Nothing comes even close to Kodachrome / Ilfochrome

[DREW WILEY]

Fujiflex Supergloss is better than Cibachrome ever was. But it only comes in big expensive rolls, and takes patience to acquire. It's much easier to handle, doesn't have the static or surface fragility issues of Ciba, has much better hue accuracy, and can be processed in ordinary RA4 chem. Of course, it's geared to color negatives, not chromes, so you either have to generate film internegatives from your chromes (an advanced skill), or else have the positive image converted after scanning to match the output parameters of a commercial laser printer.

Kodachrome did come out nice on Ciba; but except for a very brief season of 120 roll film, it was only available in 35mm. I mainly worked with Ektachrome and Fujichrome sheet films, but the clue with any of them was to master masking. Masking was not only for sake of taming overall contrast, but also necessary for correction of color repro errors, if one knew how to do both with a mask (or masks).

And when you're into printmaking, the "best" film is the one which can be best tailored to your specific print output medium. People loved Velvia atop a lightbox, but it was hard to turn into a good print due to the extreme contrast. I often had to generate .90 DMax contrast masks for Velvia - that's 3 stops extra to what was already a very slow printing medium (Ciba). With color neg film and RA4 media, I only occasionally even need to mask, and then it's more like .30 DMax - a single stop extra to an otherwise very fast printing paper.

There are no inkjet papers that even remotely resemble Cibachrome or Fuji Supergloss. That's because inkjet papers are paper, and not polyester. There's also the distinction between what is micro-spray-painted using tiny nozzles versus the extreme detail capacity of a polyester base comparable to sheet film itself. Direct optical enlarging with exceptional lenses will provide the most detail, if it's there in the original to begin with; but in the right hands, a drum scan and commercial laser output can come close.

Cost is another consideration. Already labs around here are jacking up prices due to paranoia over impending tariffs. Fuji papers come from the EU; Fujiflex still comes from Japan.

 

[chuckroast]

I am reaching out to the community for advice on Colour Film and Paper.

Kodachrome and Ilfochrome are no longer commercially available.
I was satisfied with Fujichrome Velvia 50 / 100 so far.

The big challenge turns out to be to find a replacement for Ilfochrome paper. Has anyone come across a solution for this issue?

I shoot very little colour film these days so bear that in mind reading this but ... You might consider scanning your transparencies and sending them off to a service that still prints on RA-4. Costco used to do this and then sold that business to Shutterfly who I think may still do the same.

I realize that RA-4 isn't what you're looking for but it may be your best option these days.

 

[mshchem]

Yes there is. I had a little search and this popped up.

Film Processors

All out of stock

 

[DREW WILEY]

If someone is determined and has sufficient income, the equipment is still out there, even new if sold integral to a laser output system. What the heck, that's no more expensive than a couple of Rolls Royces or a Leica branded paperclip. But do you actually need it? Those who do will know how to acquire and maintain such things too.

I was offered for free a Kreonite 50 inch wide RA4 roller processor machine in excellent condition, complete with dryer. It would have been a wattage hog and jack the utility bill through the roof; but the dryer module could have been detached. The bigger problem would have been where to put it, and how to upgrade the entire building ventilation system. An even greater issue is all the gallonage of RA4 chemistry needed to fill something like that, along with routinely running a helluva a lot of print square footage through the machine to warrant its use at all. Not a good idea for a intermittent user like me, who only makes up to 30X40 inch prints anyway. Drums make a lot more sense in my case. No complex maintenance issues that way either.

Why would many of us need a fully automated film processor either? Just more fuss keeping them going. Yeah, all the high volume labs necessarily have their automated dip and dunk lines, Noritsu and so forth. By there are also small lab services dedicated to film processing only which simply use a Jobo ATL drum system, and have learned how to get perfectly even results even with roll film.

 

[Dr. no]

Wow, a lot of discussion, and the OP only has a single post...bet he's disappointed and went home.

It's been (almost) fifteen years since Dwayne's in Kansas ran the last batch of Kodachrome. I think I sent 20-30 rolls in 2010 and was frustrated when I found a stash that I could have shot...
I have a Ilfochrome processor that I got for cheap when the chemicals became unobtainable, and adjusted it to run RA4 (but the current darkroom is too small for it. I scan/print in a workflow that produces prints I'm satisfired to hang. Still, nothing has the same quality as Cibachrome (as it was called when I bought the first kit). I also have a stash of 4x5 internegative film. Should start archiving, if it's still any good.

 

[Klaus Mähring]

I can second @DREW WILEY about Fujiflex; it is an excellent paper much like Ilfochrome (and Kodak Duraflex) used to be. Archival quality is also supposed to be excellent.