Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Cibachrome from digital file  (Read 51754 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2009, 06:49:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DanielStone
manufacturing microchips is a VERY DIRTY process, with lots of heavy metals as a side-effect.

The obvious difference is that this pollution is only generated once, when the computer is manufactured, while with Cibachromes the pollution is generated every time a print is made. Given that a computer can process and generate tens of thousands of prints in its lifetime, the environmental impact of the computer's manufacture is insignificant compared to the environmental impact of the printing process.
Logged

tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2009, 08:45:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DanielStone
funny how people are like "film is damaging to the environment, lets kill it" and "long live computers!"

watch ed burtynsky's film "manufactured landscapes" and it will hopefully change your mind on that fact. besides, you can pretty much neutralize the ilfochrome chem's when you poor them down the drain. I don't believe that labs do that though, they might have to have it carted off site by a chemical-disposal company.

manufacturing microchips is a VERY DIRTY process, with lots of heavy metals as a side-effect. just like shooting guns at a firing range, too much lead in the ground kills the animals. that's why we can't use lead bullets anymore, just copper jacketed HP's .

not trying to argue, but I do wish that people would realize that the best way to test the archivability of somethings is to just wait. we now know that platinum prints made in the 1890s are just fine when stored properly.

also, if people were to properly light their framed prints, they would know that putting ANY print on a wall that gets raw window sunlight will fade very quickly. obviously some processes faster than others, but nothings perfect...

just my .02c

-Dan


Surely not everything can be green.  But for gods sake why produce something that by the very nature of its production has zero use.  It takes chemicals to produce it, to then make the print, by the very nature of it fades quickly and is degenerative dyes so which means that it fades very quickly in the light and the dark.  Oh by the way every print made this way hurts the color photographic print market in general.   So wake up Misses Bueller, it also looks fake where as Pigment print really have no negatives.

By the way platinum photos and silver gelatins fade because chemicals in the water that no one new about preventing the prints from fixing properly....

So lets wake up, if Black and white photographs all faded at the rate of cibachrome we wouldn't see any of them today and THEY WOULD'NT HAVE ANY VALUE.  AND BY THE WAY PIGMENT PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT GICLEE'S.  I didn't spend all these years to marketing pigment photographs to the world to have it destroyed by some johnny come lately.  Everyone needs to get on the same page, or we will suffer in the long run.  Tim

Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2010, 12:37:55 PM »
ReplyReply

are you kidding?

i'm a vc working in clean tech. the negative environmental effects from chip manufacturing and disposal have been a huge priority for us since 2001 (check the link below). combine the global figures for people using/replacing digital technology (and it's short shelf life) and bingo. water contamination from chip disposal sites is a MAJOR problem.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...407dc16fea94b0b

darkroom color chemistry sure has its flaws, but please read up before making statements like the one below. no offense, but your claim is simply not true.

watch "manufactured landscapes"...those facts are real.  the truth ain't pretty, friend.



Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
The obvious difference is that this pollution is only generated once, when the computer is manufactured, while with Cibachromes the pollution is generated every time a print is made. Given that a computer can process and generate tens of thousands of prints in its lifetime, the environmental impact of the computer's manufacture is insignificant compared to the environmental impact of the printing process.
Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2010, 07:45:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I think he has thought wisely.  I think you maybe one of those who has invested a large some of money in Cibachromes that are poorly printed and flushed chemicals and heavy metals down the drain in  both residential areas and commercial areas.

At least making chips can be controlled and cleaned while making prints and just dumping the chemicals and heavy metals into the local water system with no controls.

So please don't tell me this crap.  Getting rid of film processing and chemically based prints that have virtually no life expectancy at all, is better?  Or let's go back to polaroids.  

I helped invent the first green pigment printing process and helped invent pigment inkjet.  

P.S.  I do not receive any money for any of the inventions, just the satisfaction of moving photography down the right path.

There is no excuse to make a cibachrome,  they are fake looking with poor dynamic range, color replication and can never ever look as good as a pigment print.  So yes you should get your facts right.

Tell me one way that cibachrome is better in anyway than pigment print.  Just one.  Because you can't.  Tim Wolcott

Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2010, 10:25:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tim wolcott
Tell me one way that cibachrome is better in anyway than pigment print.  Just one.  Because you can't.  Tim Wolcott
It is better at poisoning the planet.  If, you know, that's your goal and all.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 10:25:40 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2010, 11:50:01 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a good one Dark Penguin.  T
Logged
alangubbay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2010, 04:13:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tim wolcott
I think he has thought wisely.  I think you maybe one of those who has invested a large some of money in Cibachromes that are poorly printed and flushed chemicals and heavy metals down the drain in  both residential areas and commercial areas.

At least making chips can be controlled and cleaned while making prints and just dumping the chemicals and heavy metals into the local water system with no controls.

So please don't tell me this crap.  Getting rid of film processing and chemically based prints that have virtually no life expectancy at all, is better?  Or let's go back to polaroids.  

I helped invent the first green pigment printing process and helped invent pigment inkjet.  

P.S.  I do not receive any money for any of the inventions, just the satisfaction of moving photography down the right path.

There is no excuse to make a cibachrome,  they are fake looking with poor dynamic range, color replication and can never ever look as good as a pigment print.  So yes you should get your facts right.

Tell me one way that cibachrome is better in anyway than pigment print.  Just one.  Because you can't.  Tim Wolcott
Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2010, 01:37:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tim wolcott
So please don't tell me this crap...So yes you should get your facts right...Because you can't."  Tim Wolcott

tim,

as an "inventor" who does "not receive any money for any of the inventions" i take your comments with a grain or two of salt.

i am not really surprised that most are (1) very ill-informed as to the global impact of digital technology and (2) have no desire whatsoever to consider the ramifications of anything they do or say. that said, such superciliousness is truly gaudy and vainglorious.

i've certainly been struggling with this tension (my use of technology, whether analog or digital, and desire to act responsibly towards our environment of limited resources) for some time. recall plato's sentiment: "the unexamined life is not worth living."

i'm not going to post a text that most will not even bother to read but for those interested in an informative, accessible article on the footprint of digital technology:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/emb...technology.html

cheers

Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2010, 05:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

You can take it with as many grains of salt you can carry.  My reputation is above reproach.  Most anyone who reads my threads will say that.  

The point of the article is educate everyone to do it the right way.  Any other way than this will hurt the whole photographic industry in the long run.

I believe Michael, John Paul and many many others will back my reputation up.

I have been inventing and creating new ways of printing and photographic equipment for the 19 years.
Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2010, 06:17:09 PM »
ReplyReply

"my reputation is above reproach"

this sort of arrogance is simply hilarious, tim. this thread, mind you, isn't about your reputation.

in any forum, accurate and unbiased information, which presents a multitude of perspectives, is king.




Quote from: tim wolcott
You can take it with as many grains of salt you can carry.  My reputation is above reproach.  Most anyone who reads my threads will say that.  

The point of the article is educate everyone to do it the right way.  Any other way than this will hurt the whole photographic industry in the long run.

I believe Michael, John Paul and many many others will back my reputation up.

I have been inventing and creating new ways of printing and photographic equipment for the 19 years.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 06:18:08 PM by harlemshooter » Logged
JamiePeters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2010, 12:01:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like the facts have been presented and this Harlem guy does not like what's being told to him as a fact.  I guess maybe he like ciba's and has an investment in the ciba prints.  This is usually why anyone would back up to an out dated horrible looking process.  When everyone knows including galleries and museums that this process is not worth the paper printed on.

Either that or he just has to argue about everything.  Sounds like he sits there with dictionary looking for big words to use.  

I'm beginning to think this place is not worth your time Tim.    JP
Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2010, 12:10:15 AM »
ReplyReply

"Sounds like the facts have been presented"

What you mean to say is staunch opinion. I could care less about ciba prints, no interest in them whatsoever. If you'd read my posts you'd realize the facts I'm presenting simply expand upon what is and what isn't harmful to the environment. Wake up boys!

You and your little gang of bedfellows prey on anyone who disagrees with your arrogant, incorrect assumptions.



Quote from: JamiePeters
Sounds like the facts have been presented and this Harlem guy does not like what's being told to him as a fact.  I guess maybe he like ciba's and has an investment in the ciba prints.  This is usually why anyone would back up to an out dated horrible looking process.  When everyone knows including galleries and museums that this process is not worth the paper printed on.

Either that or he just has to argue about everything.  Sounds like he sits there with dictionary looking for big words to use.  

I'm beginning to think this place is not worth your time Tim.    JP
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 12:18:55 PM by harlemshooter » Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2010, 01:05:02 PM »
ReplyReply

the OP asked a simple question and this tim wolcott nut makes the following "fact" statements, ironically nearly all of which are only arrogant, nonsensical opinion. it is beyond me why it is impossible for some to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of their own position.

top seven
"my reputation is above reproach" (nice!)
ciba prints are an "outdated horrible looking process" (not for those who know how to print correctly using this process)
"galleries/museums who know this process is not worth the paper printed on" (incorrect, you clearly know nothing about collection processes)
"wake up Misses Bueller, it also looks fake where as pigment print really have no negatives" (yes, and?)
"so please don't tell me this crap. getting rid of film processing and chemically based prints that have virtually no life expectancy at all, is better?" (who claimed one was better than the other?)
"there is no excuse to make a cibachrome, they are fake looking with poor dynamic range, color replication and can never ever look as good as a pigment print" (opinion)
"christ wake up and smell the coffee misses bueller" (who are you directing these random insults to?)

i agree that ciba prints are harmful to the environment but in addition one should ALSO consider the uber footprint of digital technology. i'm only expanding on that.

again, two pointers to articles citing the grossly underestimated footprint of digital technology:

The monster footprint of digital technology
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/emb...technology.html

Environmental challenges in computer manufacturing
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...407dc16fea94b0b
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 08:08:34 PM by harlemshooter » Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2010, 11:44:50 AM »
ReplyReply

When we invented Evercolor we had nearly zero footprint.  But I guess if you want to analyze everything or anything in the process like our stainless steel trays,  Than there is a footprint.  But its still far cleaner than any other system out there.  Nobody has a zero footprint in anything.  

Sounds like you have a collection of ciba's that are fading away.  You should buy some antiques with termites in them and say they are worth something also.  

Buy the way my background as head print consultant to the Smithsonian, Founder of the Evercolor process and helped invent Pigment Inkjet and that I have shown in most of the best galleries in the world.  I've been showing in AIPAD since 1989.  So yes I know how to print!!!

But I guess the reputation of Henry Wilhelm you are going to argue with also.  Get the facts from Henry or Mark Mc Cormick.  I think they know more than all of us.
Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2010, 01:44:32 PM »
ReplyReply

as i said from the beginning of this thread, i have no interest in ciba prints. it simply tickles me silly how arrogant and ignorant your posts read. you are unable to refrain from blasting anyone who questions your staunch opinions or points to the absurdity of your lopsided claims regarding the resultant footprint of digital technology vs analog. re-read this thread if you doubt any of this.

you clearly have no idea as to the massive footprint of the technology which you employ to make your precious digital prints (far more destructive to the environment that all forms of analogue printing processes could have ever achieved together). i make digital prints, am aware of the large scale footprint and am constantly striving for positive change in computer chip manufacturing processes.

manufacturing processes for integrated circuits needs to be re-invented or we will destroy our planet.

THE MONSTER FOOTPRINT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/emb...technology.html




Quote from: tim wolcott
When we invented Evercolor we had nearly zero footprint.  But I guess if you want to analyze everything or anything in the process like our stainless steel trays,  Than there is a footprint.  But its still far cleaner than any other system out there.  Nobody has a zero footprint in anything.  

Sounds like you have a collection of ciba's that are fading away.  You should buy some antiques with termites in them and say they are worth something also.  

Buy the way my background as head print consultant to the Smithsonian, Founder of the Evercolor process and helped invent Pigment Inkjet and that I have shown in most of the best galleries in the world.  I've been showing in AIPAD since 1989.  So yes I know how to print!!!

But I guess the reputation of Henry Wilhelm you are going to argue with also.  Get the facts from Henry or Mark Mc Cormick.  I think they know more than all of us.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 01:53:35 PM by harlemshooter » Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2010, 04:35:04 PM »
ReplyReply

So take it up with the computer chip industry.  Again, arrogance has nothing to do about it.  

We at Evercolor, didn't use any chemicals or heavy metals in the process.  The Evercolor process was invented to clean up the color printing process that ciba's and other chemically based color printing processes was part of.  

Our goal was to make green, which we did and make the life expectancy equal to Black and white.  Not even you can argue that fact.

Come to the current time frame and pigments printing still is less pollution than printing a ciba, kodak and fuji or other processes considering the fact that they are nearly all being produced thru light jet, chromira, and Lamda printers.  So yes they are taking resources of the chip manufacturing but they still are producing hugh amounts of chemicals to produce them that is washing down the drain.

Pigments inkjet is only producing the chip manufacturing pollution really.  The rest can be recycled, not sure about chip recycling.  But one printer can print tens of thousands of prints before its retired.

By the way I built the first green gallery in the world and I'm moving it down the street.  



Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2010, 11:54:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tim wolcott
There is no excuse to make a cibachrome,  they are fake looking with poor dynamic range, color replication and can never ever look as good as a pigment print.  So yes you should get your facts right.

Tell me one way that cibachrome is better in anyway than pigment print.  Just one.  Because you can't.  Tim Wolcott

Wow.
Tim, I don't think anyone is questioning your credentials. You do excellent work.
But perhap we can accept some legitimate differences of opinion without getting too personal.

First, let's agree on the things that have a factual basis. When it comes to color prints, I defer to actual evidence of testing and the reports from respected authorities like Henry Wilhelm. It's evident that traditional C-prints have pretty abysmal stability, and fade rapidly unless they're kept in cold storage. Cibachromes/Ilfochromes appear to have quite good dark storage stability compared to C-prints, but will fade when displayed in high ambient light conditions at a rate that depends upon the lumens they are exposed to, as well as the quality of their original processing. Lightjet prints on Fuji Crystal Archive paper appear to be in roughly the same stability ballpark. Pigment inkjet prints appear to have much better stability, with projected lifespans well north of 100 years in many cases. But the operative phrase here is "appear to have". High quality pigment inkjet printing has been around for barely 10 years; all we have to go on is accelerated testing. As Ctein noted in his video interview with Michael a few years ago, we really don't know for certain how stable inkjet prints will turn out to be. It would be prudent to apply a 'scatter factor' of at least 2 to these projections and estimates, because we really don't know with any certainty.

Second, folks may have entirely legitimate (albeit subjective) artistic reasons for preferring Cibachromes/Ilfochromes over inkjet prints. Certainly Ciba's are a major pain to print well, what with the need for contrast masking and finicky color filtering. They have sharpness limitations due to the masking requirement. But an expertly printed Ciba/Ilfochrome has a beauty all its own. The super-glossy finish, rich color and great perceived depth can be perfect for some images. Now, an expertly printed pigment inkjet print on a good fiber-gloss or baryta paper is a beautiful thing. Inkjet prints are all I make personally. But the best glossy/semigloss/fiber-gloss inkjet papers still don't quite match the look of an excellent Ciba/Ilfochrome. The closest thing I've found is Harman FB AL, which is really nice in its own way, but it doesn't have quite the same visual depth.

Your mileage, as always, may vary. Feel free to debate factual issues. But don't slag someone over an artistic judgment or opinion where there's no right or wrong, only different.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #37 on: June 23, 2010, 07:21:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone else hate the look of inkjet with a passion? I'd take a chemical print any day of the month...
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2010, 08:22:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ben Rubinstein
Anyone else hate the look of inkjet with a passion? I'd take a chemical print any day of the month...

Depends on the paper and printer.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #39 on: June 23, 2010, 08:55:04 AM »
ReplyReply

The stuff I've had done for me was Epson 3800 and Harman Baryta paper. Just hate the look of the ink lying on top of the paper rather than the image being within the paper as with chemical prints.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad