Enlargements of 6x6cm Transparencies

<p>I am the executor of a relative's estate, which includes several hundred 6x6cm Ektachrome transparencies. I would like to have enlargements made of several of the transparencies, suitable for framing and presentation. Several are historically significant to the family. I'm strictly a 35mm shooter and have no experience with anything medium format. Can anyone here recommend a good lab to use? I would prefer old-fashioned wet-printed enlargements rather than something digital, but realise my choices may be limited nowadays.</p>

<p>Where are you? Why do you care if the slide is scanned and printed or not?</p>

<p>The OP expressed a preference.<br>

We need to respect his wishes.</p>

<p>Iverson,</p>

<p>I æsthetically prefer enlargements on real photo paper run through the chemistry, rather than inkjet prints, which I feel are of inferior quality--actually, pretty much crap. I'm in northern New Jersey, minutes away from Manhattan.<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p>I'm afraid that you may find it impossible to track down a commercial source of traditional wet prints. The papers and chemistry for type R prints disappeared well over a decade ago now and whilst Ilfochrome/Cibachrome lasted longer, albeit sporadically, that too has gone, and I don't know that you'll find anywhere with residual stock that is usable. </p>

<p>You might find that the process of printing from a scan on a machine like a Chromira or LightJet is essentially a wet print process albeit exposed differently , and tends to use close derivatives of C type papers used for printing from negs. In short you might feel more comfortable with that route than with inkjets, albeit that they often don't actually look all that different.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>That's what I was thinking, too. I used to use a company called Slideprinter in Colorado for my chrome enlargements back in the day. I checked and they are printing from transparencies, after they are scanned, of course, so I may have no choice. The Chromira sounds like something worth while, which they offer.</p>

<p>I was going to say Slideprinter (Denver Digital Imaging) as well. You might also check with Allied Photocolor in St. Louis and see if they are still doing anything similar. Alliedphotocolor.com</p>

Also try westcoastimaging.com

<p>I've had a lot of prints made by West Coast imaging and indeed IMO they are very good. My only hesitation is that they are quite expensive - not least because they tend to use top-end drum scanners. That's fine if you want the very best your transparencies will support, though for some people and some images a lower cost Nikon or Imacon scan is a more cost-effective solution. Sorry I can't be more specific but I'm in the UK and no longer need to FedEx slides and prints around between here and the USA.</p>

<p>Anyone who says inkjet prints are crap simply doesn't know what they are talking about.<br>

This is easy to prove. Take one of the transparencies and have it made "traditionally" (maybe through an interneg if no direct reversal process is available) and then have a quality scan and print made and see for yourself. The ability to fine tune contrast makes the scan - print process much superior to almost all "wet" processes. If you are really the compulsive type you can have a photographic print made from the scan but again compare a good version of both and you will find then indistinguishable.</p>

<p>I agree, I have no idea where you get the idea that inkjet is inferior. Maybe they were 20 years ago but for the last 10 years they have matched any wet print in my experience. An argument can be made that traditional silver bromide black and white prints are superior to black and white inkjet, although I like to think of them as just different. Nowadays too a digital print will last longer (less fading) than a conventional R, or C paper. The only downside is that inkjet prints are more likely to be scratched by rough handling. Anyway, otherwise I agree with those who have commented previously, conventional C-type "wet" prints are easily available from most print studios (Bay Photo, Mpix etc), but the source will be a digital file, so you probably will need to get the slides scanned in the first instance. Nowadays an inkjet print from a print studio is usually considered a luxury item and will cost you more than the wet print.</p>

<p>Warren & Robin,</p>

<p>My experience with inkjet enlargements has been primarily that produced by the"big box" stores, like Target, from their little Kodak kiosks. Admittedly, I haven't had anything done inkjet wise from a decent lab.</p>

<p>Back in the day when I shot a lot of chromes, I loved the Cibachrome enlargements, and by the 90s, I found Slideprinters in Denver. They did a bang-up job enlarging and mounting prints from Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Velvia.</p>

<p>I will check out the recommendations here. I may send one or two into Slideprinters and some to West Coast for comparison before I send any more in. Various relatives want enlargements, so I am holding on to the original transparencies indefinitely.</p>

<p>No experience with them but here is a lead you could follow:</p>

<p>http://www.laumont.com/services/Printing.html</p>

<p>Digital print does not = inkjet. You can have the slides scanned and enlarged "on real photo paper run through the chemistry," They are called C-prints, Lambda prints or Chromogenic prints. You should have no problem finding a lab that does them. The one John referenced above does them. </p>

<p>I guess I wasn't real clear. I know the transparency will be scanned, but I was more interested in getting a wet print from it on traditional photo paper rather than an inkjet print. So, yes, I'd be happy with C prints, as I know I'll never get another Cibachrome. I'm not going to enlarge beyond 8" x 8" or 10" x 10" anyway, then I'll have the print matted for a suitably larger frame. I may just go initially for a few enlargements with Slideprinter; they did a good job of mounting when I ordered my 35mm prints from them quite awhile ago. I also want a high-res scan file in addition to the print.</p>

<p>Dr. Hoppe,</p>

<p>Have you tried any of these local labs? Please take a look at their website.<br>

As for Taylor Photo, they are local in New Jersey.<br>

http://www.taylorphoto.com/cms/ - Princeton, NJ<br>

http://duggal.com/ - Several locations</p>

<p>Evan</p>

 

<p>Wow, I'm in Princeton at least every other month to visit friends at the university. I will definitely check that Taylor Photo out. Thanks!</p>

<p>Dani,<br>

I meant no disrespect. I was just curious. </p>

 

<p>I have used both West Coast and Laser Light imaging. Am not affiliated with either.<br>

Had a far more positive experience with Laser Light of Santa Cruz. Bill Nordstrom is a master printer. The best I've ever remotely worked with thru the mail. One important difference is that Laser light will give you small sized output files to print at home after the files have been finalized from your originals. A nice touch if you have an Epson at home and want to print out some small 8x10's for yourself or family. <br>

Additionally, when I first tried to work with WCI they had great difficultly matching the colors of the slide. One would think a simple request. It took a lot of back and forth to get correct. They were obviously apprenticing a printer. I had paid for a master printer but what I ended up receiving was a newbie. YMMV. To be fair they did get it right in the end and were able to correctly match the slide but Nordstrom rarely if ever had any problem in this regard.</p>

<p> Look at this web site: http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/</p>

<p>If you are in northern NJ then bring one of your slides to Livingston Camera in Livingston, NJ. They will make a high quality scan and your print will come out on RA-4 paper, not inkjet or dye sublimation paper. If you like the result, which I think you will, you can the bring them more slides. All of the work is done at their location so you won't have to worry about things getting lost in the mail. The Slideprinter stopped making Type R prints many years ago.</p>

<p>I just wanted to be sure that you are aware that RA-4 in the above post is exactly the "C type" that quite a few of us have been suggesting. RA-4 is not a Type R print, and its not just the Slideprinter that stopped making Type R from slides a decade or more ago, it was everyone, as the materials were discontinued. </p>

<p>Seems to me that your Slideprinter lab would probably do materially the same as what Livingston Camera will do, albeit that the scanners used might be different. Its simply that you have experience of one, albeit some time ago, whereas the other is local.</p>

<p>Can't see how Digital Silver Imaging can help you though- seems they still do wet-print b&w but you need colour if you've used Ektachrome, and their colour products appear all to be inkjet which you are rejecting. </p>

<p>According to Laumont Studios web site, they still do Cibachrome prints, but the cost is prohibitive, something like $80 or more per print. Too costly for what I want to do. I will check out Livingston Camera because I am familiar with the area, it's not too far from me. If I can get things done locally without shipping slides across the country, that's a plus for me. I also like getting a scan back for my own use.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their input.</p>

<p>I was at an art gallery yesterday and they had one wall of photo prints. Most were ink jet. One stood out even though it was smaller (11x14 inches) than the others. The color of the ink jets was too gaudy to be real. Want to guess which print stood out as looking natural and "real"?<br>

I have sold art prints in galleries printed by ink jet. If the subject matter is just right they can look good. But I am going to gravitate to something that looks better for any subject.</p>

<p>Wayne</p>

<p>That simply reflects the taste of the photographer - it says nothing about inkjets vs "wet" prints. I have both wet (Frontier) produced prints and inkjet prints printed at home and they look to all intents identical. It's not the process, its the photographer or whoever is producing the print that is responsible for these gross differences.</p>