Printing via computer at home, or having them printed traditionally

Long post- :D

I've been scanning all my negatives since I dismantled my darkroom almost 3 years ago. The current situation demands that I use digital for work now, though I still shoot a roll or two each month. I use two scanners- a Pacific Image 1800U and an Epson 4180. Sometimes I digitise my negatives using a DSLR mounted in copy-stand set up in using old enlarger parts.

Scans are either printed in-house using a 6-colour Epson Photostylus R210 printer, or else sent out to Fuji Frontier printers. My Epson has a CIS (continuous ink system) attachment- ink tanks containing 90ml of ink each instead of using the indecently expensive OEM inks- which allows extremely cost-effective printing. A 100 ml bottle of ink costs about 1/4 the price of an OEM cartridge containing only about 11 ml of ink. It's used about three or four times a week. It doesn't have to be on 24/7, and if there's no printing to be done, the 'test ink nozzle pattern' facility can be used to make random prints. This only need to be done twice a week if the printer isn't seeing any activity.

Photopaper costs me about $2.00 for a 20 pack envelope. So an 8x10 would cost me around $0.30 each.

Printing in-house has some advantages and disadvantages. The main drawbacks I see are permanence and quality. In terms of permanence, the inkjet prints would last quite long if they are stored in albums or away from light. Quality-wise, the inkjet photoprints are almost "there"- they're about 90% the quality of average 'wet' RA-4 prints. For BW, there's still a long way to go: the prints always appear with some sort of colour tint. Its difficult to get real greys unless all-BW inks are used.

There are the advantages too. Cost is one. Speed is two. Maximum control is three. I use inkjets exclusively for making proofs (our overhead printing costs have gone down drastically). Inkjet prints are sometimes good enough for making release prints. We've used them for press pictures meant to be published in newspapers, model headshots and composites, and even general purpose prints for instances when time contraints do not allow for lab printing. We also use it for ID and passport jobs.

Family snapshots are now exclusively done by inkjet. I've been doing this for almost 2 years now, and the prints in the albums still look as fresh as they had when they were first made (not with the Epson 210 though, but with 'ordinary' 4 colour printers).

The instance when the Epson R210 prints really showed their might was when I had to do a quickie exhibit for a TV event. We had to mount a picture display of the events which led to the event. I made 70+ A4 prints from both film (Rangefinder shots, what else? :D ) and digital captures in just a day. I was able to apply maximum creative control over the images, and got to produce them cheaply :angel: . When the prints were mounted and displayed, they looked every bit just like any photograph. The BWs looked 'toned' - they would in any case look the same if they were printed on colour RA-4 paper. BW paper is already hard to find here. If the prints were made through the lab, the time and cost would have been almost 100 times greater.

I still use lab printing for many of our work. It's still hard to beat when it comes to filling multiple orders like school portraits and the like. :D

Jay
 
And, BTW I DO miss the traditional darkroom print. I miss fibre based, silver images. I miss the safelight and the vinegar smell of a working darkroom. I did darkroom work for more than 20 years, and did colour RA-4 printing in the last three years of active wet-printing. I still do film processing both in BW and colour- and my current darkroom really a changing bag.

The silver print gave me permanent images, allowed me to experiment with toxic stuff :D to get tones (no more ferricyanides for me, but Photoshop can be as toxic in ways....:D) and allowed hand-colouring. Almost possible with monochrome prints on RA-4 paper, but not really so on inkjet prints.

Real BW photopaper is as rare as hen's teeth here now. I could still get RA-4 sheets and look forward to the day that I could print on these and process them in my still-healthy Durst RCP-20 processor...until that day, I'm stuck with inkjet prints whose permanence is questionable.

Jay
 
If it were me I'd look at the negs, select the ones I want, scan them and only them at the highest resolution you can with any in-scanner adjustments you care for, discard those that didn't materialise as good as you thought from looking at them with the loop, take the scans (cleaned up and tweaked to your liking) to a good lab and have them printed on proper photographic paper. IMO that's the most convenient way right now, though I can imagine having your own darkroom might be fun. :)
 
I scan my negatives on a flatbed in preview mode-quick, 10 at a whack-and select which ones I want. Then I do the final scan-usually on the flatbed-and work on each one, and select which to print. Finally, I burn to CD and go to a place with a Fuji Frontier, use the kiosk (select "no corrections) and get real prints on Fuji paper.
 
I find that I can get better prints with a half digital workflow. I shoot film, develop them myself, then scan on the KM Multi Pro and print on my Canon Pixma IP5000. Amazing printer, very high resolution - only 8x10 max - and no apparent color cast on B&W prints.

I get better contrast and tonal accuracy this way than I ever did with wet prints -but I was never an expert darkroom tech.
 
I also follow the half digital or even the full digital workflow. Printing on my own printer (Canon) lets me select the paper best suited for the subject.
My favorite papers:
Permajet museum classic
Fuji super gloss prof.
What I noticed from Fuji printing installations is that they are not that analog:
Film is scanned before printing.

B&W: prints on the Pixma 8500 have a very light greenish cast, even after activating "print grayscale only" in the driver ???

Wim
 
Take a photography evening class at a community college. The teacher will help you if you need but will otherwise leave you to do your own thing.
 
for me nothing beats traditional, baryta paper from wet darkroom... :)
 
Seems to be a ommon problem. This is where I'm getting into:

1. home-development (cheap and quick results)
2. scan using a batchscanner (see microtek, primefilm or other brands; I've some other posts on it)
(this takes approx. 1hour, but if you don't cut the film, it can scan unattendedly!)
3. do some basic postprocessing and use the scanned pictures for
 
This is where I want to go:
1. home development (indeed: cheap and quick results)
takes 30minutes per film; less if more films can be done together
2. scan film (I've been on the lookout for a batch scanner long and found the Microtek FIlmscan 3600)
this takes 1hour, but if you don't cut the film, it can do it unattended!
3. basic postprocessing (depends on the quality of metering etc... will improve :-!)
4. use the digital images for
- web publication
- ordering digital prints via the web and mail delivery (this is even cheaper than bringing it to the lab, and far more convenient)
5. enlargements are still to be done by the lab, but that's not something I do often
 
1. Develop in kitchen.
2. Scan with Epson 4990 (can do a proof by just plopping your negative sleeve down on the scanner)
3. Scan the negs I like
4. Get rid of the dust, adjust levels and curves in Photoshop
5. Print on Epson 1280

I really like using my Epson 1280 with MIS Ebony Ink and the printer set to black only. Gives really increadible results. I still prefer a nice traditional fiber print but I don't have access to darkroom or the time to go anymore. No problems with color shifts with black only and long term archival quality.

I would like to find a web source for doing enlargements bigger than the 13 x 19 that my printer can handle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom