Blog

Comments

• 

  Jacki Bilsborrow October 28, 2011 at 1:25pm

  The print cost about $300 to $400 and I don't think Jeff would want to buy another one.
• 

  Larry Berman October 27, 2011 at 2:15pm

  Or ask to buy the digital file to make your own print.
  
  Larry Berman
  
• 

  Connie Mettler October 27, 2011 at 2:08pm

  I'm with Larry on this -- Ciba and Fuji -- two different companies. Your best bet is to get to whoever printed the photo and get the details on what kind of printing was done, and/or what the paper is and then get another print probably -- or work with the framer.
• 

  Larry Berman October 27, 2011 at 1:46pm

  What you need to do is find a lab that can mount the print properly and not have it come off the backing years down the line. Can another print be ordered and have it come mounted?
  
  The problem here is going back and forth on a forum when no one really knows what they are dealing with.
  
  Larry Berman
  
• 

  Jacki Bilsborrow October 27, 2011 at 1:39pm

  Larry, help me.  Tell me what I need to know.
• 

  Larry Berman October 27, 2011 at 1:23pm

  Cibachrome is not Fuji product, it's from Ilford. It's a chromogenic print if it's on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Someone is giving you incorrect information.
  
  Larry Berman
  
  
• 

  Jacki Bilsborrow October 27, 2011 at 12:29pm

  Connie,

   

  I called the company that the photographer works for.  It was a Ciba print and I should have realized that.  It isn't a widely used paper.  I was told by the photo company it was a Fuji Crystal Archive Digital Pearl Paper.  So, I called the Fuji company to see how they recommended that it be mounted.  The person I got on the phone sounded like he didn't know what he was even doing there.  So, I will need to call them back.  Tell ND thank you though.  I will call if I need to. 

  I just happened to ask Jeff about the photo because you had asked me about it the day before.  Thanks for putting that into my head.

  Jacki B
• 

  Connie Mettler October 25, 2011 at 7:09pm

  Jacki, Norm says it is not a cibachrome as CIBA did not make metallic prints. He doubts that this is a ciba -- wedding photographers, as Michael said, do not use film anymore, almost always digital. So the photo was printed on something to make it look metallic... either the emulsion was put on to metal, or something. Don't ask me though--photography is way too technical for me, but I do have an expert in residence and he would take your phone call ;)
• 

  Jacki Bilsborrow October 24, 2011 at 7:59pm

  Well, you have a point there.  She has had training in Cibachrome and so I just figured she would be able to recognize it.  I am thinking I am going to call the photographer's studio and see if it is.  It would certainly help if it wasn't.  It is a metallic print and that was what my son liked about it.  It does have a completely different look from notmal photos.  Well, that is on my list to do next.  I did call the framer and she is going to do whatever she needs to to correct it.  Thanks for your help.

  Jacki B
• 

  Michael Brown October 24, 2011 at 4:46pm

  I wonder if your framer correctly identified the print. It is true that framers recommend that Cibachromes be static mounted but I doubt the print is really a Cibachrome. Those were prints made from transparencies (slides). Most wedding photographers used color negative film. Now days most use digital capture. Also Cibachrome is now called Ilfachrome. If this wedding photo was made in the last few years, I highly doubt that it is a Cibachrome. Does the back of the print state that it is a Cibachrome (trademark or watermark)?