Djon's scan/print cookbook

[djon]

Cookbook :angel:

1) Any film.
2) Nikon V scanner 4000ppi
3) Vuescan scanning application especially for B&W...Nikonscan's fine for all color.
4) Epson 2200 with Epson OEM pigments...prints up to 13X19
5) Kirkland (Costco) glossy for workprints, casual stuff....looks nice if you like glossy. Epson Enhanced Matte looks better than Kirkland if you like matte. Moab Entrada natural or white in heavy weight (300gsm) for finished prints...matte.
6) I print B&W either "black-only" or with QTRgui printer driver...zero color casts either way.
7) I use no special calibration tools.

Notes:

1) over-dense film is harder to scan, otherwise relax...nothing special.
2) I owned 2 Minolta 5400II and returned both as non-functional...the first did make several very nice scans before it died.
3) Nikonscan seems to need scan-as-positive-and-invert with B&W...Vuescan doesn't...therefore I simply use Vuescan.
4) The Epson has NEVER given me a moment of grief...no clogging for example...I leave it ON carelessly for weeks at a time. Older models and the use of ink instead of Epson's pigments do clog, even according to enthusiasts for MIS (the best) alternate inks.
5) Kirkland may be the same as Epson glossy...maybe. "Bronzing" does occur with gloss and semigloss.
6) Black-only is an Epson printer selection. If you select it you will get a warning that you won't like the print. But you will, it's wrong. QTRgui is a $50 download that allows very nice range of toning and with many/most people pictures it looks a little smoother than black-only..I use it for sepia tone. Black-only often looks more punchy, but may make small prints look tri-x grainy.

 

[Kin Lau]

I have 2 and 3 stop underexposed b&w neg's that scanned nicely, but is tough to do a wet print. The over-exposed and over developed shots are tough to scan, but Vuescan does have a "multi-pass" mode.

 

[djon]

Plug: For two years I've been dealing with Inkjetart.com: fine, economical source for pigments, paper, misc, and Epson printers: they actually know what they're selling and provide online and telephone support (just a little bit cranky on the phone sometimes 🙄 )

...also, I did a lot of printing yesterday: my new standard "best" paper may become one of inkjetart's house-branded papers, rather than Entrada: "Illuminata Ultrasmooth" 300gsm ...a heavy paper, it requires loading from the back of my Epson. Slightly warm, unwhitened*, cotton, untextured printable both sides. http://www.inkjetart.com/wc/illuminata/family.html

* whitened papers such as Epson Enhanced Matte are said to be prone to yellowing...some say within a few years. Therefore I'm avoiding whitened papers in deliverable prints. Illumnata Ultrasmooth is 100% cotton, which is expensive...a less expensive alternative is another Illuminata paper using a cellulose base that's said to be similarly archival.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Interesting stuff, Djon.

 

[djon]

It's just my own setup. The printer and scanner are mid-high level gizmos, you can save money a notch or two down. I advocate Epson refurb printers if you can find what you want.

More recent Epson printers may be better (less/no bronzing) for glossy or semi-gloss/pearl prints, but I've not seen anybody claiming them better for matte.

Everybody wants you to buy electronic gizmos and special profiles...people LOVE to make this more complicated than necessary. I think familiarity with a little color theory (as for traditional color enlarging) makes extra technology less appealing.

I'm using Photoshop CS2, but I think Photoshop 7 (not earlier) is just as good for my way of working and I think Photoshop Elements 3 would be plenty (comes with new scanners).

I'm not an ace scanner/printer but I do produce B&W and color prints that are considerably better than I'd expect from a lab.

 

[pedro.m.reis]

Is printing our own pictures at home more ecobomical? I've never did the math, how much each print costs at home?

 

[T_om]

Is printing our own pictures at home more ecobomical? I've never did the math, how much each print costs at home?

I have no idea what the price dynamics are in Portugal, but in the US, it is less expensive to use a lab.

I use a pro lab, which is a bit more expensive than the "big box" stores, and even so have stopped printing anything important at home at all.

Tom

 

[Kin Lau]

4x6 printing here in Toronto is cheaper at the lab, 25 cents per print avg... I can hardly get paper alone for that price.

5x7 and up is a big difference. Labs want at least CDN $2.99, some even $8 - 10 for a 8x10. Home is a little to a lot cheaper then.

At greater than 8x10 sizes, then like djon's setup, there's no comparison.

 

[pedro.m.reis]

I have no idea what the price dynamics are in Portugal, but in the US, it is less expensive to use a lab.

I use a pro lab, which is a bit more expensive than the "big box" stores, and even so have stopped printing anything important at home at all.

Tom

I use a Pro Lab for printing, and I get each 10x15 for €0.19. I only use 35mm so I dont know the price for other formats.
In my case, i realy dont think if is a good move to start printing at home.

 

[djon]

The only reasons to print your own are quality and convenience.

If you become basically competent you will reliably beat anything from an amateur-oriented lab. The technology is incredibly good and cheap these days...

Your inkjet-printed B&W will reliably beat lab work if you acquire minimal skills and use standard printers with standard original equipment pigments or inks from any of the printer manufacturers. You don't need special inks or pigments. "Color casts" in today's inkjet printers are directly the result of wrong technique.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I use a Minolta 5400 V1 to scan C41 B&W as colour then do the tweaking in PS Elements 2.0 with conversion to greyscale at the end. To print I use an HP 7960 with grey cartridge installed and print as grey scale. There are no colour casts. No special programs or downloads just OEM stuff. Colour printing is even easier. I would think the cost of printing 4X6 would be cheaper at a lab but for larger sizes it may be cheaper at home. The reason I went this route is to get full control over the output and not have someone elses idea of what they thought it should look like. That is probably the main reason to home scan and injet print.

Bob

 

[djon]

C41 color as b&w can be remarkably effective. I think the main reason I'm shooting b&w film for b&w photos is that I don't have to travel to a lab, deal with retail clerks and dubious lab quality...I can process it myself, eliminating lab risk. If I ran my own C41 I'd probably shoot only C41. Granted, some b&w silver film can have a special "look" but I think my photography is more important than that look.

 

[djon]

Bob's Minolta 5400 I / HP combo is a fine alternative to my Nikon V / Epson.

Canon/Canon and Epson 4990/Epson make folks happy, as well. I'd strongly recommend against the newer Minolta 5400II however...the older model was far better built and may have some performance advantages, though it's a lot slower.

 

[Nikon Bob]

There are several combos of scanner/ printer out there that, as Djon says, will give good results without the use of special programs to specifically handle B+W. The old bugaboo of colour casts in B+W printing are disappearing quickly and no longer present a problem for at home B+W inkjet printing with the right combo. I think more people should try it as a alternative to wet printing.

Bob

 

[jaapv]

One of the nicest programs for B&W conversion is Picture Window Pro, a (small) Photoshop-like program with some nice features that work far more practical than PS.

 

[T_om]

One of the nicest programs for B&W conversion is Picture Window Pro, a (small) Photoshop-like program with some nice features that work far more practical than PS.

This is true. The author of the program is also the guy that wrote Lotus 1-2-3. He is an avid photographer and came up with PW Pro.

I use another of his tools, Color Mechanic Pro, on a regular basis with PhotoShop.

I recommend that program to photographers that just absolutely cannot afford PhotoShop as it is very powerful and has some remarkable features.

Tom

 

[djon]

I've not tried those applications...

Elements 2 and Elements 3, which come with various scanners and printers and cameras, are wonderful all by themselves. That is, they facilitate exquisite results with great ease. On the other hand, everybody's different and different people find different software front ends more appealing than other software front ends.

The temptation to use additional applications is often a distraction from learning more basic applications, just as are various camera gizmos. One nice thing about Elements and about Photoshop is that there's a TREMENDOUS amount of support out there online and in the form of books for "Dummies." Me, I find that the best documentation is usually packaged with software (wasn't that way a few years ago!). Adobe's is especially well written and thorough. Well worth taking a few minutes every now and then to study.

That said, a friend who is a master of zone system when he shoots Hassleblad, has studied with the best, uses Picasa with his digicam shots with amazing success.