is at least as much of a problem as with 
    the materials discussed in item #3 above.  Slides must be of very low
    contrast to reproduce well with this method. If they *do* reproduce well,
    they'll be beautiful!  Cost is around $20 for an 8x10.  Any city of any
    size should have one or more labs which will make this type of print
    for you, but your local "1-hour" or "drug store" type operation won't even
    know what you're talking about.  Look in the Yellow Pages.  This is my 
    preferred color printing technique to date and it can produce wonderful 
    results, albeit with lots of work at times (see below).

5.  Contrast masked Cibachrome:  
    This is a variation on item #4 above.  In this technique a b/w negative
    called a "contrast-reduction mask" is produced.  It's dark where the
    slide is bright and light where the slide is dark.  When sandwiched
    with the slide the effect is to reduce contrast in the overall image.
    This permits printing onto Cibachrome material without having 
    increased contrast ruin the image.  I've seen contrast masked Cibachromes
    which were absolutely breathtaking.  ('Course the degree of breath
    taken *does* depend on the quality of the original slide :-)  Finding
    someone to do this may be difficult.  Masking is commonly done in the
    commercial world but locating a lab which will do it is another story.
    You might try the Yellow Pages and try calling labs and asking for
    referals.  Cost will be steeper.  A local lab makes contrast masks for
    $20.  This brings the cost of the 8x10 Ciba up to $40.  But the mask
    is a one time charge as the mask can be used to produce any number of 
    prints and will be given to you when the original slide is returned to
    you.

    NOTE:  Since I originally wrote this, the low-contrast Cibachrome material 
    has become more readily available and more labs have it.  It can often
    be used instead of doing contrast masking and that will reduce costs.

6.  Dye-transfer:
    This is currently the ultimate in prints from slides.  The process is more
    akin to magazine printing techniques than it is to standard photographic
    prints.  It involves making what are called "separation negatives" - 
    3 black and white negatives which represent the three primary colors.  These
    are then used to produce three positive images which have texture such that
    they can soak up dyes.  These are then soaked in dyes and the dyes are
    transfered to the final piece of paper.  This technique will produce the
    most beautiful color imaginable but will cost in the neighborhood of 
    $400-$600.

Good luck!

Barry
--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and | 
| bjs@uts.ccc.amdahl.com      |  capture spectacular scenes than to take a   |
|                             |  spectacular picture of a really boring      |
|                             |  green pepper". - Anthony Tse                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well. (I.e.  My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.)           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo