ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
- Local time
- 11:07 AM
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,070
Long post- 😀
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? 😀 ) 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. 😀
Jay
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? 😀 ) 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. 😀
Jay
