printing question

kornelius · Mar 24, 2004

I have just started getting really serious about photography and I'm having a hard time finding someone to do my prints the way I want. Should I a good photo program and touch them up myself? If so, what do I do about printing? ANY suggestions would help as I am quite the amateur.

TheProf · Mar 25, 2004

What type of process are you shooting, C41, E6, B/W digital?

kornelius · Mar 25, 2004

Well, over the years i've done alot of b&w and have just started to experiment with color slide film. I have a canon t90 and pentax 645 medium format however I don't know any of the photography "lingo"... so I don't know what you are talking about... please explain if you could.

kornelius · Mar 25, 2004

ooooops... just noticed the helpful "hints".... my answer is E6....

ksmattfish · Mar 25, 2004

A good slide scanner, Adobe PS, and a good Epson printer and the world will be your oyster.

kornelius · Mar 25, 2004

by investing in a good scanner and printer i'll get the type of prints i would get at a lab?

markc · Mar 25, 2004

kornelius said:
by investing in a good scanner and printer i'll get the type of prints i would get at a lab?

If you get good ones, I dare say even better. Plus you have a lot more control over how you want them to look. Prints from inkjets have a wider dynamic range than what photo paper is capable of, and the resolution issue has been solved. Longevity was a problem, but the good printers seem to not have a problem with that any more.

My current dedicated B&W printing set-up produces prints that rival a high-quality fiber print, at least from the tech standpoint.

terri · Mar 25, 2004

Well....it will still be an inkjet print, whether you have a printer with pigment-based inks (more archival) or not. So you will be limited with anything you may want to do AFTERWARDS with that print. Selenium or split toning, etc.

I agree it's become more an archival issue these days than anything. I'm a big fan of my Epson 2200, but even as I marvel over the quality of the prints it gives me....I know it's not a silver gelatin print, and that just lessens its ultimate quality in my eyes.

But that's just me. :mrgreen:

markc · Mar 25, 2004

terri said:
So you will be limited with anything you may want to do AFTERWARDS with that print. Selenium or split toning, etc.

True, but toning can be done at the time of the print. It may not look exactly the same as a traditional chemical process, but some can be very, very close.

but even as I marvel over the quality of the prints it gives me....I know it's not a silver gelatin print, and that just lessens its ultimate quality in my eyes.

But that's just me. :mrgreen:

I can understand that. Since people usually don't have an issue with high-quality digital prints until they find out they are digital, I think it's mostly in people's heads. But that's where all perception of quality is anyway.

People had a similar reaction to color when it came out. Anything new is by definition different, and it can take a while for people to adjust.

Heck, if given a choice between a digital print and a traditional one, both of the same image quality, I'd still rather have the traditional one, same as you. I think it's for a similar reason that I like old cameras. It's not a quality issue, it's about some sense of old-time "magic" that seems to float around them.

terri · Mar 25, 2004

True, but toning can be done at the time of the print. It may not look exactly the same as a traditional chemical process, but some can be very, very close.

I've seen darn few that rival anything that came out of a real toning bath, but I'd have to agree some can come close. SOME.

And I freely admit it will take me a long time to value the inkjet print as much as the silver gelatin. This from somebody who is at the mercy of other darkroom geeks to print her stuff, but can comfortably print out a dandy-looking inkjet print. It's *possibly* just all in my head (the quality issue) BUT until we've reached those golden 50-75-100+ year marks, we can't possibly judge the archival qualities of these printers or the papers - it's just our best guess, based on studies by the good people at Wilhelm Imaging Research.

markc · Mar 25, 2004

terri said:
I've seen darn few that rival anything that came out of a real toning bath, but I'd have to agree some can come close. SOME.

Yeah, I know. We're not talking about something from a 1280.

It's *possibly* just all in my head (the quality issue) BUT until we've reached those golden 50-75-100+ year marks, we can't possibly judge the archival qualities of these printers or the papers - it's just our best guess, based on studies by the good people at Wilhelm Imaging Research.

Yeah, I meant other aspects. Archivability still remains a big question mark, and they've been wrong before (Epson 1270). I still don't trust the dye inks. At least pigments have a long history of known reliability, even if not used in this way before.

terri · Mar 25, 2004

We're not talking about something from a 1280.

HEY!! That's my Epson 2200, baby. :wink:

markc · Mar 25, 2004

terri said:
We're not talking about something from a 1280.

Click to expand...

HEY!! That's my Epson 2200, baby.

Hehe. I haven't looked into color printing much recently, but from what I've seen, that's currently the way to go. For B&W, there are special ink-sets you can get that do a really good job of emulating sepia and selenium toning, but if you pick sepia, all prints make by that ink are sepia.

That reminds me, I need to finish that B&W digital printing thread I started.