Part 2 of the digital darkroom question: gonna do it, now what?

Ok. I'm looking for output that is going to match the quality, or better it somewhat, of a fashion magazine. I need a scanner for 6x7 negs, and I don't have enough for a real neg-scanner. Need a flatbed; also to scan the occasional print. I also want a CD burner (better than ZIP, right?), and a printer capable of portfolio quality proofs. I have a Canon BJC 4300 right now which is only 8.5x11, and I would like, if possible, to get 11x14" output.

<p>

Any suggestions?

<p>

Thanks All.

shawn

...and ps , Peter H., I do agree to some extent. If I want fine

prints, I'm still gonna do them in the darkroom. I'm going the scanner

route for everything else...shawn.

If you can't afford to get a true film scanner, I suggest you send

your slides/negatives out. (A flatbed with a dedicated film drawer

is quite expensive - and still much lower quality.) The only printer

to consider is the Epson 1250 (or its upcoming replacement). R

And remember you can't do quality b/w unless you go to quadtone inks

(4 shades of grey) - and that really requires a dedicated printer.

<p>

CD writers are best for archiving. Zips are still best for portability

with a lab. In a pinch a cd will do both.

John, I can spend $1000Cdn on a scanner (about $600-750US). Can I get

a decent enough scanner for that price? I don't trust salespeople

with this kind of thing...

This is a very interesting thread.

<p>

As I see it, the primary advantages of digital printing (and I'm not

speaking here of digital *manipulation*), is that one does not need a

darkroom--which, in a world of astronomically high rent prices, is

sometimes difficult to come by.

<p>

The cost, time, and degree-of-difficulty factors of digital v.

conventional printing I calculate as about even.

Hi Shawn. i am still rather new to the whole photo thing, but i have

been studying the digital aspect for some time now.

you best best for scanning your negs would be to send 'em out,

quality-wise. spend the extra on a good printing system. the epson,

from what i've read, does a really nice job for portfolio type work.

and definatley (as mentioned above) the quad ink system will give

more agreeable images.

for whats it worth,

Jerry

Look into the Agfa DuoScan I believe it is in your price range. and

Agfa makes some very nice digital stuff.

There are a lot of DuoScan models - from $700 to $8500(!). I had a 6x7

done on one and wasn't particularly impressed with the results (though

it was better than nothing). A compromise might to be to get a Nikon

Coolscan III ($750) for 35mm and send out your medium format work. Any

inexpensive flatbed would be ok for prints.

<p>

My local lab, however, only charges $.50 a scan for 35mm from their

Nikon - and they have to worry about setup, depreciation, and repair.

They charge $5 for 6x7 scans on their Minolta (since they aren't

automated).

<p>

(see www.scanneroutlet.com)

What does this have to do with "People Photography"?

<p>

(Send your negatives out for scanning, any CD burner works, but the

lab will probably do this for you, the Epson 750 and the brand new

long life Epson printers should suit your needs.)

OK I've decided on the Duoscan T1200 and the Epson 1200 or the HP

1220. This of course is only indirectly related to people photography,

but I plan on getting some creative fashion images out of it, so...

<p>

I realize I'm probably going to have to get neg-scans at a lab for pro

work, and their output as well, but I saw the two units working in

tandem today and I am quite certain they will suffice for portfolio

work. And I can avoid darkroom time and chemicals for the large part

as well.

<p>

I wonder if there is any way to turn the History of any image I work

on in Photoshop into an Actions macro thingie so I can just re-do any

images I end up getting scanned professionally, instead of having to

start from scratch...

Hi Shawn,

<p>

Do *not* get the Epson 1200. It has been replaced by the 1270, which

uses significantly more archival papers and inks. It should be

available fairly soon.

Yeah, what Barry said. I have been itching to get a photo printer for

a few years and have held off. Because I wasn't yet satisfied (and

can't afford a lightjet) send your prinitng out. or get trad color

prints. When the new canon comes out wait until the bleeding edgers

have have made their reports and then gotten over their adrenaline

reuch And come back more coherently. UV fast magenta/red pigments are

difficult and expensive to make. I imagine a water-based one is

moreso. In the print industry UV fast magenta in costs over twice as

much. IN stained glass I have heard the same is true.

<p>

Pamper your cash flow and learning curve. Get a scanner and focus on

that end of things. If the money is really burning a hole in your

pocket, buy a new lens, or some lighting, or hire a model and do some

more shooting. Remember what your sights are purportedly on. Get your

head out of the damn monitor and do photography. Unless your goal is

to be a digital imaging geek instead of a fashion photographer.

<p>

you said "I wonder if there is any way to turn the History of any

image I work on in Photoshop into an Actions macro thingie so I can

just re-do any images I end up getting scanned professionally, instead

of having to start from scratch."

<p>

You can do it, but I don't reccomend it. Because the data you get from

a PMT will be a different set. Applying the same actions on it will

give you different results. Many of the tweaks you do on a low-end

scan you are doing because it is a low-end scan.

OK, I've been freaking out about the shitty max. dpi with flatbed

neg scanning, and what it does to an 8x10 or 11x14 (or god forbid a

13x18) output. I bought a colour enlarger, an heapo Omega C dichroic,

and I'm gonna scan straight 8x10" prints from it with the Agfa

scanner when I get it in a couple of weeks.

<p>

There's nothing worse than knowing that, to go really fast, you need a

VMax or a YZF, but you can only afford an RZ 350...poo

<p>

shawn