Difficulty obtaining supplies for analog lab!

I own an aerial and pre-press photo lab which has been primarily

black and white. Recently I began to incorporate color into the shop

because I had a few photographers come in and ask if I was still

doing analog printing. Apparently all of the photolabs in this state

are refusing to do R3 or Cibachrome prints for anyone anymore. Only

digital is available. So I took all the time and trouble to learn

and become proficient at R3 printing. Then I recieved a recent email

from KODAK stating that they are no longer making/selling R3 paper or

chemicals. Fuji and Agfa already quit, leaving only Ilford. Anyway

here is my question. . .Is it the labs who are refusing to do R3

anymore because of the extra chems and problems leaving photographers

in a lurch? Or are most photographers actually happy with the

digital printouts you are receiving?

 

I plan to be offering special services for photographers so they can

have limited participation in the final decisions on color or any

special processes they may need to make there prints just what they

want which I guess is defferent from labs where everything is

automated, but am I just chasing a completely dead avenue? Is

digital really becoming the only accepted way?

Kodak's website still lists the Ektachrome Radiance III and Radiance III select papers with no mention of discontinuation.

My home-made prints on an Epson inkjet from scanned slides are far better than any R3 or Ilfochrome print that I've managed to get. The contrast control and ease of dust control (and in some cases, sharpness) are issues which make digital prints win. On 4x6 size prints from C-41, well-made conventional prints are still better than digital in my experience, but for larger prints, it's no contest.

 

I believe others have noticed the same, and thus only digital printing is supported.

Hmmm. I have printed 35mm negatives up to 36 x 48 inches with no internegatives and the quality is much better than any digital print I have seen over 8 x 10 (from a 35mm scan or equivalent). I guess the thing I am only beginning understanding is that average enlargement equipment just cannot do what my cameras can. The pre-press cameras are spotlessly clean from 10% to 3500% of the original. Oh, well, it looks like I am going to be banging my head against the wall trying to keep as many analog processes available as I can for a while.

My digital prints from slide both RA-4 and ink-jet scans *DESTROY* R-type prints. I printed R-type commercially for years and could not be forced to go back to this clunky, illogical process that results in images that have about 2-zones of detail at the most and tries to make up for it by having the fire hydrant in the foreground distract the viewer by looking like 'wet paint'. R-type was invented as a utility to provide silver halide, low run, color images from slides without resorting to expensive CMYK plates. R-type was never intended to be a fine art medium, and this is why it's dying so quickly. Do fine art, B/W photographers prefer to print from B/W negs or B/W slides? There's the answer to that question.<P>

 

Conventional printing from B/W or color negatives is still viable and competitive. R-type though is vanishing for a reason, and that's because it's a BAD process. The first thing the industry did with the new digital paper writers is stop printing slides to R3 papers in favor of writing to C-type paper because C-type papers are about a million times easier to work with and provide the same color saturation. Kodak R3 isn't bad and I've made many exellent images off the material, but my recent commerically made epson prints look lightyears better.<P><i>Or are most photographers actually happy with the digital printouts you are receiving? </i><p>Where have you been? Find me a professional photographer that DOESN'T prefer a LightJet print over a reversal print. Ilford is still hanging on with Ilforchrome becuase of it's wild dye-set, but good luck trying to get that material to work with a profitable, low cost workflow. If you like making 10 test prints and playing with contrast masks to get a print that's likely inferior to scanned and digitally printed one, be my guest.<P>The best optical enlarger is substantially inferior in terms of the amount of detail in can record/reproduce printing to a reflective medium than a film scanner. Rtype prints rarely have good highlight detail and shadow detail, while this information can be easily recorded and reproduced digitally.<P>As a walk in lab you could provide the service you desire much more efficiently and with greater accuracy on a color monitor. Running out with a test print to show the client while it's still dripping is hardly productive.<P>Because of the popularity of the digital processes many labs have incorporated them without knowing what they are doing. This results in prints that 'look digital' when the fault is the operator. Properly made digital prints, either ink-jet or conventional paper should be indistinguishable from conventional color photographs, and in many respects be superior. I have several sitting in front of me right now. Your 4-foot optical prints from 35mm will also get destroyed by a digital print of the same image from a lab that knows what it's doing. I've made tons of optical 40x60s from much larger pieces of film and I would never make a bet against the digital printers. They can preserve the color and sharpness of the original. Optical printing results in uneven grain sharpness from edge to edge (unless you like to spend 3-hours spotting because of glass carriers) and an inevitable loss of color saturation.<P>You might have a market with color neg, or maybe B/W, but from trannies the guy down the street with an Epson 9600 will get your business.

All I can seem to do is feel very discouraged now. And I am even more confused about why I have a dozen local photographers practically begging me to help them get back to R3 and away from the digital printouts of my would be competitor. I do have the RA4 process in place already, so clearly I will still proceed that way. Thank you for the information. I had no idea as to the original reasoning for slides and R3, but that would make some sense to what I been seeing when I do extreme enlargements from 35mm to 36 x 48 with each, a negative holds up much better than a slide.

 

Thank you again. I am not a photographer, and it was my goal to become as skilled and ingenious in the traditional darkroom as you wonderful photographers are behind the lens, and hopefully bring a little gravy to my aerial photo shop. You definitely give me reason to pause and rethink my goals.

Jill,

Scott's response is quite correct if passionately stated.

 

Those of us who worked for years in analog labs that made the transition to digital feel as we have died and gone to heaven.

 

Digital just plain rocks! No longer do we have to agonize over prints while filling dumpsters with waste. After acheiving the perfect print we can then replicate it infinitely. I could go on for another hour but Scott has plowed this ground already.

 

Now, I don't feel there is any reason to feel discouraged. Be careful of what you are hearing from your "customers"

 

First, are they your customers or are they a few cheapskates chased out of their other lab? These guys go from lab to lab trying to suck deals out of unwitting owners.

 

Second, are they actually doing a lot of business or are they saying that they have "a ton of work for the lab that will do type R"? See the first question.

 

Be very wary about a "market" for processes speeding toward extinction.

 

Request for analog printing in color almost exclusively come from people looking for cheap prints. As a small business this is not what you can do well. Your market is most likely those who will pay for high quality B&W printing.

 

You say you already have an RA-4 process in place. Is this a roller transport paper processor a drum or a minilab? The answer will dictate the opportunities that you can take advantage of.

 

I would suggest that you begin to study digital processes and computers, scanners and printers. There is no need to feel intimidated, you have already mastered a variety of skills and the vendors of these devices want you to succeed. There are tons of people here and elsewhere on the web who would help with any questions you may have.

 

The most important question you need to answer is "What business am I in?"

 

The answer will guide you as you create a plan for you business.

 

Best of Luck

 

Mr Monkey

<i>but that would make some sense to what I been seeing when I do extreme enlargements from 35mm to 36 x 48 with each, a negative holds up much better than a slide. </i><P>You've got it right there. Always use your eyes and scrutinize.<P>That's the reason for the popularity of the digital systems....they aren't biased towards color negs or slides, but simply use the data you give them, and getting good images from slides gets on equal footing with color negs. Also consider that the dyes used in lines of color papers are all pretty similiar, so there's no advantage in using R-type to get any type of superior image quality in terms of color saturation. Deep reds in Fuji type R are about the same as Fuji Type C. It's Ilfochrome that built the rep for unique, hyper saturated R-type prints, and I find the hyper saturated Ilford materials to be extremely fussy in terms of what type of images yield decent prints.<P>Your clients might not be seeing things and just guilty of a bad digital lab that doesn't know what they are doing. You mention 'automated', so it doesn't sound like we are talking about a Tango/LightJet shop here. All I can tell you is that properly made digital prints off the newer ink-jet based Epson's and RA-4 based LightJet/Lambda are 'indistinguishable' from high quality color prints.<P>If you've already invested in wet lab equipment, are a good printer, and have a demand for your services I'm hardy the one to discourage a business venture. The more mild Ilford materials aren't that terribly difficult to work with even though though they don't have quite the lattitude of Kodak or Fuji R3. That might be your best route and won't involve any equipment or major technique changes.

Mark, I have completely redesigned my lab in ways that I was told were impossible only a year ago, when I purchased it. So for me to explain what type of processing I do would not actually mean anything to you. However, I can run prodution work at a rate of 300 RA4 prints per day as well as being able to bring out one process for one print as large as 48" wide whenever necessary without chemical waste or worry. Scott mentioned the pain and hassle of R3 but I have had none. I actually prefer R3 over RA4 for actual ease of use and quick color correcting. With my cameras once the color is corrected, producing multiple consistent prints are just no problem. Processing I find particularly easy since lights can be turned on immediately after the first rinse. But as Scott mentioned, I cannot push the enlargements as far as I can RA4.

Anyway as you can see I have become quite excited about analog photography, way too late.

 

About the suggestion that I go digital, I started digital. I used to work for an art website and got tired of the poor quality. Granted things are probably better now then back five years ago. But with the expense of digital equipment, the associated repairs/maintanence, and the mad dash to keep up to date: I bought this shop with the idea that because everything is simple and paid for, with only paper and chemicals fluctuating in price . . . I should be able to do very high quality, unusual processes both b&w and color (for example my shop is perfect for the messy Emmerman process which can salvage a orint from slide or negative with underexposed shadows)and yet keep my prices well under the $12-25 per square foot price of ink/light jets. I would not expect that my chasing after an almost archaic skill will bring in any type of high volume. I would prefer to bring in the tough jobs, low volume, and very high quality.

 

Anyway I guess I sound argumentative and that isn't my goal and clearly you folks know better than I, so it should be my mind changing to your perspective rather than me trying to explain mine. Thank you for the warning about the psychy of photographers just trying to cop a good deal. I will try to feel these folks out a bit better to determine if that is what is happening, very well may be. Thank you again for your candor.

Jill, the digital prints that I've managed to get from pro labs are even worse than the analog ones, in general that is. They just don't care unless I pay $30 for a drum scan and another $30 for the print. Then I have to run around all over the place to get reprints etc. - The analog R-type prints are fine if I put a spotlight on them. (That's just impractical for me.) Anyway, I can't see what people are fussing about when they talk about Lambda prints. I think they look quite bad compared with either analog or inkjet. They look like I were looking at the print through some smoky screen. Not natural at all.

 

The thing that changes the situation decisively for digital is that everybody can do their own prints up to A3+. It's a pain doing my own printing and it takes a lot of time but at least when it's working, I have control over the end result.

 

I'm sure that inkjet printing is diminishing the market for small-to-medium size prints quite a bit. That could be one of the reasons for the extinction of R printing.

<I>I actually prefer R3 over RA4 for actual ease of use and quick color correcting</i><P>Not much arguement there either. Reversal color correcting is more intuitive than color neg because you're working with additives, and you can initially examine a slide for potential color casts and corrections you need to make unlike negs which almost always need a test print first. Granted that negs can take more brutal burning and dodging and more severe color correcting while R-types have a very limited envelope in this respect.<P>You've got one big monkey wrench to throw in this dreamy scenario though; moving from personal to commercial printing.<P>I'm not sure how much work you've done for other clients, but there is a whole world of difference in moving from printing your own work to printing somebody elses. With my own work I would be aware ahead of time I was making an R-type print and expose accordingly. If my intent was to make a cibachrome I'd shoot according the limits of the medium and hence get better results. The first time though somebody brings you a washed out, over exposed chrome from E100VS and insists you hold all the detail in the chrome and make it look as good as it does on the light table you'll wish you never opened shop. <P>What happens when you print a slide portrait on R-type vs the same shot on color neg? The slide print washes out all highlight detail from the hair lights and exagerates skin contrast. With a digital scan you can bring that information back into the cage and make it look darn near as good as using a high quality portrait print film. Digital scanning allows you to take the bite out of slides that are outside the rather narrow 'perfect print' envelope of R-type printing. This ability is priceless in terms of handling customer slides that you can't control.<P>LightJet printers are expensive and those costs need to be recouped in some form. Epson 9600's aren't, and they do about the same job on non-glossy media.

Not much arguement there either. Reversal color correcting is more intuitive<br><i>actually what I mean is it takes less correcting with R3 taking an equivalent to a .025 cc and RA4 requiring at LEAST a 45 cc. The positive/negative part only took a few days to get straight.</i><br>

 

than color neg because you're working with additives, and you can initially examine a slide for potential color casts and corrections you need to make unlike negs which almost always need a test print first. Granted that negs can take more brutal burning and dodging and more severe color correcting while R-types have a very limited envelope in this respect. <br><i>again with my cameras this has not been a problem. As a matter of fact one fellow just about jumped up and down when an area on his slide which appeared essentially black, was coaxed with nearly five minutes of dodging/burning in and he found he had a lovely rock with an almost irridescent puddle on it. But these cameras also don't seem to cause or allow the reciprocity problems I have read about with long exposures. I often drop the aperature three or four stops with exposures in excess of 15 minutes to soften contrast or to maintain good color quality in the shadows.</i><br>

 

You've got one big monkey wrench to throw in this dreamy scenario though; moving from personal to commercial printing.<br>

<i>This is no problem. I own a fully commercial lab, the only difference is that it used to be aerial b&w, half-tones, and line work. The only NEW is the color processes which had to be brought in without the benefit of things like dichroic heads because aerial film is 10" x 250feet and the dichroic heads for this size are BUKOOO bucks and too damned hot for the safety of archival films dating back to 1950's. </i><br>

 

I'm not sure how much work you've done for other clients, but there is a whole world of difference in moving from printing your own work to printing somebody elses. With my own work I would be aware ahead of time I was making an R-type print and expose accordingly. If my intent was to make a cibachrome I'd shoot according the limits of the medium and hence get better results. The first time though somebody brings you a washed out, over exposed chrome from E100VS and insists you hold all the detail in the chrome and make it look as good as it does on the light table you'll wish you never opened shop. <br><i>Been here done this. Since the main fellow asking me to open up this possibility in my lab owns the premier camera and mini lab in town, I had him bring me three or four slides which he thought were unprintable (the aforementioned black foreground rock was one). He was pleased enough with all three to pay full price with a smile.</i><br>

 

What happens when you print a slide portrait on R-type vs the same shot on color neg? The slide print washes out all highlight detail from the hair lights and exagerates skin contrast. With a digital scan you can bring that information back into the cage and make it look darn near as good as using a high quality portrait print film. Digital scanning allows you to take the bite out of slides that are outside the rather narrow 'perfect print' envelope of R-type printing. This ability is priceless in terms of handling customer slides that you can't control.<br><i> again with these cameras wash out is not a problem. I only notice that the slide film goes grainy a bit sooner, but the color is always rich and full.</i><br>

 

LightJet printers are expensive and those costs need to be recouped in some form. Epson 9600's aren't, and they do about the same job on non-glossy media.<br>

 

<i>Honestly though I am beginning to understand that the problem is that you photographers have never had prints from a camera that is as tightly and perfectly trammed and calibrated as these two. So possibly from what you expect from dinky little cameras on poles wangling over a desktop, digital is better. Now if I can just figure out how to get this point across to some of the regional photographers . . .I might just have a chance.</i>

 

 

 

Ilkka, thank you for your responses. Yes, that is what I am finding here. Folks coming in literally with the little lightjets in hand very resigned with "can you do any better than this?" When I tell them I am still doing things the old fashioned way and that the job isn't done till they say its done, well they perk up pretty quick. I am hoping the for enlargements larger than 11 x 14 (as you say inkprints do relatively well here) many photographers will want an accessible lab tech with skill and a can-do attitude who offers apparently better than the analog quality they are used to. I do love a challenge so if you ever have one, I would love to try to resolve it for you. It seems silly to me that so much of the burden/blame of finished prints is put on the photographers when the printing process can break a great shot or resolve a questionable one.

Jay, I'm sorry I missed your response. If you spend as much money with Kodak as I do, you would have received a mailing last week informing us all that Radiance papers and R3 Chemistry will be discontinued as of Sept 1, 2003 with their supplies expected to be completely depleted by December 2003.

Jill,

 

Okay, so what you are is a craft printer. Very high quality with very close relationship to the customers needs. That's great!

 

The key thing here is to remember that top quality commands a top price. This means you can do endless prints "to see what it might look like" but you have to charge for your time and materials.

 

I appreciate your desire to produce the perfect type R but you are going to have to give that up as the process will be discontinued. Focus on those who see quality on your terms and are willing to pay for it.

 

Many suggest going after the fine art market. In my book an artist is defined as an extra picky person with no money and an attitude. Be careful here.

 

As your business grows you will develop a reputation as the expert in your field. Experts charge more.

 

You say you can make 300 prints per day. This means you have to price your work so that you will do OK with sales of 30-50 prints per day.

 

If you don't make an income that meets your needs or expectations leave the field. The message people are sending is that they won't pay the expert what she needs.

 

If you love what you do and the money is OK congratulations, You are doing something very few people are lucky enough to do.

Thank you, Mark, that is an excellent way of putting it. And, yes, I do consider myself one of the most spoiled women on the planet. The business has a solid meat and potatoes income from the aerial and reprographic that has remained pretty solid except when some of the obvious problems have hit just about all businesses recently. But it has weathered the storms quite well. So this whole color aspect will truly be for the fun and because I NEED to appreciate artists in tangible way. I tried to be an artist; very arrogant was I, "it can't be THAT hard to draw and paint or be a photographer." Well, I am now humble and know that the best way I can help artists (until I am rich and can buy lots of artwork) is to put my analytical and technical nature to the service of artists who seem to be rather unappreciated and unsupported considering how amazing it is all the effort and patience and passion and tenacity, etc. that they expend to reach their goals.

 

Yes I plan on making some money at it, but I think they should pay no more than the architects, engineers, and so on that make up my mainstay. Of course they are paying good competitive rates, probably not "craftsman" prices . . .quite yet, (wink) next year when I am a craftsman might be more appropriate too. Obviously I have not yet experienced much in this aspect of the field so I could still easily end up stumbling or crashing.

 

Thank you again. I think I have an idea of how to reckon with some of this now. You really helped.