Constantly churning the gear pot

[plummerl]

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.

Your right about on-line submission, but for large TIFFs (they will accept TIFF), I just put them on a CD (or DVD) and take them in. You can input them by almost any digital media at the counter or for really large loads, they will do it directly, for you. Just remember, with the very detailed info at Dry Creek, you are basically creating an input file sized exactly for the process at Costco. There is sizing given for all the output size they produce. With a really large file, it has to be down sampled anyway. I didn't point to it before, here is the process I am describing: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm. The machines at Costco are either printing at 300 or 320 ppi, just ask the operators.

larry

 

[Dougg]

I have 6mp scans made at the time of processing, no prints. These are fine for evaluation, online sharing, and even prints up to maybe 8x10. My lab does not print from negs at all, only the digital scans. So I can keep my negs safe at home... except to have a bigger scan made for a large print. While I'm generally happy with the quality of the small original scans, I'm struggling with the lab over my preferences for the larger scans... I'm coming to the conclusion I'd be better off using a film scanner myself to get the output the way I want, then submit THAT edited scan to the lab for the actual printing.

The wet darkroom is fun, but I think only for B&W prints. I never managed to climb the steep learning curve for color. The darkroom is silent, unused; maybe one day I'll bring it back to life... But I think the digital darkroom is the way for color.

 

[sf]

I have 6mp scans made at the time of processing, no prints. These are fine for evaluation, online sharing, and even prints up to maybe 8x10. My lab does not print from negs at all, only the digital scans. So I can keep my negs safe at home... except to have a bigger scan made for a large print. While I'm generally happy with the quality of the small original scans, I'm struggling with the lab over my preferences for the larger scans... I'm coming to the conclusion I'd be better off using a film scanner myself to get the output the way I want, then submit THAT edited scan to the lab for the actual printing.

The wet darkroom is fun, but I think only for B&W prints. I never managed to climb the steep learning curve for color. The darkroom is silent, unused; maybe one day I'll bring it back to life... But I think the digital darkroom is the way for color.

that's where i stand. I don't want to wrestle with most labs on my prints. In fact, I don't want to wrestle with them at all. As far as enlarging, it only really makes sense for B&W. Color is too difficult and too expensive, and I'd only do it if I did color slide and C41 processing myself. Which I don't. And won't.

boils down : nice scanner is useless without nice printer. Scanner is useless if I shop my prints out to labs. Wet setup is much less practical for my situation - and it works out to be around the same cost or slightly more than digital on a per print basis (ignoring overhead).

I have a marvel of a camera and a marvel of a scanner - but no way to produce a print that does either any justice. I have to either buy the R2400, or sell the scanner and buy into a wet setup. I won't have someone else do my prints. . . I just can't do that.

If I buy into the Epson inkjet thing, I'll have a net worth of -$3000.

If I sell the scanner and buy into a nice wet setup, I'll have a net worth of -$1500.

That's a $1500 benefit to leave digital behind. I'm figuring that a good wet setup will cost me $1000 (since I want a print washer as well).

I bought the scanner to archive my old stuff, and I'm glad i did. I scanned lots of old wedding photos for my parents - and retouched them, and about 350 of my own. Maybe 400. That kind of work would have cost many thousands of dollars had I shopped it out to Ivey Imaging. 5 digits, I'd figure.

I don't have the cash to spend on scans of 120 - they want $20 per roll of 120. Forget that. 40 rolls and I've bought the Epson V750.

 

[RML]

George, IMO your over-analysing things.

First of all, get yourself a proper lab. A lab that insists on CMYK and doesn't know how to handle RGB is not worth my time.

$20 for a print? There are cheaper places out there. I sometimes have my digital files printed (for print swaps and such) at 20x30cm max. Cost? 2.50 euro. I too was thinking of getting an Epson R2400 but at 2.50 euro per print I can do a whole lot of prints before I reach the 800 euro for the R2400.

Starting a wet print setup? Do you really have time to use it? And what about the cost for the plumbing you have to have installed? If you feel you must have a way to wet print, be my guest but don't think it'll be cheaper, more convenient oe more efficient than scanning and inkjet printing. I won't be. Just different.

I'd say, as Joe, already did, get a proper lab that does what you want.

 

[sf]

George, IMO your over-analysing things.

First of all, get yourself a proper lab. A lab that insists on CMYK and doesn't know how to handle RGB is not worth my time.

$20 for a print? There are cheaper places out there. I sometimes have my digital files printed (for print swaps and such) at 20x30cm max. Cost? 2.50 euro. I too was thinking of getting an Epson R2400 but at 2.50 euro per print I can do a whole lot of prints before I reach the 800 euro for the R2400.

Starting a wet print setup? Do you really have time to use it? And what about the cost for the plumbing you have to have installed? If you feel you must have a way to wet print, be my guest but don't think it'll be cheaper, more convenient oe more efficient than scanning and inkjet printing. I won't be. Just different.

I'd say, as Joe, already did, get a proper lab that does what you want.

I made a point of recognizing the impracticalities of wet process - and that it works out to be more expensive on variable costs. As far as overhead, the major factor is that I have this scanner sitting on a credit card right now. If I didn't, there would be no gain at all to going wet. But, because I do, I have $1500 to gain (relative to staying digital). And as I said, I don't want to have my stuff printed by others. It's just not what I want to do.

my father says I "stew" about things. I stew alot. I know this. It has physical manifestations. But I stew until things are just perfect. I'm a nit picking freak when it comes to my only passion.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

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

Geroge- I don't know where you come up with $1000 all in for a darkroom setup?
If you want good prints you need good equipment and that means well made enlargers and lenses. They don't come cheap. My devere 504 cost me £3000 GBP in 1988 that was without lenses! The printing light sources can be very expensive and archival printswashers in a practical size (min 12" x 16" x 13 slots) can cost a small fortune on the used market. Professional sinks in workable lengths (min 6') safelights, water filtration and air extraction considerations all add on the costs.....

Darkroom V digital printing comparison is pointless really costwise IMHO
it's like anything else photographic once you get into darkroom gear the good stuff can be pricey and there are some excellent choices to be found in the used market.

I think Joe's right if you only plan to make a few prints a month - find a good lab digial or wet and discuss your requirements. You'd certainly save money in the long term.
However wetprinting is a lot of fun if you have the time and patience and it puts you totally in control 🙂

 

[jonasv]

Simon, comparing 1988 prices to those of today makes no sense. Quality darkroom equipment can be bought practically for free if you look around. 95% of pro photographers have dumped or are dumping their darkroom equipment..

 

[sf]

Geroge- I don't know where you come up with $1000 all in for a darkroom setup?
If you want good prints you need good equipment and that means well made enlargers and lenses. They don't come cheap. My devere 504 cost me £3000 GBP in 1988 that was without lenses! The printing light sources can be very expensive and archival printswashers in a practical size (min 12" x 16" x 13 slots) can cost a small fortune on the used market. Professional sinks in workable lengths (min 6') safelights, water filtration and air extraction considerations all add on the costs.....

Darkroom V digital printing comparison is pointless really costwise IMHO
it's like anything else photographic once you get into darkroom gear the good stuff can be pricey and there are some excellent choices to be found in the used market.

I think Joe's right if you only plan to make a few prints a month - find a good lab digial or wet and discuss your requirements. You'd certainly save money in the long term.
However wetprinting is a lot of fun if you have the time and patience and it puts you totally in control 🙂

well, my friend has his entire darkroom setup - lights, tanks, trays, enlarger, two lenses, easel, focuser, negative carriers for $550. ANd that's a nice Beseler enlarger. I saw a Beseler 45 MX II with three lenses and negative carriers for $500. Print washers from Freestyle photo are $500 or so for an 11x14 washer. As far as plumbing and all that. . . you're right, that would be a mess. The house has 100 year old copper pipes. I'd have to install a fan up there. I'd have to seal off the light while maintaining airflow. Add another $500. I'm still up $1000 from the digital direction. I would install a simple water filtration system, but maybe that would not be enough for the water's issues.
Copper is hard to filter out of the water.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I wasn't meaning by mentioning 1988 prices for a comparison i realise it's all changed - my point was good equipment costs money. To replace any parts on my Focomat 1 and 2c from the current manufacturer works out very expensive i know this because i'm currently considering it. V35's are around £650 in the UK. So with respect i disagree. Some of my equipment from my darkroom now needs replacing and as it's all very specific the bits i want seem to cost money. I used to buy a lot of stuff from Zone V1 in the USA and paid a lot of tax when it came into the UK. This makes things expensive here in the UK. Another example: split grade cold light source heads from manufacturers like Cachet cost a lot. The Heiland Split grade light source system can cost over £1000 when matched to the Focomat enlargers. So as i'm talking specific items here i still believe that darkroom kit can be expensive to set up.
If you can set up for $500 US that's great but with what the way i print i can't !
That's all im saying 🙂

 

[Will]

If I buy into the Epson inkjet thing, I'll have a net worth of -$3000.

If I sell the scanner and buy into a nice wet setup, I'll have a net worth of -$1500.

That's net cost.

Any possibility of getting a workflow that works with the available vendors/labs in your area?

This will cost less, and you are not stuck with any equipment.

 

[StuartR]

George, I really think you should figure out a better lab situation. With my lab, I can walk in there with a prepared scan at whatever dimension I want, and as long as they don't do color correction on it, I pay the machine rate. That is 15 dollars for a 11x16.5 Chromira print on Crystal Archive paper. The cost is far less for a normal Fuji Frontier print. What you need is a lab that you can talk to, or one you can send out to. My lab in SB (www.colorservices.com) takes online submissions and does mail order work. So do places like West Coast Imagine, so they should be an option, and A&I is in LA. But anyway, as long as you have a color managed workflow, you should be able to walk into a lab, give them an ICC tagged file, and have them do no work on it, as still get a WSIWYG print without custom charges. If you are not getting this, it is either because they don't want to do this (because it lowers their fees) or because your workflow is not setup properly. I know that the Chromira automatically converts any tagged file to its color space on the fly, and I believe that the LightJet and Frontier can as well. If not, then at least you can get ICC profiles for them from the lab or from the manufacturers. I think you are making a bigger deal out of this then it is. You just need a good lab, and I am SURE there is one in LA. Since you are not printing more than 50 a year, an inkjet doesn't seem to make much sense. You are going to be paying a lot for the printer, and a lot for ink because if you don't use them all the time they tend to clog up, and clearing clogs uses a lot of ink, raising cost per print etc etc. With 50 prints in a year a good lab using a 9600 or one of the digital enlargers like the Chromira or Lightjet will probably be a better choice.

 

[BrianShaw]

You just need a good lab, and I am SURE there is one in LA.

In addition to the ones you mentioned: www.moonlightlab.com

I may have mentioned this before... check it out. I don't fret over color labs any more!

 

[John Camp]

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

If you're really fussy, it's hard to communicate well enough with a lab to satisfy yourself. I was interested in the "War Photographer" video to see Jim Nachtway working with his printer -- they came back four or five times to make changes in a single print, working one part or another, holding something down or bringing something up. That's really hard to do if you're a non-pro or a parttime pro, dealing with a lab -- they've got other things to do than to stand around and analyze a print like that. I mean, they might do it, but it might cost you $70 an hour to talk about it.

When I had my own wet darkroom, I found I had neither the patience nor the skill to get a print just the way I wanted it -- it really demands that you do it pretty much all at once, going back numerous times, working through the whole process. And while you're doing it, the components change -- the chemicals get warmer or cooler, or more or less reactive, or the film get scratched or winds up with a tiny hair on it....

The thing I like about digital -- and that I liked immediately -- is that your file can be manipulated endlessly (if you wish) to make very specific changes, and that you don't have to do it all at once. You can take an image so far one night, think about it for a while, then come back to **precisely** the same image and retouch...and the retouching, using Photoshop, can involve enhancement or suppression of the tiniest details.

There is a certain magic in wet darkrooms that is undeniable -- seeing the image come up in the developer, getting a hold of that whole "analog" process and producing a really great print. But if you KNOW what YOU want, then digital works better, IMHO.

JC

 

[John]

You have a top of the line camera, lenses, scanner, and software. Try to be patient in acquiring your print setup. Digital print equipment will only get better and cheaper over time.
For example: You can archive your shots on DVDs in your favourite format - raw, tiff, jpeg, etc. Tweak them as required. For stuff you need printed now - take a CD of 300 dpi or 600 dpi jpegs to Costco or other facility. If the quality is less than perfect remember you have the originals to be reprinted by yourself when the equipment is perfected and you can afford it.
I bought a $150 Plustek scanner and that is what I plan on doing. I can not afford a top of the line printer right now. I am not sure what quality is coming out of these printers yet? I would like to see and feel some examples. Some users report decent B&W quality from $100 and $200 printers so some research is in order? 🙂 🙂

 

[Dougg]

boils down : nice scanner is useless without nice printer. Scanner is useless if I shop my prints out to labs.

I don't agree here at all, and do agree with Stuart that doing your own scans gives you control of the starting point for printing. Repeatable. Also agree with others that you need to find a different lab; yours certainly is much different from mine, which does traditional non-digital prints from digital originals. http://photohaus.com/

 

[sf]

I don't agree here at all, and do agree with Stuart that doing your own scans gives you control of the starting point for printing. Repeatable. Also agree with others that you need to find a different lab; yours certainly is much different from mine, which does traditional non-digital prints from digital originals. http://photohaus.com/

yes. Yes this is true. It does give me a strong control over my starting point.

Well, after reading through all these posts over the last two days, it's pretty obvious that my thinking is askew as usual, and I should probably keep my scanner and just prepare perfect prints for printing on something like a Frontier or Lightjet or Chromira.

THe costs of getting the wet darkroom going will end up being pretty high after plumbing, electrical, enlarger, all that stuff gets along. And a wide format printer is just too expensive to maintain unless you are using it productively for work. Which I would not.

When I come up with a great image tha deserves printing, I'll just bring a CD into The Icon in LA (they are RGB, by the way - I had that backwards), and get a nice print. 100 prints later, I've bought the inkjet. . . but at least I wont have the ink, paper, and the extra gear to worry about.

I'll just stick with the Pixma for personal use, I guess. It's a pretty nice printer.

 

[Peter Klein]

George: Be sure to include the "cost" of your time and energy in all this.

For me, having a wet darkroom doesn't make any sense any more. Before the hybrid film-scanner-digital darkroom way, I always did my own B&W, wet. But only up to 8x10. Bigger than that, I sent out, and it only rarely happened. Color, I never saw the point of doing myself. Bear in mind I don't shoot MF, only 35mm.

Today, I have a Canon FS-4000 scanner and two Epson printers. The R200 is up to 8.5x11 only, and does color. The 1280 is permanently set up with MIS Ultratone 2 B&W inks. The 1280 can do 11x14 and 13x19, but I've rarely done 11x14 and never 13x19 myself. I still send out bigger than 8.5x11. The reason is that I've found that bigger than that, the wet process is better, given 35mm film and 4000 dpi scanning. Smaller, I can do just as well myself at B&W. Color, I still struggle with sometimes.

For processing and printing, I've used Costco, Ballard Camera, Panda, Moonphoto and Ivey.

Sometimes I scan my film myself. Often, I take it to Ballard Camera. They do B&W film as well as C41 (both color and BW400CN), and they do good work. I think it's about $23 per 36 roll if they scan at 1400x700-ish, and $31 per roll at 2000x3000-ish. At the larger scan, I can print 5x7 no problem, even with cropping, 8x10 if it's a good shot. For really big adjustments or cropping, I can rescan a couple myself. They also do good standard-size machine prints--don't remember prices, but it's way less than Ivey!

Panda will process and scan a roll of B&W at 16 bits, all for $15. It might take a few days. A wedding photog I almost bought an R-D1 from told me after he sold it to someone else, that he just gets 16-bit TIFFs of his B&W files from Panda, and he can print up to 8x10 without any worries. I haven't used them for this yet, but will in the near future.

Costco does good work, they are cheap, but they have an annoying tendency to scratch negatives.

Ivey cost$$$$, but they are within walking distance of my work. 🙂

Hope this is useful.

--Peter