Constantly churning the gear pot

[sf]

I am never happy with my setup. Or it seems so because I've never had a solid setup from camera to print.

RIght now, I'm working with a medium format RF, the KM Multi Pro, and the Canon Pixma IP5000.

I'm not happy that I've got one of the great scanners but no real use for it. I can create fantastic scans, sure, but have to send it down to a lab if i want a decent print, and they find that annoying since instead of just throwing the film in the machine and printing hte image, they have to struggle with a file that conflicts with their setup . . .so they prefer the neg itself.

So, really, right now I just have enormous scanning capability and nothing to show for it.

I am seriously considering maybe just getting rid of both my scanners and my printer and instead working with negs the old way - because I can trade in my scanner alone and get one heck of a wet darkroom setup. Enlarger, print washers, everything.

I could buy the Epson R2400, but after paper and inks, that comes to around $1000. Combine that with the $1500 I spent on the scanner, and I've got a $2500 workflow setup. I could spend $500 on a wet setup and probably come up with better prints, never worry about it going obsolete, never worry about clogging heads, archival quality, etc.

So what would you do? Trade in the scanner and go wet again? Or would you just buy the Epson printer and bite the bullet, hoping that you can make use of a very pricey workflow?

I think that maybe the wet way is best for someone who doesn't print lots of prints. Am I wrong? I print maybe 50 prints in a good year. 10 in a slow year. That comes to $1000@13x19 from the labs if I send them out, so that's not a possibility. The Epson would not be forgiving to unuse. But, I would have much greater control over my process.

 

[back alley]

i'd find a lab that could print the way i want.

 

[sf]

i'd find a lab that could print the way i want.

you mean just send them out? The local labs want $20 for a 13x19 print. That works out to quite a bit. Like $400 per year if I do only 20 prints in a year.

I don't know. I just feel like I've got a huge bottleneck in my setup right now.

maybe I should just not print anymore.

Maybe I should sell the scanner and pay off my credit cards.

 

[Ariya]

I thought about the same things and went with the wet darkroom setup. I hadn't ever printed myself which was part of the attraction. It's worked out very well for me. I enjoy the experience of making the prints in a darkroom, and since I shoot black and white 90% of the time the traditional prints are far better quality than I was getting using digital methods (not blaming the digital process). I always learn something during the printing session that makes the next one even better. The cost savings are really there for me - but I would probably still use the darkroom even if it weren't.

 

[John Camp]

You can't read the internet on an enlarger...

The point being that if you have a wet lab, you need space to set it up, and that space is wasted all year if you're only going to use the darkroom to make a few prints a month. Or, if you use a general space, like a bathroom, you've got to set it up and take it down and mix chemicals and wait for temps to stabilize and seal up light leaks and deal with dust...

With a digital darkroom, most of the equipment you need you'll have anyway, I assume -- a computer. You don't even need the scanner, you can send negs out to get them scanned; it just takes a couple of days. And then you get the Epson. The early Epsons did have a lot of clogging problems -- I still deal with it on my 2200 which I don't use that often -- but I understand the 2400 (and the rest of that series) is much better.

I really think digital is the way to go particularly for somebody who doesn't have a serious preference for the wet darkroom (and some people do); you can work an image in Photoshop or whatever, print it, look at it for a while, then come back to that very same file and make tiny adjustments. Doing the equivalent in a wet darkroom is tough. I once had a dedicated wet darkroom; it's now a storage space, still painted flat black.

JC

 

[sf]

You can't read the internet on an enlarger...

The point being that if you have a wet lab, you need space to set it up, and that space is wasted all year if you're only going to use the darkroom to make a few prints a month. Or, if you use a general space, like a bathroom, you've got to set it up and take it down and mix chemicals and wait for temps to stabilize and seal up light leaks and deal with dust...

With a digital darkroom, most of the equipment you need you'll have anyway, I assume -- a computer. You don't even need the scanner, you can send negs out to get them scanned; it just takes a couple of days. And then you get the Epson. The early Epsons did have a lot of clogging problems -- I still deal with it on my 2200 which I don't use that often -- but I understand the 2400 (and the rest of that series) is much better.

I really think digital is the way to go particularly for somebody who doesn't have a serious preference for the wet darkroom (and some people do); you can work an image in Photoshop or whatever, print it, look at it for a while, then come back to that very same file and make tiny adjustments. Doing the equivalent in a wet darkroom is tough. I once had a dedicated wet darkroom; it's now a storage space, still painted flat black.

JC

Those are some good points. I am moving back to my Los Angeles home again, to work and things like that, and I will have access to an over-the-garage guest house that can be turned into a darkroom with the whole setup. Except running water. . . I'll have to put something in.

In the end, I'm looking at a cost of probably $1000 for a wet darkroom setup. $1000 for a printer to add to the scanner. BUT, the wet setup doesn't require a scanner, so I will actually gain back $500 on the deal.

But the Inkjet would allow me a great deal more control - very useful for portraits and such.

 

[ch1]

i'd find a lab that could print the way i want.

I totally agree with joe on this.

Perhaps you're just not "communicating" with your lab?

I recently shot some pics of my wife meeting one of her idols (Andre Watts) at a reception after a piano recital he given.

For our anniversary I wanted to present her with some nice prints. I brought my newly burned CD to my lab and they couldn't work with them. Seems they can only process RGB files and these were CMYK.

A little work in PS to "covert" them over to RGB and they were able to make the prints.

I did think it "odd" that a lab wasn't able to work in either format - but that's the way it is.

Perhaps this is your problem and you and the lab just haven't figured it out?

 

[sf]

I totally agree with joe on this.

Perhaps you're just not "communicating" with your lab?

I recently shot some pics of my wife meeting one of her idols (Andre Watts) at a reception after a piano recital he given.

For our anniversary I wanted to present her with some nice prints. I brought my newly burned CD to my lab and they couldn't work with them. Seems they can only process RGB files and these were CMYK.

A little work in PS to "covert" them over to RGB and they were able to make the prints.

I did think it "odd" that a lab wasn't able to work in either format - but that's the way it is.

Perhaps this is your problem and you and the lab just haven't figured it out?

that is part of it. They did want CMYK, but they also let me know that color corrections and all that were an extra charge. I could get just the plain prints for $20, all they do is print the file or neg. . . or I could spend about twice that and have someone manually get the file where it needs to be. They told me the standard price was for an automated system, and I had to pay "custom" prices for anything else. This is from Ivey Imaging in Seattle AND The Icon in Los Angeles.

Still, though, that comes out to being very expensive. I think having lab prints made is the least likely choice. I gave up color because i can't afford to spend so much per frame/print.


I really don't want to be lab dependent if I can help it.

 

[ch1]

that is part of it. They did want CMYK, but they also let me know that color corrections and all that were an extra charge. I could get just the plain prints for $20, all they do is print the file or neg. . . or I could spend about twice that and have someone manually get the file where it needs to be. They told me the standard price was for an automated system, and I had to pay "custom" prices for anything else. This is from Ivey Imaging in Seattle AND The Icon in Los Angeles.

Still, though, that comes out to being very expensive. I think having lab prints made is the least likely choice. I gave up color because i can't afford to spend so much per frame/print.


I really don't want to be lab dependent if I can help it.

Wow!

For my wife's prints I paid $3.99 for the 8x10 and $0.39 each for the 4x5's.

I will own up that these were digipics taken on my D-70 and I did a simple auto-correct in PS (nothing more than that though).

I did not ask for them to do any color correction (would not want them to).

BTW: this was Allkit - a fairly large NYC place with several satellite labs in various nabes.

Funny that your lab only wants CMYK and mine only wants RGB. Go figure! :bang:

 

[sf]

Wow!

For my wife's prints I paid $3.99 for the 8x10 and $0.39 each for the 4x5's.

Funny that your lab only wants CMYK and mine only wants RGB. Go figure! :bang:

Maybe it was the other way around with the color layer preferences. It's been a while since I've had anything printed at either joint.

I hear that Costco has good prices on prints, I might consider that route as well.

 

[BrianShaw]

Shutterflower, if you are coming to LA, check out this lab: moonlight color lab. They are in West Hills (West end of the San Fernando Valley). I have them process and print all of my 120. They are a little slow on processing becasue I'm one of the few odd-balls that still puts film in their camera. Their printing services are quicker and I've been totally satified with their quality. So satisfied, in fact, that I gleefully tolerate long waits (up to 3 weeks once) to get film back from them. There is another lab up the road that will turn C-41, E-6, or B&W in 3 or 4 hours, but their printing isn't as good so I use them for E-6 and B&W Process&Proof only. Moonlight color lab has a web presence... something rediculous like www.moonlightlab.com (but google them to be sure). Like George (Copake) mentioned, 8x10s are in the neighborhood of $5. I think these are "standard machine prints". They have much mroe expensive print services for "custom prints" but I've never had a reason to look into that option. Since I don't do much digital I can't comment on their digital services but they say that's what most of their clients are into.

 

[tkluck]

I'm begining to think the digital darkroom just isn't as much fun as a wet darkroom. I've been happy with digital prints. Not gallery quality, mind you, but pictures of grandchildren just have to be cute. If a truely "magic" image comes along I'll gladly fork over 20 bucks, but that doesn't happen all that often. (lack of talent can have financial advantages...)
I'm puzzeling over exactly where I could build a darkroom in this house. If I had an obvious spot I'd already be down at Home Depot buying lumber. Previous house came with a funny store room with a slop sink. Took me about five minutes to realise it was an old darkroom with everything but the sink removed. Not so lucky this time.

Dug out the enlarger and set it up on a table to work out some real space requirements, mimeing the whole print making process. An interesting exercise. With the enlarger in a cornor, the trays on three shelves, and room for my gut, it works out to a large closet. (carry prints to the sink to wash).

 

[plummerl]

Maybe it was the other way around with the color layer preferences. It's been a while since I've had anything printed at either joint.

I hear that Costco has good prices on prints, I might consider that route as well.

George, with digital input (you can even submit over the web with 1 hour pickup) Costco is very definitely something you should try. Check out the profile database at http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Washington_profiles.htm#WA, all the Seattle area stores are listed. For the best results, I have done the submission in person, following the directions at DryCreek as far as what to specify to the operators. The results, in every case, have exceeded my expectations. The bonus is that the paper used is the Fuji Crystal Archive, noted for it's longevity. The extra big bonus is cost!

larry

 

[sf]

George, with digital input (you can even submit over the web with 1 hour pickup) Costco is very definitely something you should try. Check out the profile database at http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Washington_profiles.htm#WA, all the Seattle area stores are listed. For the best results, I have done the submission in person, following the directions at DryCreek as far as what to specify to the operators. The results, in every case, have exceeded my expectations. The bonus is that the paper used is the Fuji Crystal Archive, noted for it's longevity. The extra big bonus is cost!

larry

thanks for the link. I'll definitely check it out. Now, is it cheaper to send them a negative or a scan? I'd guess a negative, but that depends on how they do things.

 

[StuartR]

George -- have you ever worked in a wet darkroom? Because there is a learning curve, just like with digital. The other issue is that if you are doing only 50 prints a year, it is an overkill. Is there a rental darkroom in your area? I am sure there is in LA. In Santa Barbara I go to specialty photo lab. They have superb enlargers, free "learn to print b&w" workshops every 2 weeks, nice people, and it is 15 dollars an hour...they pay for chemicals...10 dollars on thursdays. They also have an Ilford RC machine that does RC in about 2 minutes enlarger to dry print. This allows you to be extremely productive once you get the hang of it. I am sure there are rental darkrooms in LA that are similar. Since you are not printing a huge volume of stuff, you can save a lot by just buying paper and paying the hourly rate. It saves you the bother of building a whole darkroom, cleaning it, keeping the chemicals fresh, disposing of them safely, etc etc.

anyway, I don't think ditching the scanner is a good idea, because it is like money in the bank. It may not be doing much for you at the moment, but you can make very high quality scans of all your work that you can use later when you find a better lab or buy a better printer. It also allows you to use color, which is always a nice option to have. Finally, it allows you to have a presence on the web, which is a big deal.

 

[tkluck]

George, with digital input (you can even submit over the web with 1 hour pickup) Costco is very definitely something you should try. Check out the profile database at http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Washington_profiles.htm#WA, all the Seattle area stores are listed. For the best results, I have done the submission in person, following the directions at DryCreek as far as what to specify to the operators. The results, in every case, have exceeded my expectations. The bonus is that the paper used is the Fuji Crystal Archive, noted for it's longevity. The extra big bonus is cost!

larry

They list Michigan stores, too! Sounds great!

 

[sf]

Just did a price breakdown of traditional/digital workflow :

it breaks down to about the same price either way in terms of variable costs.

Overhead for digital : $2500 (scanner + printer)

overhead for chemical : $1000 or so entire setup (enlarger, rack, washer, loupe, trays, lights, timer)

digital is obsolete in a bit as new producs come out hoping to come closer to traditional quality

traditional is less efficient in terms of time and consistency (unless you buy into an automated processing system ha ha)

You know, though, most of what I like about the traditional process is that everything is tangible - the sense of creation is really something more than with a digital process.

As much as Costco makes sense (really probably more than anything else in terms of price - or even Moonlight Photo in LA), I might be best serving my own deeper interests to buy back into a wet process. But which interests make the most sense to address? The interest of passion or practicality?

thanks for the input

 

[sf]

George -- have you ever worked in a wet darkroom? Because there is a learning curve, just like with digital. The other issue is that if you are doing only 50 prints a year, it is an overkill. Is there a rental darkroom in your area? I am sure there is in LA. In Santa Barbara I go to specialty photo lab. They have superb enlargers, free "learn to print b&w" workshops every 2 weeks, nice people, and it is 15 dollars an hour...they pay for chemicals...10 dollars on thursdays. They also have an Ilford RC machine that does RC in about 2 minutes enlarger to dry print. This allows you to be extremely productive once you get the hang of it. I am sure there are rental darkrooms in LA that are similar. Since you are not printing a huge volume of stuff, you can save a lot by just buying paper and paying the hourly rate. It saves you the bother of building a whole darkroom, cleaning it, keeping the chemicals fresh, disposing of them safely, etc etc.

anyway, I don't think ditching the scanner is a good idea, because it is like money in the bank. It may not be doing much for you at the moment, but you can make very high quality scans of all your work that you can use later when you find a better lab or buy a better printer. It also allows you to use color, which is always a nice option to have. Finally, it allows you to have a presence on the web, which is a big deal.

I think I'll just grow another ulcer. I'll name this one "workflow" and get back to ya'll when I've decided what to do. Color is a good point.

Oh heck. Maybe the scanner won't be leaving. Maybe I WILL just buy one of those Epson machines and call myself satisfied.

 

[clarence]

I think I'll just grow another ulcer. I'll name this one "workflow" and get back to ya'll when I've decided what to do. Color is a good point.

My ulcer called 'workflow' made me get a DSLR. It happened to cure GAS as well. The humours of the stomach somehow remedied themselves.

Clarence

 

[ch1]

George, with digital input (you can even submit over the web with 1 hour pickup) Costco is very definitely something you should try. Check out the profile database at http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Washington_profiles.htm#WA, all the Seattle area stores are listed. For the best results, I have done the submission in person, following the directions at DryCreek as far as what to specify to the operators. The results, in every case, have exceeded my expectations. The bonus is that the paper used is the Fuji Crystal Archive, noted for it's longevity. The extra big bonus is cost!

larry

Larry,

This on-line method works for JPEGs. But I scan film in either RAW or TIFF (resulting in 65mb files) and shoot the D-70 in RAW (NEF version) coming in around 10mb each.

These files are just too large for my ISP to upload and forward. That's why I use the drop-off labs.