P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I have switched back to shooting mostly C-41 color negative film after a 10 year break for the ease of getting the film developed and printed. I am tired of having pile of B&W negatives unprinted and unscanned because I do not have darkroom facilities and have come to detest scanning.
But C-41 has been no easy fix either. There seems to be a dearth of quality color printing. I am paying a premium for a local lab to develop and print my stuff and the printing has been terrible. Thankfully the lab has been very workable, but we have hit a brick wall. The current crop of color papers are not up to the quality that I have known with RA-4 color printing.
The worst offence is blown highlights which can be attributed to the native contrast of the paper being too high. In my experience, color negative printing offers the widest latitude of any color printing system. But that no longer seems to be true.
Any advice or commiseration...
But C-41 has been no easy fix either. There seems to be a dearth of quality color printing. I am paying a premium for a local lab to develop and print my stuff and the printing has been terrible. Thankfully the lab has been very workable, but we have hit a brick wall. The current crop of color papers are not up to the quality that I have known with RA-4 color printing.
The worst offence is blown highlights which can be attributed to the native contrast of the paper being too high. In my experience, color negative printing offers the widest latitude of any color printing system. But that no longer seems to be true.
Any advice or commiseration...
oftheherd
Veteran
Here in the USA we also have the problem of finding a place that does good quality work. I have found a local drug store that usually does well for 1 hour work, I just have to be careful what "tech" is working.
I also know a camera store that isn't convenient to get to, but does great work. It isn't cheap, but not so bad either. The develop at their store, any format, and print to specification.
Sorry for your circumstances. It can be very frustrating.
I also know a camera store that isn't convenient to get to, but does great work. It isn't cheap, but not so bad either. The develop at their store, any format, and print to specification.
Sorry for your circumstances. It can be very frustrating.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've given up on RA4 and am switching to an Epson, and I printed it myself. Availability is too iffy for me- I have paper go bad waiting for chemistry and vice-versa. With the last mono kits and Endura in sheets discontinued I figured the path was getting pretty clear.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I have begrudgingly come the conclusion that a decent ink-jet printer with a good color work-flow will produce a better print than I am getting at the moment. But then I am back to scanning and spending time in front of the computer again, my least favorite past-time.
aad
Not so new now.
I get reasonable scans at the local store, great for up to 5x7. I tried to compare, and I really couldn't do better myself.
Over 5x7 I have to scan, but I can live with it.
My Epson makes prints that blow the local labs away. I've tried, over and over. Oddly, I used to get decent prints from the stores, but no more.
Over 5x7 I have to scan, but I can live with it.
My Epson makes prints that blow the local labs away. I've tried, over and over. Oddly, I used to get decent prints from the stores, but no more.
bwcolor
Veteran
It sounds like you must control the process from start to finish. If you don't want to spend much time in front of the computer scanning negatives and you don't want to do a complete wet darkroom, then the next logical step is to go all digital. I've gone the opposite direction, but now have a scanning routine that I can live with. Control the exposure when using the digital camera and you should be able to minimize the computer editing. I suspect that a top notch printer provides prints of stunning quality. I like mine...but then again, I'm not so sure that I have a critical eye. I love film for B&W work, but never expected to like C-41 color. Ektar 100 changed my attitude, but if I had to give up color film for digital, I would not have a big problem. B&W digitally is not interesting from where I sit. I might even prefer C-41 B&W to digital..but not sure.
Last edited:
david.elliott
Well-known
Here, I use adorama for my, admittedly rare, color printing needs. They do a good job. I soft-proof with their profiles and request no adjustments. The prints always come out as expected and the pricing is reasonable, especially when they have sales. It is certainly less expensive for me than setting up a good workflow and buying a new printer.
Ritz camera is pretty bad by the way. I was never satisfied with their prints.
Ritz camera is pretty bad by the way. I was never satisfied with their prints.
jpberger
Established
If we are talking optical printing,
Colour paper, at least any of the colour paper I've used has about the same contrast as #2 black and white, and does not have very much latitude at all-- luminance ranges that are easily captured in the film don't print without burning or dodging. It can be done but it takes practice. Some films are much harder to print than others-- the neutral colour low contrast films are the easiest.
Personally If I had to have someone else make my prints I'd shoot transparancy . Even though negatives have more accurate colour and exposure latitude. At least with slides you have a colour reference. Otherwise scaning with everything profiled and soft proofing using a icc profile for the printer is the only way to maintian accuracy. I've had good results making light jet prints on ra-4 paper using scanned negatives. Colour is so subjective that I can't really imagine having someone else printing my stuff.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Thanks to everyone for all the advice.
I have come to detest scanning and spending any time spent working in Photoshop ranks right up there with going to the dentist for me. I am just so over digital work-flow of any type.
My pet peeve is blown high-lights, and I spent most of my childhood looking at color negatives and prints since my dad did a lot weddings and portrait photography back then. I also spent time in the darkroom printing color negatives as well many years ago. So I know that color can be a real pain and very personal. I am just surprised at the narrow latitude of the current crop of papers, I have prints on Agfa paper that are just gorgeous and they are from the local one-hour Agfa lab that is no longer!
The local lab has just agreed to purchase some Kodak Endura paper for me try. So we will see...
Thanks!
I have come to detest scanning and spending any time spent working in Photoshop ranks right up there with going to the dentist for me. I am just so over digital work-flow of any type.
My pet peeve is blown high-lights, and I spent most of my childhood looking at color negatives and prints since my dad did a lot weddings and portrait photography back then. I also spent time in the darkroom printing color negatives as well many years ago. So I know that color can be a real pain and very personal. I am just surprised at the narrow latitude of the current crop of papers, I have prints on Agfa paper that are just gorgeous and they are from the local one-hour Agfa lab that is no longer!
The local lab has just agreed to purchase some Kodak Endura paper for me try. So we will see...
Thanks!
Freakscene
Obscure member
Colour negs still have the widest latitude, by far. The inherent contrast of the paper may be a problem, but it shouldn't be. IDoes the printer actually print optically (very unlikely, there are very few machines left that work that way) or does it scan and print digitally? The main problem I've found is with the scan settings in Frontier machines and their like which clip the highlights.
Marty