Balancing quality and costs: ordering digital vs analog color prints

[Redseele]

Hi all,

Today I chose a bunch of pictures (20) that I want to print for my apartment. I am mostly an analog shooter and I develop my own color C-41 film. My intention was to get my prints directly from my negatives but I was staggered at how much printing directly from negatives can be in New York City, about $20 for each 8x10 print!!!

To make matters worse, I called a few labs and most of them just take the negative, scan it and then print it. So I cannot even find many places (only 1 so far) that will do darkroom printing of a color negative.

On the other hand, there's Adoramapix for whom I submit a scanned image from my Pakon 135 plus scanner and minimally retouched (contrast, lights and shadows mostly) and printed 8x10 for about $1.60 each.

Now the question, simply because I don't think I've ever seen an actual darkroom color print in many many years: are the differences THAT obvious that they would justify the price?

I have been learning over the past months to print my black and white pictures because I do see a huge difference between darkroom vs digital printing: the analog print always has a depth that the inkjet print doesn't have. But what about the color prints?

Sorry about the long message. Hope someone can help me understand this better.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

OP inkjet is better.

 

[Corran]

If you hand someone your negatives you have no control over the color/tones/etc.

What you probably want is a chromogenic print from a digital file. Digital C-prints are done by plenty of labs. Just send your scans in.

 

[Sparrow]

... yep thats the best solution by far, do all the prepress then hand it to the lad ... I pay £1.20 for 12"x18" prints. (on a Agfa dLab2 machine)

The big expense was a good scanner, after that its much cheaper than an inkjet, and the quality is better than I could do myself

 

[Mcary]

The difference in price/cost of a traditional color enlarger print verse a machine print done on RC papering simply comes down to the cost of labor. Someone operating a machine is simply able to process more prints per hour verse someone using a traditional enlarger thereby greatly reducing the per unit cost.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Silver prints generally are better than inkjet. Not so much in IQ, but in their very makeup. Esp if you talking about matte prints. In IQ, inkjet is a fine substitute for wet BW prints. They are all I produce and my work is in 98 museums and public collections around the world. Out of the 98 museums, only 3 balked at inkjet and demanded vintage silver prints.

http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/109512754224

A comparison of a vintage silver gelatin print with an inkjet print. Left is a vintage Agfa Brovira silver gelatin print made in 1972. Right is an inkjet print made on Hahnemühle Ultra smooth matte inkjet paper with an Epson 3880 printer.

I have samples of color ink jet versus dye transfer printing here.

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com...ysical-negative-is-for-the-film-photographer/

Inkjet is one of the most important inventions to ever hit photography.
Without inkjet I'd never be able to print my artists' book as I do.

(nsfw)

http://dewallenrld.tumblr.com/

 

[jsrockit]

On the other hand, there's Adoramapix for whom I submit a scanned image from my Pakon 135 plus scanner and minimally retouched (contrast, lights and shadows mostly) and printed 8x10 for about $1.60 each.

Now the question, simply because I don't think I've ever seen an actual darkroom color print in many many years: are the differences THAT obvious that they would justify the price?

Adorama prints are similar to analog C-Prints. It'll be the scan that makes or breaks the quality.

 

[Sparrow]

Adorama prints are similar to analog C-Prints. It'll be the scan that makes or breaks the quality.

... that, editing and colour management

Those Agfa dlab machines run at 402dpi ... so my Minolta 5400 will only just cover a 12"x18" print without interpolation ... my lab runs three of them, for two shifts a day and calibrate the colours twice over that time

 

[Redseele]

Thank you for the input. So you're basically saying that the difference in cost is not so much due to a difference in quality per se but the costs of labor? I do like the fact that I have more control over the scan... but I guess I always hope that my negatives will have some extra "magic" if they were printed by someone else in the darkroom.

 

[Noll]

If someone was actually going to make an optical print from your negative, $20 sounds reasonable to me... but like others said if it's just a scan and print, then scan yourself or go elsewhere.

 

[jsrockit]

... that, editing and colour management

Oh sure, I meant after that part is out of the way.

 

[mfogiel]

If you scan your negs, adjust in PS and find a pro lab, they will let you download their colour profile for soft proofing: e.g. you will "print" your photo on the screen of your monitor, with the same colour profile which is present in their printing machine ( you need to keep your monitor calibrated obviously) - after a couple of test prints, you will be able to dial in all the adjustments, so that you will know what to expect from the output. A bit of work, but once set up, it should work flawlessly. I think this is better than magic.

 

[MIkhail]

I used to send away my scans for printing, not any more.
I got myself a good pigment printer, and after color calibration and adjustment I just press the "print" button.
The way I approach digital printing is the same I used to approach B/W - I print "problem" pieces of image, adjust for them, then print the whole image. That is AFTER the general color adjustment already made. That way you can adjust it "on a fly" rather than resend file again.
I don't see the negative differences between my prints and those that I sent out - I had to reprint some so I can compare. In fact, i like mine better at the end. Paper plays a role too, of course.

P.S.
One point i would like to make: do not expect to work less on digital file adjustments than you would on B/W wet printing. The output is slow, and that's normal, I beleive (for me, anyway). I was never able to get more than couple final B/W large prints a day, and same with this. But that's the prints I can put on a wall and keep for years.

 

[Sparrow]

Thank you for the input. So you're basically saying that the difference in cost is not so much due to a difference in quality per se but the costs of labor? I do like the fact that I have more control over the scan... but I guess I always hope that my negatives will have some extra "magic" if they were printed by someone else in the darkroom.

... I like to have all of the control I can, and I like repeatable results.

The c-type prints will give you exactly repeatable results if you set it all up correctly ... but setting it up correctly is a bit like a visit from the Spanish inquisition (I am currently upgrading my computers and the like at the moment, so I'm hip-deep in printer-profiles and colour-spaces ... and Adobe has much to answer for having moved all the menus and prompts around in this new one)

 

[ndnik]

The adorama C-prints are very nice. I've used them for B&W books and also for single prints in both B&W and color. The color profiles they have for download allow for fairly accurate soft proofing. The highlights are a bit problematic as modern screens have much higher contrast ratios compared to any print medium, so even with the right color profile, it will take you a round of test prints to get an idea of what you'll get. They also offer the service of adjusting images for you or you have the option of telling them not to touch your images (make sure to check that box!). Overall I'm very satisfied.

 

[Sparrow]

Oh sure, I meant after that part is out of the way.

... that's a bit like giving someone a nice recipe for venison and neglecting to mention the bit where one has to go shoot it

 

[Ronald M]

A good lab makes beautiful color prints from files. I had a color darkroom with the best Leica enlargers and digital is just as good if not better.

What you need to do is find a consistent lab and learn to work with them.

You will need to learn your computer, photoshop, and how to process for the color /density you want. A calibrated screen is best if you want to adjust density and color balance by eye which I do not recommend. Use the measuring tools in PS and histogram. Use the raw processor to set a black point and highlight.

Turning your negs over is a waste of money and effort. Scan them yourself. Them buy a digital camera that uses the lenses you have. Avoid the cheap consumer cameras.

 

[charjohncarter]

Mpix has a real B&W paper; so they must use a laser exposure machine that wet prints. My Costco has this machine but it uses Fuji Crystal Archive paper which is color. Maybe Mpix has a 'wet' color choice for paper. I've used their B&W paper and have been satisfied but one time I had a problem with focus. This was fixed but they were less than cordial.

 

[willie_901]

A good lab makes beautiful color prints from files. ...

What you need to do is find a consistent lab and learn to work with them.

...

+1

It turns out the traditional wet-chemical c-print is a rare beast.

However truly excellent c-prints are possible using paper media sensitive to lasers or LED lights. A local pro lab in my city produces lovely c-print results. I was particularly surprised at how faithfully shadow regions were rendered from a 35mm color negative scan. I did use their calibration profile with LR.

MPIX has served me well too. So far I've found using their in-house color correction option consistently delivers the goods. They don't use the term c-print though despite using laser-based technologies and paper for high priced prints.

I plan to give AdoramaPix a try based on the comments above.

 

[Sparrow]

+1

It turns out the traditional wet-chemical c-print is a rare beast.

However truly excellent c-prints are possible using paper media sensitive to lasers or LED lights. A local pro lab in my city produces lovely c-print results. I was particularly surprised at how faithfully shadow regions were rendered from a 35mm color negative scan. I did use their calibration profile with LR.

MPIX has served me well too. So far I've found using their in-house color correction option consistently delivers the goods. They don't use the term c-print though despite using laser-based technologies and paper for high priced prints.


I plan to give AdoramaPix a try based on the comments above.

... this surprised me too, it changed my view of digital printing when it became clear the I had more control sending it out to print than I did in my own darkroom

PS ... I use this place BTW, if anyone this side of the pond is interested