MelanieC
Well-known
I just (as in last month) dove into black and white film photography. I have some decent labs around here where I can take film to be developed and printed, but it's getting kind of expensive. Also, it's a waste when you end up with prints that didn't really work or just really weren't worth the paper. Finally, it seems like it isn't that hard to develop film at home, so I've bought the necessities and plan to start doing that in my (light tight) bathroom as soon as my tank and spools show up.
After that, I figure I have two options.
(1) Scan the negatives, pick the images I like, and print them at home. I am not sure I want to do this for two reasons. One, my printer and scanner are both bottom of the line (Epson C60 printer and 2480 scanner -- together they cost under $200) and I have doubts about the quality of prints I'll get this way. Two, what with the digital "translation" images must undergo to get from negative to print this way, I am worried about degradation of quality, but have no experience to base this worry on.
(2) Scan the negatives, pick the images I like, and take them to a good lab to be printed. I don't have the space for an enlarger, and am a bit scared of the amount of equipment and chemicals I'd need to actually print at home wet darkroom style. I think this is probably the best way to get good quality images, but wonder if it will be considerably more expensive than printing my own. With the costs of paper and ink I guess this question is up in the air.
I don't expect to be printing in very high volume either way.
Any advice is very welcome.
Thanks, Melanie
After that, I figure I have two options.
(1) Scan the negatives, pick the images I like, and print them at home. I am not sure I want to do this for two reasons. One, my printer and scanner are both bottom of the line (Epson C60 printer and 2480 scanner -- together they cost under $200) and I have doubts about the quality of prints I'll get this way. Two, what with the digital "translation" images must undergo to get from negative to print this way, I am worried about degradation of quality, but have no experience to base this worry on.
(2) Scan the negatives, pick the images I like, and take them to a good lab to be printed. I don't have the space for an enlarger, and am a bit scared of the amount of equipment and chemicals I'd need to actually print at home wet darkroom style. I think this is probably the best way to get good quality images, but wonder if it will be considerably more expensive than printing my own. With the costs of paper and ink I guess this question is up in the air.
I don't expect to be printing in very high volume either way.
Any advice is very welcome.
Thanks, Melanie
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Scanning negs can take time and be really boring.
Think about a lightbox and loupe for looking at the negatives - with B&W this is easy. And then scan the 'possible keepers' and take the really good ones to the lab.
With home printers it's not just the speed and resolution and buying the right paper it's the low quality of the inks too.
Think about a lightbox and loupe for looking at the negatives - with B&W this is easy. And then scan the 'possible keepers' and take the really good ones to the lab.
With home printers it's not just the speed and resolution and buying the right paper it's the low quality of the inks too.
sf
Veteran
I print with a Canon IP5000, and it does a spectacular job of black and white. Color is a little flat, though. There are 8 color printers out there, like the newest Epsons, that produce prints you'd have a hard time criticizing, even beside traditional prints. I find that the control I have with Photoshop and my printer is much better, and I can produce EXACTLY the look I want instead of messing with apertures and printing times and all the chemicals.
The IP5000 is a decent price - cheaper than having 30 prints made at the local shop in 8x10 format. You'll save lots of money if you scan and print yourself. Get a better scanner, however, and a better printer.
If you shoot black and white only, get a 6 or 8 color printer and buy one of those 8 shades of gray inksets - you'll produce breathtaking B&W prints.
I scan with a Dimage Scan Multi Pro and print on my IP5000, and the black and white is equal at arms length to my old chemical prints. Maybe I was never very good, or my enlarger was suboptimal (which is was), but hey.
The IP5000 is a decent price - cheaper than having 30 prints made at the local shop in 8x10 format. You'll save lots of money if you scan and print yourself. Get a better scanner, however, and a better printer.
If you shoot black and white only, get a 6 or 8 color printer and buy one of those 8 shades of gray inksets - you'll produce breathtaking B&W prints.
I scan with a Dimage Scan Multi Pro and print on my IP5000, and the black and white is equal at arms length to my old chemical prints. Maybe I was never very good, or my enlarger was suboptimal (which is was), but hey.
pvdhaar
Peter
There's one thing really wrong with printing at home, and that is that to get best picture quality, the printer should be printing 24/7. Doesn't matter whether you have a 50$ or 500$ printer. Everytime I've not used the printer for a couple of days, the inks start to dry in the print head and I have to go through numerous cleaning runs etc. Before I get decent results I've already emptied the cartridges. And when I finally get a print that I like, I invariably get scratches and finger prints on the surface that drive me mad.
Compare that to printing at the local shop. You plug in a memory card, and a couple of seconds later a very fine 10x15 (cm) dye-sub (and therefore very handling resistant) pops out..
The colour cast from a straight greyscale image may seem a bit disconcerting at first, until you learn that by slightly adding your own (e.g. sepia) you can sidestep that.
Compare that to printing at the local shop. You plug in a memory card, and a couple of seconds later a very fine 10x15 (cm) dye-sub (and therefore very handling resistant) pops out..
The colour cast from a straight greyscale image may seem a bit disconcerting at first, until you learn that by slightly adding your own (e.g. sepia) you can sidestep that.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Actually many professional place do not print 'traditionally' with an enlarger. They have machines that scan and print optically with light beams shone on traditional paper. Sort of Star Wars stuff.
Most leave the machines on auto, but you may find one where you can sit with the operator and fine-tune your prints.
Most leave the machines on auto, but you may find one where you can sit with the operator and fine-tune your prints.
Andy K
Well-known
Hi Melanie.
You don't need a massive amount of equipment for home enlarging. I use my kitchen as a temporary darkroom, and develop photographs at night. It takes about ten minutes to get set up, I am usually rinsing my first photograph about twenty minutes or so later.
You would need:
One enlarger (many going cheap on Ebay, usually with timer, easel etc.)
One safelight,
Three developing trays,
Somewhere to wash your photographs (kitchen sink/drainer, bathroom etc.)
Tongs,
Three or four plastic measuring jugs,
Three chemical storage tanks (plastic 1 or 2 litre concertina type are good)
Some blackout material for any windows.
Including the enlarger you should be able to get all that for about $100.
You will also need:
Chemicals (paper developer, stop bath, fixer)
Paper
I promise if you take this route you will be very satisfied when you are holding your first self-made from start to finish photograph.
(See attachments)
You don't need a massive amount of equipment for home enlarging. I use my kitchen as a temporary darkroom, and develop photographs at night. It takes about ten minutes to get set up, I am usually rinsing my first photograph about twenty minutes or so later.
You would need:
One enlarger (many going cheap on Ebay, usually with timer, easel etc.)
One safelight,
Three developing trays,
Somewhere to wash your photographs (kitchen sink/drainer, bathroom etc.)
Tongs,
Three or four plastic measuring jugs,
Three chemical storage tanks (plastic 1 or 2 litre concertina type are good)
Some blackout material for any windows.
Including the enlarger you should be able to get all that for about $100.
You will also need:
Chemicals (paper developer, stop bath, fixer)
Paper
I promise if you take this route you will be very satisfied when you are holding your first self-made from start to finish photograph.
(See attachments)
Last edited:
Another option, the one I think I am going to pursue, is to scan and edit your images at home and use an online printer. White House Custom Color has a good reputation from what I have heard from some local photographers. Once you get your settings all coordinated you upload your files to them and they print them as instructed.
http://www.whcc.com/
http://www.whcc.com/
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I work them over, after scanning, in PS and then send them online to Kodak. The prints are superb and seem to be chemical prints. Just try them Peter. They work through Dixons.
S
Socke
Guest
You're right with your assessment of your scanner and printer. The printer is good enough for text and charts and such and the scanner is decent for scanning prints for web use or pages from magazins etc. to use them in your texts. It is far from even an old slide scaner like Nikon LS2000 or Canon FS2710!
With this said, back to the problem at hand.
I too have no light tight room to do darkroom work and there is no comunity darkroom around so I scan my negs with a Canon FS2710 I got cheap and may upgrade to a newer scanner some time this year.
I scan to tif, work on the scans until they satisfy me and give the result to a minilab or to an online print service.
It's convenient and the results are pretty good, better since I got my monitor to agree with the minilab and online printer on colors
With this said, back to the problem at hand.
I too have no light tight room to do darkroom work and there is no comunity darkroom around so I scan my negs with a Canon FS2710 I got cheap and may upgrade to a newer scanner some time this year.
I scan to tif, work on the scans until they satisfy me and give the result to a minilab or to an online print service.
It's convenient and the results are pretty good, better since I got my monitor to agree with the minilab and online printer on colors
lubitel
Well-known
Melanie,
I got the same scanner as you and it sucks for negs. I use it only as a preview or for web. Then bring the negs to a lab. Recently got a Canon ip4200 printer. The quality is quite good, but BW looks somewhat redish.
I got the same scanner as you and it sucks for negs. I use it only as a preview or for web. Then bring the negs to a lab. Recently got a Canon ip4200 printer. The quality is quite good, but BW looks somewhat redish.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
First off--If you're using a lab, go to a professional lab that can give you real contact sheets on B&W paper. Make sure they are printing with the negatives in direct contact with the paper, and not printing through plastic sleeves or a slide file page.
Get yourself a decent 4x loupe (Schneider and Rodenstock aspherical are the best, but on a smaller budget consider the Pentax 5.5x or a Peak loupes) and decide what to print on the basis of contact sheets. If you process your own negatives, you can make contact sheets yourself without an enlarger. A good 4x loupe will tell you more about your negs than a cheap plastic 8x loupe.
If you order machine proof prints from the lab, it's more expensive usually, and the printer may be making "corrections" to contrast and density for each image, so they don't tell you if the negative was properly exposed in relation to the other images on the roll. If your exposures are inconsistent, a good lab will likely give you multiple contact sheets printed at different exposures so you can see all the images, but also it will let you know that you need to work on your exposure.
If the lab will be printing for you (at least until you decide you really need to do your own printing), you can mark up the contact sheet, indicating what you want printed, cropping, and any dodging and burning you want. Better to get contact sheets and a few nice handmade prints than a stack of machine made proofs.
Get yourself a decent 4x loupe (Schneider and Rodenstock aspherical are the best, but on a smaller budget consider the Pentax 5.5x or a Peak loupes) and decide what to print on the basis of contact sheets. If you process your own negatives, you can make contact sheets yourself without an enlarger. A good 4x loupe will tell you more about your negs than a cheap plastic 8x loupe.
If you order machine proof prints from the lab, it's more expensive usually, and the printer may be making "corrections" to contrast and density for each image, so they don't tell you if the negative was properly exposed in relation to the other images on the roll. If your exposures are inconsistent, a good lab will likely give you multiple contact sheets printed at different exposures so you can see all the images, but also it will let you know that you need to work on your exposure.
If the lab will be printing for you (at least until you decide you really need to do your own printing), you can mark up the contact sheet, indicating what you want printed, cropping, and any dodging and burning you want. Better to get contact sheets and a few nice handmade prints than a stack of machine made proofs.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Melanie,
Based on my experience with this, I can tell you, printing via a mini-lab or a pro-lab doesn't necessarily mean that the prints will be better than if you print them yourself with a high quality inkjet.
Many of todays labs, unless you can find a place that will still produce "old school" wet printing and has folks who actually know what they're doing with it, are now filled with Noritsu and Fuji Frontier machines. All these will do is the same process that would result from you scanning your film and taking in digital files to the lab.
I've taken the same digital file into the lab that I used to print on my inkjet at home and the results are completely different with respect to highlights. The lab blew out the highlights where as the inkjet did not. The actual darkroom print (non-wet process) was, in fact, better if not the best - the only benefit I find is the total "dust" removal that I can do in PS before printing via inkjet.
For me, it really depends on just how many images I will print and just how often. My local lab has started "doing" B&W processing and has, as such, recalibrated their Noritsu system . I may give them another try with the actual Negative this time and see what type of results come back. I planned on creating a post to do a comparison (non-scientific of course) but I may post that to my blog instead.
Cheers
Dave
Based on my experience with this, I can tell you, printing via a mini-lab or a pro-lab doesn't necessarily mean that the prints will be better than if you print them yourself with a high quality inkjet.
Many of todays labs, unless you can find a place that will still produce "old school" wet printing and has folks who actually know what they're doing with it, are now filled with Noritsu and Fuji Frontier machines. All these will do is the same process that would result from you scanning your film and taking in digital files to the lab.
I've taken the same digital file into the lab that I used to print on my inkjet at home and the results are completely different with respect to highlights. The lab blew out the highlights where as the inkjet did not. The actual darkroom print (non-wet process) was, in fact, better if not the best - the only benefit I find is the total "dust" removal that I can do in PS before printing via inkjet.
For me, it really depends on just how many images I will print and just how often. My local lab has started "doing" B&W processing and has, as such, recalibrated their Noritsu system . I may give them another try with the actual Negative this time and see what type of results come back. I planned on creating a post to do a comparison (non-scientific of course) but I may post that to my blog instead.
Cheers
Dave
kaiyen
local man of mystery
This really is a tough question, Melanie. You're in SF, right? New Lab is pretty darn pricey for black and white, and most other labs are going to be just as expensive or not as good.
You can also consider doing your own printing at a rental darkroom. Rayko on 3rd, for instance (where I do some mentoring), is $7.50 an hour in their community darkroom. All you need is your own paper, and you could get several prints done in a couple of hours once you get proficient.
The whole thing about scanning and inkjets is a hard question to answer. It works for me and my particular methods, but does not for others. Scanning is slow, and tweaking in photoshop is just as much an art as dodging and burning in the wet darkroom, IMO. And settling upon an effective printer solution - third party inks, which printer, etc. - is also tough or expensive or both. For the price of an Epson 2400, you can get 100 hours in at Rayko, for instance. But then you get to work from home.
allan
You can also consider doing your own printing at a rental darkroom. Rayko on 3rd, for instance (where I do some mentoring), is $7.50 an hour in their community darkroom. All you need is your own paper, and you could get several prints done in a couple of hours once you get proficient.
The whole thing about scanning and inkjets is a hard question to answer. It works for me and my particular methods, but does not for others. Scanning is slow, and tweaking in photoshop is just as much an art as dodging and burning in the wet darkroom, IMO. And settling upon an effective printer solution - third party inks, which printer, etc. - is also tough or expensive or both. For the price of an Epson 2400, you can get 100 hours in at Rayko, for instance. But then you get to work from home.
allan
K
Krasnaya_Zvezda
Guest
Here's what works for me:
Develop bw negs at home
do the lightbox/loupe eval
scan selections with Epson 4180
print with Epson C86 with MIS quadtone inks
if I really like the shot and want a REALLY nice print, I upload it to Mpix
and have it printed on their True Black and White paper. Very high quality and inexpensive.
Develop bw negs at home
do the lightbox/loupe eval
scan selections with Epson 4180
print with Epson C86 with MIS quadtone inks
if I really like the shot and want a REALLY nice print, I upload it to Mpix
and have it printed on their True Black and White paper. Very high quality and inexpensive.
amateriat
We're all light!
As several have already mentioned, there is no "one way" to get quality results. But they all require time, thought, and money, to a greater or lesser extent and proportion.
Except for film types I can't/won't handle at home (mostly C41, plus a little E6), everything is done on the home front, as I've returned to developing my own b/w film since last year. I'm lucky to have a high-quality 35mm film scanner (Minolta DiMage Scan 5400), as well as a tabloid-size flatbed with transparency lid (UMAX PowerLook 2100XL) which I use mostly for creating enlarged digital contact sheets), but it's possible to get very good results for considerably less money if you choose carefully - if the scan is sub-par, it won't matter how much you spend on a printer (and you'll be working harder to correct things in Photoshop than necessary).
Speaking of printers, I recently went against my "always Epson" doctrine and took a chance on HP's largest Photosmart series printer, the 8750, which cost me well under $400 at the time (right before Christmas; it's gone up somewhat since then). Since my last printer setup for color and b/w was split between two printers (Epson 2200 for color, Epson 1160 with a Quadtone inkset for b/w), I was hoping against hope that I could get at least equal results in one printer. Surprise: the HP at least matches the 2200 for color (subjectively, I think it's a tad better), but the black and white output is shockingly better than either printer, and dead-neutral (I prefer my b/w "straight-up", so this is a big deal to me). So it appears that good, archivally-stable b/w printing up to 13x19" can be had, using standard inks and paper, from one printer, and without going to the poorhouse. Match this with a not-crazy-priced scanner like the now-scarce Konica Minolta Dual IV (or a select number of older Minolta or Nikon film scanners on the 'Bay), add a bit of patience to get things dialed in properly, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the result.
- Barrett
Except for film types I can't/won't handle at home (mostly C41, plus a little E6), everything is done on the home front, as I've returned to developing my own b/w film since last year. I'm lucky to have a high-quality 35mm film scanner (Minolta DiMage Scan 5400), as well as a tabloid-size flatbed with transparency lid (UMAX PowerLook 2100XL) which I use mostly for creating enlarged digital contact sheets), but it's possible to get very good results for considerably less money if you choose carefully - if the scan is sub-par, it won't matter how much you spend on a printer (and you'll be working harder to correct things in Photoshop than necessary).
Speaking of printers, I recently went against my "always Epson" doctrine and took a chance on HP's largest Photosmart series printer, the 8750, which cost me well under $400 at the time (right before Christmas; it's gone up somewhat since then). Since my last printer setup for color and b/w was split between two printers (Epson 2200 for color, Epson 1160 with a Quadtone inkset for b/w), I was hoping against hope that I could get at least equal results in one printer. Surprise: the HP at least matches the 2200 for color (subjectively, I think it's a tad better), but the black and white output is shockingly better than either printer, and dead-neutral (I prefer my b/w "straight-up", so this is a big deal to me). So it appears that good, archivally-stable b/w printing up to 13x19" can be had, using standard inks and paper, from one printer, and without going to the poorhouse. Match this with a not-crazy-priced scanner like the now-scarce Konica Minolta Dual IV (or a select number of older Minolta or Nikon film scanners on the 'Bay), add a bit of patience to get things dialed in properly, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the result.
- Barrett
Last edited:
Oliver
Member
If you go with a film scanner with dust removal (like the Nikon Coolscans) - that feature will only work on non-silver films. In other words, you can scan Tri-X, TMax, Kodachrome and the like but you have to spot them digitally. If you scan chromogenic B&W like 400CN then you can scan with dust removal. Also, I find 400CN is a great film for digital - the gray dye clouds work much better for me scanned than opaque grain clusters. This is the opposite of my non-digital reaction where I find the 400CN far too flat to work with.
Also, I second the comments on the HP - worth looking at for B&W. I love mine, only downside is the ink cartridges are more expensive than other printers. If you would mostly do color printing then I'd probably go Epson. (and newer Epsons may be better at B&W now)
Also, I second the comments on the HP - worth looking at for B&W. I love mine, only downside is the ink cartridges are more expensive than other printers. If you would mostly do color printing then I'd probably go Epson. (and newer Epsons may be better at B&W now)
MelanieC
Well-known
Hi all,
Thanks for the advice.
I won't be investing in any new home equipment printer or scanner wise (don't have the money). I figure maybe I'll print contact sheets at home, but if I can't get decent quality then there's no point in making prints except maybe to hand out to friends for kicks.
So what you're telling me is that most photo labs are just going to take my negatives, scan them, and print like a digital photo anyway? Yeesh, I was hoping they were making "real" prints. My understanding is that every time you manipulate an image in a computer (turning it into a jpg, editing it, whatever) you lose some information. Obviously the process of translation involved in "wet" printing involves some loss of info too, but my impression was that it would be less. Unfortunately, I just don't have the wherewithal to do my own wet darkroom prints at home, no space, no time, although it sounds like enlargers are cheaper than I thought they were. I could rent space at some of the schools around here and may try it that way.
Thanks again!
Thanks for the advice.
I won't be investing in any new home equipment printer or scanner wise (don't have the money). I figure maybe I'll print contact sheets at home, but if I can't get decent quality then there's no point in making prints except maybe to hand out to friends for kicks.
So what you're telling me is that most photo labs are just going to take my negatives, scan them, and print like a digital photo anyway? Yeesh, I was hoping they were making "real" prints. My understanding is that every time you manipulate an image in a computer (turning it into a jpg, editing it, whatever) you lose some information. Obviously the process of translation involved in "wet" printing involves some loss of info too, but my impression was that it would be less. Unfortunately, I just don't have the wherewithal to do my own wet darkroom prints at home, no space, no time, although it sounds like enlargers are cheaper than I thought they were. I could rent space at some of the schools around here and may try it that way.
Thanks again!
VinceC
Veteran
If you scan and save as a TIFF file or similar format, there won't be any loss with image manipulation. Compressed JPEG files lose a little every time their saved. (I've never tried saving them, like 1,000 times to see what would happen).
cpranger
Pedestrian Ranger
Melanie:
Here's what I would do. Do the film developing at home using your tank/bathroom setup. You can use tri-x, plus-x or any of the traditional films, maybe use bulk film with a bulk loader to save more money. A few alternative possibilities for printing:
1. Use your flatbed to do scans of the negatives, even if you do them through transparent sleeves (I think B and H sells them). Then you can reverse the images in PS or a cheap/free imaging software alternative that has the reverse functionality. You can then look at the images on the screen or print out a low quality positive contact sheet that will allow you to "triage" what you like. Later, after you have accumulated a good amount of pictures that you want to print, go to a real wet darkroom (rental or community based such as at a club, Y, college, etc.) Do lots of prints a session. You might also try doing lower quality grayscale b/w prints on your inkjet or even laserjet printer. Sure, they aren't archival traditional prints, but they may still be satisfying to you and your friends/family. The ones that really are for "forever" can be done at a wet darkroom or by a professional lab.
2. Read about Gary Winogrand (see some links on how he worked in the forum here). Use his technique. take, say 30 or 40 rolls before even developing them. Then develop them all at once (well, maybe not in one session, but maybe in several sessions). Use, say, several tanks that hold several rolls each. Then take the negatives to the darkroom and make your own contact sheets on all 30/40 rolls (he did hundreds, it appears, before developing them). This will take, say, an hour or two. Then study the sheets at home and go back to the darkroom to do your prints another time.
When I was at Berkeley they had a great "community" darkroom where I did my developing and printing. I also attended UCSF, but don't recall any darkroom there. But you might check and see. If Berkeley still has one (it was at the student union building). It might be worth taking a trip across the bay now and then for an intense session of printing. It also was a much better equipped darkroom than the typical commercial rental ones I came across over the years. I think it was available not only to students/staff but also alumni (I was an alumnus at the time). Being on the staff at UCSF should qualify you.
BTW, had some wonderful years at UCSF and miss it. Now am in Manhattan, a different world!
Frank
Here's what I would do. Do the film developing at home using your tank/bathroom setup. You can use tri-x, plus-x or any of the traditional films, maybe use bulk film with a bulk loader to save more money. A few alternative possibilities for printing:
1. Use your flatbed to do scans of the negatives, even if you do them through transparent sleeves (I think B and H sells them). Then you can reverse the images in PS or a cheap/free imaging software alternative that has the reverse functionality. You can then look at the images on the screen or print out a low quality positive contact sheet that will allow you to "triage" what you like. Later, after you have accumulated a good amount of pictures that you want to print, go to a real wet darkroom (rental or community based such as at a club, Y, college, etc.) Do lots of prints a session. You might also try doing lower quality grayscale b/w prints on your inkjet or even laserjet printer. Sure, they aren't archival traditional prints, but they may still be satisfying to you and your friends/family. The ones that really are for "forever" can be done at a wet darkroom or by a professional lab.
2. Read about Gary Winogrand (see some links on how he worked in the forum here). Use his technique. take, say 30 or 40 rolls before even developing them. Then develop them all at once (well, maybe not in one session, but maybe in several sessions). Use, say, several tanks that hold several rolls each. Then take the negatives to the darkroom and make your own contact sheets on all 30/40 rolls (he did hundreds, it appears, before developing them). This will take, say, an hour or two. Then study the sheets at home and go back to the darkroom to do your prints another time.
When I was at Berkeley they had a great "community" darkroom where I did my developing and printing. I also attended UCSF, but don't recall any darkroom there. But you might check and see. If Berkeley still has one (it was at the student union building). It might be worth taking a trip across the bay now and then for an intense session of printing. It also was a much better equipped darkroom than the typical commercial rental ones I came across over the years. I think it was available not only to students/staff but also alumni (I was an alumnus at the time). Being on the staff at UCSF should qualify you.
BTW, had some wonderful years at UCSF and miss it. Now am in Manhattan, a different world!
Frank
taffer
void
Mel, Ive been facing this same question for a while now, been doing what you suggested on point 2, that is, scanning the keepers and send them online to my lab for printing.
One thing is for sure, the price is great as they use to have 50% off offers during some days each month, and it's extremely fast. I've sent things up to 20h at evening and had them the next day on the store at the other side of the street.
BUT (you knew there was one, did you? ), there's A WORLD of difference with a real wet print, that became clearly evident when I got my print for my RFF swap partner. These labs use regular archival paper, just like the one you get on your normal color prints, and to be honest, after having that real print in my hands I really think B&W deserves real wet printing, or at least a very good inkjet one where you can select your paper quality and texture and make your own decisions.
That said, as for example contact sheets, the online printing option can be a very good one, scan the whole roll at a lower resolution, make a digital contact sheet (where you can adjust levels and curves for each frame easily) and then send that one to the lab for printing.
To make a long story short, I decided this some days ago and thanks to our very own G'man I'm taking my first dive into the arcane world of wet printing, hope I can say something more about it soon !
Of course, real B&W labs can do wonderful jobs and work at your instructions, but alas, they ain't exactly cheap
Whatever you choose, good luck !!!
Oscar
One thing is for sure, the price is great as they use to have 50% off offers during some days each month, and it's extremely fast. I've sent things up to 20h at evening and had them the next day on the store at the other side of the street.
BUT (you knew there was one, did you?
), there's A WORLD of difference with a real wet print, that became clearly evident when I got my print for my RFF swap partner. These labs use regular archival paper, just like the one you get on your normal color prints, and to be honest, after having that real print in my hands I really think B&W deserves real wet printing, or at least a very good inkjet one where you can select your paper quality and texture and make your own decisions.That said, as for example contact sheets, the online printing option can be a very good one, scan the whole roll at a lower resolution, make a digital contact sheet (where you can adjust levels and curves for each frame easily) and then send that one to the lab for printing.
To make a long story short, I decided this some days ago and thanks to our very own G'man I'm taking my first dive into the arcane world of wet printing, hope I can say something more about it soon !
Of course, real B&W labs can do wonderful jobs and work at your instructions, but alas, they ain't exactly cheap
Whatever you choose, good luck !!!
Oscar