"best" prints from 35mm - chromes and scan or direct from negatives?

I tend to shoot a lot of Fuji Velvia (for static nature shots). I

choose some to get scanned (3600x2400, 25MB). I then fix these scans

in Photoshop (color correction, sharpening) and then reformat them for

various size prints. The largest I have printed are generally 8x12

(though I've had an 11x14 and a 16x20 done as well).

 

Quite frankly, this is a pain in the a$$. WOuld I get as good a

quality print (8x12) from switching to say Fuji Reala or Kodak 100UC

print film and having my lab make an enlargment?

 

What yields the "best" 35mm print up to 8x12?

Scan it yourself with a Nikon, print it yourself with an Epson. With a little effort you'll beat labs, traditional or digital.

Its getting to be more and more difficult to answer this type of question as the range of credible methodologies grows, as does the ability to combine certain elements of them to create hybrid solutions. Then of course there's the question of objective - here you initially gave the impression you want something easier; then ask what's the best? And best what? In overall quality terms? In value terms? Irrespective of cost?

 

The quick answer is that what you get will be more down to the skills, processes and attitudes of the people working on your pictures ( which might include you) than on the process in play. At 12" x 8" a lab should be able to give you good C types. A professionally managed Frontier or similar could give you extremely good prints on the same Crystal Archive paper. A scan and Lightjet/Chromira solution brings custom file creation and management into play at a higher price. And then you could take that file and apply it to a big Epson inkjet on a whole raft of different papers and finishes. And these are only the commonly available "100% lab" solutions. You could elect to scan/ create the file/print yourself, which turns many of the economics around but also pits your skills against the labs. All of these routes, and any combination, is capable of giving you great 12" x 8" prints. All of them will be considered the "best" by some people depending on their criteria, budget and so on.

 

I think the only way to approach this decision today is to make some decisions that cut down the options and then try some of those remaining from the actual sources available to you. For example if you were only prepared to countenance a high gloss finish it tends to reduce the options. If you would really prefer not to scan/make the files yourself (which you infer) then it cuts down the options. Maybe you know the lab you want to deal with, and so on.

 

Then you can try a few different solutions to get an answer that's useful to you and doesn't depend on the abilities of my labs not yours, because its really hard for me or anyone else to tell you that you should prefer an analogue Type C to an Inkjet to a Frontier print when we don't know the specific sources you can use and don't know what you like.

There's no need to change film if you're happy with the Velvia, and no need to scan and print yourself. Just take the slides to a lab that prints from slides. They can then print traditionally in a darkroom or scan and print digitally for you.

Thanks for the posts so far.

 

I knew that "best" was a poor word choice and should have left it out. Let me ask my question again a bit more succinctly.

 

Is there a noticable difference in print quality between the following two methods:

 

1) Scanning Velvia slides as 3600x2400 pixels, 25MB files, PhotoShopping the scans to correct color and sharpness, sending the files out to a lab to be printed as 8x12 prints on a Fuji Frontier using Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

 

2) Shooting Reala (or Kodak 100UC) and having 8x12 enlargements made from the negatives at a "reputable, pro lab" (i.e., not Walmart or Target)

 

I know that the films will change the way a scene will record, which is a big question when it comes down to choosing which film to use, but given that I accept the print film as a fine replacement for the slide film, do the above two methods yield comparable prints.

 

(as for prints straight from slides, I have yet to have a good experience with that)

Well I can't promise you'll like them both the same, but you could get highly competent 12" x 8" prints from either of these routes. You'd need to establish which "look" pleased you most. Depending on what your lab offers,you may have to choose between a couple of different options for the analogue C types, one being a "print to normal exposure and colour balance" product and another more expensive route which involves more printer interpretation/custom work at a higher price. I suspect the analogue enlargement route will turn out more expensive, particularly as you'll presumably need a develop/proof package to determine which negs to enlarge.

 

You're right about direct analogue printing from slides I fear. The only way left is Ilfochrome. I'd guess that isn't a growth industry, and is liable to run into trouble on the contrastier slides. Frankly the best Ilfochromes I see are printed by photographers who take the time to produce contrast masks- pretty much dead amongst the diminishing number of commercial sources of Ilfochromes I'm afraid.

 

Of course you could also try using the neg film and sending selectedimages from that to the Frontier.

If you're going to scan your slides yourself, you probably will get better result by printing them yourself on an Epson inkjet (e.g., R800/R1800/R2400) than sending them out. At least that is my experience. As to colour correcting the scans, you'd be best off by first calibrating the scanner for Velvia (there are targets available) and then you will need to do less color correcting.

 

Prints from Reala of course look entirely different than prints from Velvia. I can't imagine two films further apart from each other.

There are very few professional labs today that still make prints using enlargers. If you use negative film and take it to a lab, chances are they will scan it and print it digitally anyway.

 

That being said, prints at 8x12 from a negative done using an enlarger will look as good if not slightly better than LightJet / Chromira prints at that size. The real benefits of digital printing don't become apparent until you make images larger than that.

 

Negative film will definitely give you a better print more easily if the print is made with an enlarger. Finding high-quality Ilfochrome printing is becoming difficult.

 

There are still a few labs that will do it. I'm sure if you search "Ilfochrome" you will find past threads with recommendations.

The best deal is to shoot C41 film and send it to Dale Labs for processing and 2000dpi scans in PCD format. They are a Kodak lab, but I've had no trouble with Fuji films sent there (Reala, NPH, etc.). The price for processing and scan is less than $10. I believe they will now do slide process/scans as well. Their web site is at: <i><a href="http://www.dalelabs.com">www.dalelabs.com</a></i>

"Quite frankly, this is a pain in the a$$." I agree. idea: 1.) Get archival scans 4000dpi Nikon Coolscan 5000 (35mm size) or 9000 (6x9) (some ebay guys offer this!) 2.) How about AUTOMATING this work with Photoshop macros or so? Rainer