Digital and/or conventional printing options

[fw1]

The last issue of View Camera has a profile of the work of David Fokos. Although it was the superb visualisation and images that initially attracted me, I am equally interested in the technical aspects of how his prints are produced. He produces an 8x10 negative through conventional means, which is then drum scanned and printed on a LightJet 5000 - see <A HREF="http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/fokos/fokos.html">this</A> for the results, although I�m not sure that my monitor does justice to the pictures.

 

<p>

 

This article made me think again about a <A HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002LQZ ">question </A> I asked on this forum earlier this year. Unfortunately even contact printing 4x5 has turned out not to be a viable option for me, although I do control everything up the processed negative. In the absence of being able to set up a conventional darkroom for printing, is the best option to get a good quality scanner and printer to "proof" images (such as the Powerlook / Epson 3000 combination mentioned by a poster to the previous thread)? For outstanding images, I suppose I could then choose to get a conventional custom print prepared by a lab, or alternatively try something like the approach taken by Mr Fokos - is his approach viable for the average LF "serious amateur" photographer, such as myself? Or is the cost of his approach prohibitive?

 

<p>

 

I would really appreciate the advice of those who understand the practical realities, quality differences and costs of the various options. I don�t live in an English speaking country, and it is nigh impossible to chat through the options with a lab / bureau.

[fw1]

Drat ; <em><A HREF="http://www.bostick-

sullivan.com/fokos/fokos.htm">this</A></em> is the link to Mr Fokos'

work.

[john_c.]

FW: All of my prints are digital these days. I shoot only color

transparencies, in 4x5. The film is developed at my local "pro" lab,

then I send it off to the printer. A good digital printer needs a high-

resolution drum scan. This kind of scanner, and the accompanying

computer hardware, is cost-prohibitive for all but the most well-heeled

among us. There are a number of good labs in the US that do Lightjet

prints that won't cost you a fortune. If you'd like links to some, let

me know and I'll send them to you privately.

[simon2]

John and others,

 

<p>

 

Might it be worth setting up a "digital labs"

chart/thread/section/link-list on this web site, listing good vendors

for scanning and digital printing? After all, we're not shy about

announcing it when we have a good experience with F Stops Here, or

Darkroom Innovations, or Quality Camera, or Badger Graphics. It seems

that for some years to come (that is until home scanners and printers

equal drum scanners and LightJets!) many users of this site will be

wanting to have superb (i.e., better than home-quality) output of at

least some of their photographs.

 

<p>

 

Just a thought.

[dan_smith]

You can't even set up for simple 4x5 contact prints? A ceiling light,

two or three small trays (or pie plates) and a sink for rinsing is

too much to set up? You can even get by without a normal sink as long

as you have someplace to get & dump water. It is a lot simpler and

less expensive than digital.

[john_c.]

I have been maintaining a list for a while now. Here's what I have:

Bruce Bennett labs, http://www.brucebennett.com/

Calypso Imaging, http://www.calypsoinc.com/

Color Folio, http://www.colorfolio.com/

Evercolor Fine Art, http://www.evercolor.com/

FinePrint, http://www.fineprint.org/

West Coast Imaging, http://www.westcoastimaging.com/

and the person I use, Bill Nordstrom, who doesn't have a web site but

who you can contact by email at LasLight@aol.com.

[simon2]

Excellent list! I've also looked at the www.nancyscans.com website

and they may have potential too.

 

<p>

 

One thing interesting to me was that the View Camera photos by David

Fokos were printed on color paper. After seeing Bill Nordstrom's ad

in View Camera, I talked to him (he's a leader in the field, I

understand) about a year ago, asking whether I could get a "high-

quality black-and-white print" that would look like a darkroom-

generated print. He said that color shifts could be a problem for b&w

traditionalists (probably like the shifts on one-hour-lab prints of

XP2 or T400CN) and thus I believe he primarily worked with color

negs. I don't know if that situation is changed--with any of the labs

listed here--but I personally did not find the tonality of the Fokos

pictures in View Camera (which were printed on color paper)

objectionable; they were in fact rather pleasing in a Michael Kenna

sort of way. So when inquiring at these labs, that might be something

to keep in mind: asking what's involved in printing monochrome

negscans on color paper (if indeed LightJets don't do well on

traditional b&w paper). Maybe some of the labs can provide samples on

request? I'd even pay a few bucks for such samples, in light of the

high costs at stake. . . .

[richard_coda]

LightJets are color - and wonderful color - prints. You should not

try to do black & white with color materials.

 

<p>

 

A better way to approach this might be to take a look at Dan

Burkholder's book "Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing".

His approach is similar to Mr. Fokos's, but he stays B&W. His website

is www.danburkholder.com. He will also be teaching a 5-day class at

ICP in NY in July. If I can work around the camp's bus schedule, I'll

be there.

 

<p>

 

Rich

[simon2]

Rich, I agree that Dan Burkholder is on to something good, and he did

indeed literally write the book on making large negatives. But unlike

darkroom prints, LightJet prints are not subject to optical

limitations during enlargement (and to sizes as large as 48x96,

should you REALLY like your photos!), and I suspect that many

photographers, galleries, and print buyers would be more than

satisfied with the kind of quality that David Fokos got using

LightJet with b&w negs.

[wilhelm]

I bought Burkholder's book last month. Even with degrees in

engineering and physics and 48 years experience in the darkroom, I

don't understand hardly any of it.

[roger___3]

Not an answer, but another question. I would wonder if there are

price, quality, service differences among the sources John C.

listed. As this is a fairly expensive adventure, it's a little

prohibitive to try here and there to see who's best.

[james___]

And there-in lays the problem with the digital realm. It is upon us

and many can do amazing things with it but, no, the galleries and

buyers aren't yet interested in fine art on run of the mill printers.

Iris and the like are being offered, though they are extremely

expensive, but don't command the dollars that prints made the

traditional way do. It will become the norm in time but not yet.

Lenswork Magazine has an offer that is wonderful for people like me

that want to have fine art by great masters but can't afford the bucks

to buy it. The masters (Wynn Bullock, Huntington Whitherill, Barnbaum,

Dusard, ect) produce a print that is just as they want it to look and

lenswork has that print scanned and outputted back(?) producing a

negative of whatever proportions the artist wants it to be. That neg

is then contact printed to the artists satisfaction and offered for

sale through the magazine for substantially less than a similar print

done by the hand of the artist. I purchased one and it is exactly the

same as a print I see all the time in LA that I can't afford even if I

sold my wife and first born. And it is done on normal photographic

paper (FB). You have to see it to believe it. I am going to get my

negs scanned to files(I have a very good scanner and very large

memory) and take the files to a bureau to have them outputted onto neg

material and print them as contact prints in my darkroom. Already

burned and dodged. One of the questions I have though is what do the

tonalities become for an enlarged neg? You have to fill in the spaces

so what goes in between the original spaces and how does it look?

James

[john_c.]

First off, sorry that my list wasn't in HTML format. I looked for a

link which would provide instruction on how to tag the sites, but

couldn't find one. Second, the first Lightjet print is always a little

pricey (about $150 for a 16x20), but reprints (at the same time or in

the future) are cheap, and they're identical. So if you're selling your

work, that's a relief. Last, the Lightjet prints I have are the best

prints I've EVER had. They are of the jaw-drop variety, and I doubt

it's because I'm a great photographer, because I'm not. The colors are

so sharp and vivid and similar to the original chrome. You really owe

it to yourself to experience the Lightjet just once.

[david_f._stein]

I agree about LensWork Quarterly-I think Brooks Jensen had hit upon a

workable marriage of traditional and digital, getting the best from each

medium. However, I remember John Swarkowski lecturing about 12 years

ago that "soon" that the images in laser printed fine art books would be

indsitinguishable from photographic prints!

[david_f._stein]

I agree about LensWork Quarterly-I think Brooks Jensen had hit upon a

workable marriage of traditional and digital, getting the best from each

medium. However, I remember John Swarkowski lecturing about 12 years

ago that "soon" the images in laser printed fine art books would be

indsitinguishable from photographic prints!

[simon2]

I'm guessing that Szarkowski was referring to laser-scanned

negatives, the quality of which greatly impressed Ansel himself (see

p. 251 and 364 of Adams' autobiography). Indeed, I'd wager that to

the average person on the street, any of the laser-scanned duotones

printed in any of Ansel's books or calendars produced by Little Brown

and Gardner Lithograph (for more than 15 years now) ARE

indistinguishable from an original print.

[simon2]

First sentence of my post immediately above SHOULD read,

 

<p>

 

"I'm guessing that Szarkowski was referring to fine art books that

were printed from laser-scanned negatives. . . "

[erik_ryberg]

Yes but by the time I've gone to that much trouble and expense to make

a photograph, I don't really care much about the average person on the

street. It's the picky people I'm out to please.

[bill_glickman]

I like many others have come to the conclusion, digital is the

wave of the future. So many unusable chromes can be saved and made

into great prints...so I started using Photoshop and was amazed at

its power, the ultimate photographers tool.

 

<p>

 

But, I became very frustrated with the exhorbitant price of drum

scans at service bureaus, and the varying quality... and considering

the amount of chromes I shoot, (4x5 & 8x10), I bit the bullet and

bought a brand spanking new Howtek 8000 drum scanner, 8000 optical

dpi, 4.2 Dmax, 4.0 D range. Although the hardware / software package

was outrageously expensive, ($28,000) I felt it was my only missing

link. Without a high quality scan, you are defeating the benefits of

the digital process. Now, I am getting much better scans and in the

long run, maybe many years, it might pay for itself?? If users on

this forum are interested in getting high quality drum scans, but do

not always need them "next day" I would be willing to do them at

substantial discounts vs. service bureaus. Email me if you are

interested.