[Not a Number]

The wiki article only cited 29 years but I don't have any other sources to check.

As I recall the 75 year estimate is for the gloss print material. The 29 year may be for the other material. Different substrate, the gloss is like a thin plastic sheet. The pearl(?) is more like traditional resin coated papers.

The pearl print on my wall that I did in the mid 1980s doesn't seem to have faded.

[ffking]

I used a lab, I didn't do it myself , but I got wonderful exhibition prints from 6x7 Velvia (50) transparencies - the ones from the early 90s look as good as new - I really love the Cibachrome look.

[marco_gea]

https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/business/photofinishing/paper-lab-products/fu...nting-material

That's the closest you can get to a modern "Cibachrome" equivalent. Really close, if you get the RAW image processing right (or use Pentax's own "Reversal" Custom Image profile).

Marco.

[gylfimag]

I tried printing on Cibachrome. The process was easy enough and the image quality great, with very vibrant colors. It was easier to use in a home darkroom than what Kodak was offering (until they offered Ektaflex but that had its own drawbacks) but the material was very expensive as far as I recall. The prints still look excellent after 40 years or so.

[Sandy Hancock]

I did a handful of Cibachrome prints when I was a lad in the 80's. Most of them have technical flaws and exposure errors.

They are still the most luminously wonderful colour photos I have ever processed, despite the fact that my more recent digital images are better on just about every possible metric.

[rpjallan]

It's really a shame to not have such a fantastic print method today.

Well it’s a sign of the times, isn’t it. Ilford do make some very nice inkjet papers though…

[BarryE]

Yes I too used it back in the 80s. I paid some of my uni bills taking photos I printed with Cibachrome. Loved the prints, but absolutely hated the drum rolling times required in winter. I lived in a shared, unheated house so I had to roll and roll and roll the drum up and down the corridor for ages. I got to be able to roll it with my feet while reading course books. For the life of me I cannot recall why I never purchased a drum roller. I suspect it was because beer always won in the battle for funds ;-)

[Not a Number]

I still have my Uni-Color roller base and a "generic" brand film drum - 1 8×10 or 2 4×5 print capacity. I also have the Uni-Color film drum which hold up to 6 rolls. Clever design that the bottom plug can be adjusted for the number of rolls. The drums are nice because you can use a fraction of the chemistry than you would with standard tanks or trays. Plus you get consistent agitation.

[Apet-Sure]

I bought a Cibachrome Discovery Kit soon after they came out. I had been doing B&W developing and printing for some time, so thought I'd give color a go. Well.....It took several tries to get the exposure right as I recall. I used up most of the paper in the kit to get one good print. But oh wow, the colors and 3D look were fabulous! The image was a holly bush with deep green leaves and red berries. Gorgeous! The kit wasn't cheap (for me). The fact that I used almost the entire kit to get one good print convinced me that I couldn't afford to keep going with Cibachrome.

My paper was glossy, and the last time I looked at the print (maybe a year ago?) it looked as good as the day I printed it. In preparing to move recently we got rid of a bunch of stuff. I'm pretty sure I took it to a thrift store with other stuff. Thanks to the OP for reminding me of the experience.

[rpjallan]

I can’t remember it being that hard to get the exposure correct. We already had an Ilford exposure meter (the same one they were using at the demo we went to) & after doing a test strip it was pretty reliable.

And now that you mention it, I reckon we might have started with that Discovery Kit also.

[pentaxus]

Dartmoor Dave is right. If you used the right transparency Cibachrome was amazing. In the 80's I worked in a camera store that had a Cibachrome lab. The owner had a slide that he wanted an 11x14 print of that was a transparency that wouldn't work. Every time we got a new printer in he would make them work for a week trying to get the print he wanted. Never happened. People would come into the store with an overexposed slide having been told by someone that Ciba is the best. For overexposed slides, Cibachrome was the worst. That being said, I personally printed over 100 cibachrome prints and got some great results.

[One3rdEV]

Thanks for the reminder... our understanding at the time was that indeed it was the glossy paper that was supposed to achieve the claimed archival potential and that the textured pearl paper was significantly less.

Barry- Totally enjoyed that story of manually rolling drums! Lol.

[FotoGekko]

Ah, yes, another old fan here! Sweet memories, indeed fantastic colors and easy process compared to C41, but the downside (except the price) was I found it quite hard to temper the contrast of the slide prints.

Cheers, Gerard

[tonyzoc]

I used it and wish it was still around. It was easy enough to use, that I could get good results with a modest darkroom setup. I still have all the pieces.

While some say it was harder to get good prints, I never had much trouble there. I had a frame that I made that had multiple trap doors i could open and expose at different times or tweak the enlarger color head with. I might have wasted one or two 8x10 sheets, but once I got the exposure and RGB settings down, I programmed my color analyzer and was good to go. From that point all prints were pretty easy and comparable to printing c41 kodak paper. Although the ciba was about 2 times the price per sheet. Somewhere I've got an 8x10 mounted I took in college of a juggler juggling 3 torches at night with slow shutter speed and a little fill flash....great colors with cibachrome.

[Apet-Sure]

(my 1980s very small budget self) Exposure meter? Color analyzer? What are those?