Film shooters: Why bother with proofs?

I know many people, myself included, are not happy with the inconsistent results some labs are giving

nowadays, and with the expense of printing off 360 (or more) proof shots from every wedding.

For my own use, I rarely have prints made when I develop a roll anymore. I pay for developing and

scanning, then use the scan CD to pick out the images I want to work on. For anything larger than a 4x6

print I make a quality scan myself, then have that file printed.

Scanning is a bit of a pain, but if you're only working on 5 or 6 images per roll, it's really not that difficult.

So I'm thinking of using that method with clients, too. Show them proofs online, then print only the

'keepers.'

Sound crazy...?

Well I only shoot digital for clients and I 'soft proof'. The upside is no print is ever made of an 'unfinished' image. Nothing leaves my hands that is not perfect (or as close to it as is commercially viable!), perspective is corrected, colours tweaked, zits removed etc etc. and I'm proud to put my name to it.

The downside is that some clients (or their parents) still expect proofs.

I'm not 100% certain that what I'm doing is the best way although I suspect that giving them proofs would slow downthe ordering process considerably. I'm willing to bet some people never order anything once they have the proofs. With no 'locked in' packages this could be the kiss of death to my business!

Kevin,

"I pay for developing and scanning, then use the scan CD to pick out the images I want to work on. For anything larger than a 4x6 print I make a quality scan myself, then have that file printed."

How is quality of your lab scans? What resolution go you get from lab?

"...make a quality scan myself..."

I'm thinking of getting a 35mm scanner. Which do you use and/or consider the best? Do you use any aftermarket scanning software?

Sorry about all the questions, but I am just about ready to purchase a scanner and you raised some interesting questions.

Cliff

"Nothing leaves my hands that is not perfect "

Nicola, I'm with you. That's why it makes no sense to me to pay to print them to begin with.

Cliff, I'm using an older Minolta scanner right now, but I'm upgrading to a Nikon 5000. I use

a family owned lab near me that's nothing fancy, but they deliver consistently scratch and

dust free negatives, and decent quality scans.

"Why bother with proofs?"

Because our clients like to have a tangible product rather than a binder from Kinko's with tiny thumbnails where you can't see the faces clear enough as to whether they want to order enlargements.

Don't get me wrong I personally think that's a great way to proof through pictage with thumbs and an accompanying cd.

Since I'm film we just find the best lab and we print from the contact/index cards. We usually have at least 25 keepers per roll of 36 so it's not a problem.

Some customers like to see photographs in their hands, so long as you explain the proofs are that and not the finished photos.

Expense = income tax write off. If 150 prints are made from the film shot at a wedding, some may well be sold to the bride or the bride's parents. If you need to take more than 360 images on film at a wedding, maybe you need to find out what is surplus in your shooting schedule?

I am my own lab. I did the math the other day, and, with the price of chemicals and water

included, I am paying 4c per 4x6 right now. I got two 610 foot rolls of 6 inch paper on

eBay last week. Cost? $36 for BOTH. Even with regularly priced paper, I doubt I'm over

10c per proof. At 16 dollars per proof set (maybe 20 with test prints etc.) I can afford it.

. . My only problem is that I still am not very good at balancing colors and density, so it

takes me a lot of time and a lot of redos. I think paper proofs have the added advantage

of being easily retrieved, useful as samples for other clientele, and universal acceptability.

How many clients do you get that say "We'd rather see our proofs on a computer screen."?

~Karl Borowski

Hi Kevin. Do you have a decent ink-jet printer? If so, load the CD and select Contact sheet

in PhotoShop ... I print 13X19 contact sheets which show each keeper image plenty clear

enough to make selections from.

I usually end up with 4 to 6 numbered contact sheets per wedding (depending on the

package). Clients love them because it keeps everything in the original order and no one

can take off with a proof ... and they're small enough that they can't make prints from

them.

I agree that if an album is 40 to 60 images, scanning doesn't take all that much time. I

scan one image in the background while I correct the previously scanned image.

"Some customers like to see photographs in their hands, so long as you explain the proofs are that and not the finished photos."

Actually our proofs are the "finished photos"

so proofs is more of a loose term that was used in the past to describe uncorrected images used to select reprints or final images for an album. We call them "proofs" but they are actually finished prints good enough to go right into an album.

That's a good point, Steve. I see no point paying to print the pics that are only going into the

round file, anyway.

Well, Kevin. You certainly know what my experience has been. Truth is, I still prefer the look of an optically printed proof, and both of my labs provide that for me. Fact is they both do an excellent job of printing. The problem has been that they don't do such a great job of scanning. Because I shoot film, and love the look of an optically enlarged print, I value the negatives above all. When I ask for scans at time of development, 3 things happen: 1) I get a digital proof, 2) b&w negatives appear to be extremely difficult to scan en masse properly. I've yet to see a decent CD of scans from my b&w negatives, 3) the negatives run the risk of scratches and dust. Hard to believe that these are pro labs I'm speaking of, but it happens. I now only scan images myself - no longer will I outsource, and only after I've made the final album and am ready to release the negatives. I hate that I have to compromise one option for another, but I've not found a better solution.

I think the fact that I offer proofs of all images captured that day with all of my packages is a big selling point. The fact that I offer true b&w proofs is also a big selling point. That happens to be what my target market wants. If your target is happy with online proofs and you're going to scan the images for enlargements as well, then I'd wonder why you wouldn't just move to digital capture? I don't shoot digital, so I don't know the answer, but is a print from the scanned negative much different from a print that came from a digital camera? Am I making sense? It would at least save the cost of scans.

Best, Reina

Reina, I was playing the devil's advocate a bit in my question. The 'cost' of shooting film is

usually one of the first reasons people list for switching to digital, so I was wondering

aloud if there is a way to work around that.

FWIW, I do think that scanned film looks different than digital capture, and that a really

good scan is in some ways better than either digital capture, or straight optical printing.

As far as the look of the final product goes, in fact, I think it's the best of both worlds.

The dynamic range, skin tones and 'look' of film along with the advantages of the digital

darkroom, which are light years removed from optical printing, particularly for color. The

only question is - and it's a big one - can the workflow issues be worked out so as to

avoid insanity. ;-)

I was married 3 years ago. I have some proof prints and 1,000+ digital files. When friends and/or family come over - I pull out the physcial book of prints and we sit around and look at them. I would not pull out the CD and sit around the computer with them.

I proof 4x6 - 600-700 images in order - in proof albums - with order sheets. My reprint and album orders are swamping me. Most orders are $600 to $2000. The order forms next to each picture invites people to put their little check marks in the boxes and each "vistor" to the couple/albums - sees the check marks and inevitably see a print or a few that they want too. The couple then have proof albums with all these check marks in the books and feel compelled to get it together to also mark up what they want as they have orders in the books from friends and family.

My lab does great work on the prints! The lab also has the digital files which they print from. Still - somehow the 4x6 prints look much better as proof prints than they do on the computer. Plus they are in order in books and are much more viewer friendly. Just my opinion.

Reina--who are the labs you are referencing--the ones that do good optical printing? Do they take mail in orders?

Kevin--my customers also like to see proofs. I thought I'd run into my first young client that didn't want the proofs, only digital images, but then her husband decided they did want the proofs. So far, that's the way it has gone.

Mary:

Which proof albums? Where did you get the order sheets?

Sounds like a good system!

Eric

Easy - there are many albums for proofs in the market.

I recommend looking at www.michelcompany.com - call them... ask for a brochure. Currently I'm using the black - three up - 4x6 - extra capacity tap proof album. Meets my needs. There are others.. Take a look and see what works for you. All proof albums come with order pages... email me if you need more help. That goes for anyone who is curious about how it works. Click on my name for my community page and you can get me email/website there. Cheers.

Nadine,

Millers does my color printing. CT Photo does my black & white(printing only - they don't scan film). Both take mail-in orders.

Best, Reina

For 4x5s for proofs, honestly the difference in moot, especially with matte paper. This

from an analog-optical silver-halide purist. To sidetrack this thread a little. .. Does

anyone here still use a proof projector? I'm a big fan of doing things on the cheap (which

therefore eliminates as an option a digital proof system or an LCD projector) but am trying

to use the old trick of pushing people into getting used to bigger sized prints so that they

think 8x10s are "small". Also, does anyone think 5x7 is too big for a proof? Is it OK to

crop a little on proofs? Lately I've been thinking about these things. I don't like my

system of cropped proofs on matte paper.

Regards,

~Karl Borowski