*Analog* printing

[ksmattfish]

Just an update, I inquired at the lab and the print I got was in fact digital. They do optical enlargement by hand, but only by request and at a higher cost. When people don't request it they assume the cheapest and do it digitally. I got some optical 8" x 12" enlargements back yesterday and they look excellent.

Dave

A sure sign they don't know what they are doing with digital, or they have cheap/old digital printing equipment. You can find a lab that will do a decent job with machine prints.

You can walk into many art galleries these days and see excellent examples of large photographs printed with a digital process, so some folks know how to do it right.

 

[selmerdave]

A sure sign they don't know what they are doing with digital, or they have cheap/old digital printing equipment. You can find a lab that will do a decent job with machine prints.

You can walk into many art galleries these days and see excellent examples of large photographs printed with a digital process, so some folks know how to do it right.

Well, a drum scan is going to cost more than an optical enlargement, so while I'm sure it's possible to get very good digital printing I'm not sure it's worth paying extra for it.

I don't think the lab is incompetent, my results with them have been better than with Duggal, for example. What I got originally is consistent with a print from a ~20MB scan, which is consistent with a $10 8" x 10". From any reasonable distance it looks pretty good, but lacks a depth I thought it should have. Upon closer inspection I could see the hallmarks of digital. Probably for 99+ people out of 100 it would be fine and qualify as a "decent job", but for my photo that is for me it wasn't good enough and initially I was frustrated because the point of using film in the first place was to stay away from digital. Now I know how to do that. Thanks for the comments though.

Dave

 

[selmerdave]

selmerdave
Set up a darkroom in your bathtub, kitchen, basement, attic or anywhere in your house, even a closet. It's so much fun to print your own B&W as well as getting a much nicer picture worthy of a nice frame in your living room.

Darkroom equipment is so cheap these days since everyone is dumping their stuff for better printers and that chceap digital look they think is really cool... that is untill you put it next to a real print.

Paul/Ron,

I wish I could do it. I have passed up so many opportunities for cheap enlargers and complete setups, but I just don't have the space or a wife that is comfortable enough with the chemicals to use a shared space. I'm sure I would love doing it and enjoy the results, so sometime down the road hopefully I'll be able to do it. Hopefully before the "rediscovery" of optical printing and subsequent skyrocketing of prices.

Dave

 

[ksmattfish]

Well, a drum scan is going to cost more than an optical enlargement, so while I'm sure it's possible to get very good digital printing I'm not sure it's worth paying extra for it.

Nope. I'm not talking about drum scans. I'm talking about the standard, contemporary printing equipment that most labs, pro and el-cheapo, have gone to these days: Fuji, Noritsu, whatever.... I'm paying $2.50 for an 8"x10" on BW paper. If you are getting prints from negs where you can see digital artifacts their equipment is out dated, or whoever made the prints is doing something wrong, or there is something up with your negs that makes them hard to print. Particularly with small prints like 8"x10"s.

I'm sure there are plenty of labs in the NY area that can do a good job cheap, but if you really can't find one, try www.mpix.com. That's the consumer side of Miller's Professional Imaging (serving professional photographers in all 50 states since 1939). The consumer side only offers prints from files or 35mm, but they do a great job.

You may like the hand printed, BW prints on real gelatin silver paper better than machine prints, I know I do, but that's a different kind of paper/print than machine made lab prints whether from an optical or digital system. The process forms the image using minimal amounts of silver coupled with dyes rather than all silver. Even when they say it's "true BW", it's still the color print process, just with monochrome dyes instead of colored dyes.

By the way, I'm very picky when it comes to going over prints. That's why I still keep my BW darkroom running, and regularly use it to print my 35mm, medium format, and 4x5 negs. But I'm still getting wonderful prints from negs from pro labs that use digital printing systems for their machine prints.

 

[selmerdave]

Matt,

I don't see how you can get an 8x10 for $2.50. It costs around $8 to get a basic 15 or 20 MB scan, before you've done any of the printing, and for me that kind of resolution is not really enough. Maybe I'm misunderstanding and the digital process you are describing doesn't use a scan, and perhaps you could elaborate.

Dave

 

[markc]

Digital capture from a digital camera.

I shoot using a 10D and print using Piezography quadtone monochromatic pigment inks on Hahnemühle archival fine-art papers. On my Epson 1280 I can print most image at 12x18 on 13x19 paper with no major issues to my eye.

If you want to see what quality digital printing looks like, you might want to order some samples:
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw/piezographyBW-sample.html
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/samples.html
http://www.colorfolio.com/sample_request.htm

I've only gotten samples from the first link, so I can't vouch for the others. The samples are small, but they do show you what the ink system is capable of.

 

[ksmattfish]

Matt,

I don't see how you can get an 8x10 for $2.50. It costs around $8 to get a basic 15 or 20 MB scan, before you've done any of the printing, and for me that kind of resolution is not really enough. Maybe I'm misunderstanding and the digital process you are describing doesn't use a scan, and perhaps you could elaborate.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. I'm just talking about standard lab prints. All the labs I use got rid of their big, automatic, optical printers 4 or 5 years ago (and I was sad at the time). I'm not talking about ink jet printers. I'm talking about the big, beige or off white Fuji or Noritsu printing machine sitting in the middle of the lab. It used to be optical. Now it's digital. If you put in a file, it prints from file on standard process color photographic paper. If you put in a neg, it scans it, then prints from file on standard process color photographic paper. Even the labs I use that still offer hand printed BW and color prints ( for a price! ) use digital printing systems for their standard machine made lab prints.

My local full service lab actually charges $6 for an 8"x10" from file, 35mm, or medium format, but mpix.com will do 8"x10" prints from 35mm negs or digital files on monochrome color process paper for $2.50.

IMHO getting back prints of any kind with digital artifacts from a pro/full service lab these days is just unacceptable, unless there is a problem with what the lab is being provided to print from. Personally, I'd be shocked to see it. Just walk into a different full service lab, hand them the negs, ask for an 8"x10", and the odds are it will be a decent print.