Setting up a color lab!

[josh_gilreath]

I recently re-opened the oldest studio in my city, Chattanooga, TN. And my goal is to be completely

different from all of the other digital "photographers" in our area. I am very much a traditionalist. Currently

we are shooting pictures on film (Hasselblad 500cm) and end up scanning then retouching and outputing

digitally (this is the part that i want to change). As of a few weeks ago, i got a call from one of our old

artists that used to work for the studio several years back, she is interested in comming back to work, and

wanted to know if i needed any negative retouching, airbrushing, or oil painting done ( in other words i

have access to a professional artist who would be more than happy to work full time). Also i have been

doing research and i found out exactly how cheap color processing equipment really is, so i'm considering

setting up a color lab again ( we used to have one but the studio burnt 4 years ago). What i am asking is:

 

1. do you think this is a good idea to offer a completely different traditional photographic product

different from anyone elses (hand printed)

 

2. Do you think people would appreciate a "real" photograph and the security of knowing that negatives

have been proven to last 100 years or so

 

3. Where are some good resources to find color lab stuff (i've been checking ebay)

 

Thanks, for any input

[sattler123]

Looking at all the other traditional photo labs go out of business does not indicate an overwhelming demand by the general public for your intended business. You would have to rely on traditionalists who want the hand printed output and would be willing to pay for it - you should be realistic and realize that you entering a nish market and that it would mean that you'd have to charge porportionally more for your services. The cost of the equipment is not the issue - this stuff is cheap these days - labs going out of business can't get rid of it, even if they are willing to give it away for free.

 

The average casual picture taker these days is perfectly happy to look at the pictures on the TV or the PC and forget about them as fast as they were taken - granted, years down the road they will regret it, but that won't help you today.

 

Would I invest in your business idea? No, I wouldn't - I don't think it is viable.

[josh_gilreath]

by "different" i mean that our photographs would be of a classic professional style (truly

professional-utilizing a true knowledge of lighting and skill) i do not intend to completely

base our work around how it is printed. all that i am saying is instead of outsourcing my

work to a lab, i would print it myself (after all this is what our studio has done for over 50

years). Our prices would be comparable to other professional studios, perhaps even a bit

cheaper, pretty much what i am trying to acheive is full control over how my prints come

out at the best quality possible. As for the casual picture taker, that does not seem to be

our clientele, i have also started using printed previews and i have had may people

comment on how they enjoy being able to hold a photograph in their hands and not

limited to just staring at it on a screen. I just thought that it might be a unique selling

point if i could also say that all of our prints were done by hand!

 

thanks again for any input

[larrydressler]

Let me know how it goes I am in Clarksville up north and I am pulling for you. However I don't think the general public even understands that things have changed in the retrospect of Digital taking over in your field. You would have to show them the differance and prove that the price they would have to pay for the "Old Style" is worth it.

 

Larry

[User_503771]

This is a situation that demands a market survey! You can't really know the answers until you ask.

 

Many people have trouble with knowing what to ask and how to ask it, of whom.

 

Perhaps you could find someone local to you who is expert and experienced, with proven results, who could help you with marketing surveys and make suggestions.

 

I would think though that it pays to be versatile. And if you can maintain your current activities and enhance what you offer, and not go broke, that's terrific!

[benny_spinoza]

How would printing color by hand be better than scanning negatives, processing with software (e.g., photoshop), and then printing the digital file on photographic paper with a high-end printer? As almost everyone in this forum knows, things like contrast control, sophisticated dodging/burning, etc., especially for color, is so much more precise and controllable in the digital domain than when done in the conventional color darkroom. If you will be spending a good portion of your savings on this business, then if I were you, I would think long and hard about this. But if you go this direction, I sincerely wish you the best.

[josh_gilreath]

well, ive been doing research and from a business standpoint, it is cheaper short term and in

the long run to go with traditional printing methods. for example a 24x30 lab print costs

about $70, a 24x30 inkjet print on mueso paper costs about $32, and a 24x30 chemical

darkroom print costs about $4.30. Also there is the advantage of not having to upgrade

computers, software, printers every couple of years or so, and it is cheaper to delegate work

among multiple people without having to buy each one of them a computer to use.

[g._armour_van_horn]

I have no idea how big Chattanooga is, but in most markets there is room for a few niche players that go their own way. The bulk of the market is going to go digital, which offers an array of advantages but has it's problems. (Lighting is not, however, one of them.)

 

I'd have to say that your cost figures don't make sense to me. The paper for a 24x30 print might be that cheap, but they don't make themselves. You have to pay wages, provide space, and service the equipment. Those are all costs, even if they don't actually require a cash outlay at the time each print is made. There is the very real factor that digital output is repeatable by nature, lab output is repeatable only with really good organization and high skill levels.

 

Now, if you can present a case for your final product being superior to the work of all the other photographers in town, and you know how to identify the market that will appreciate the difference, you could very well have a viable business. (Two photographers trying the same thing probably wouldn't, depending on the size of the market.)

 

It could also turn out that the market into which you could sell was older, so it will literally die off over time. However, if you've been running a studio for 50 years you probably don't care if this new venture lasts for too many decades!

 

There is a very real limit to this kind of approach, and that is that it only works for clients that want prints, which I think means retail portrait buyers. That eliminates a huge part of the market for photography, as those who are looking for images are going to want them in digital formats, and you won't be able to preserve any of your main advantage there. There's quite a paradigm shift between seeing "pictures" as a specific piece of paper (as most everybody used to) and thinking of them as an abstract item that can be used in many ways in addition to prints.

 

You're swimming against a powerful tide here, but if the market is big enough to support a business in this niche, and you think you know how to reach it, and you think it will be profitable enough for the span of time you want to be serving it, I think most everybody in this forum will be cheering you on.

 

Don't forget to rent enough space so you can snap up three or four of every machine you'll ever need, because parts and service are going to be a challenge and you'll need your own boneyard to cannibalize.

 

Van

[josh_gilreath]

Les- Thanks for your intrest, i'll talk with you in email to get your info! As for setting up

the lab, this is a project i am wanting to implement over the next several months, but we

are going forward with our black and white darkroom which should hopefully be up and

running by the end of december or first of january.....this is primarily to go along with my

classic hollywood style portraiture that i am going to offer to my seniors next year!

 

Let me also clear one thing up, i am the 3rd generation owner of my studio, i am 19

myself, and taking over the business which has been in the family since 1968 (also

working alongside my uncle who has been a part of the studio since it opened in 1954).

but dont let my age fool you, i learned in the black and white darkroom, which is what

decided my career for me, and because of my age, don't automatically thing that i want to

be 100% digital, becasue i don't i enjoy the craftsmanship and art of printing by hand, and

i understand the importance of having digital technology in todays photo market!

 

Also, while i want to put in a color lab and produce optical prints, we would not shy away

from digital in some aspects of course, i already scan my negatives with a nikon 8000 for

digital output and i do have an epson 9600 which i plan to use for composites, chrismas

cards, and custom type work once the color lab is up and running.

 

As for the cost of prints that i calculated, it would take just as long to print images

digitally as it would in a color darkroom, it is just a matter of either sitting in front of a

computer or being in a darkroom behind an enlarger! plus maintenence on digital

equipment is almost as bad as color lab equipment, there are still several reputable color

lab equipment manufacturers still in business!

 

Also our clientele is mostly people who want prints, after all why do you come to get

portraits made?...to use them as screensavers on your laptop????

 

thanks again for any input!

[keith_lubow]

I would say that there is no niche for this. The industry as a whole doesn't really care anymore. They are totally product/results/speed oriented, and care not one iota about the process (as if they ever did anyhow). It is a great idea to have these things available, but I would not stake any of your money on it. You'll go straight out of business. Sad but true.

 

Keith

[keith_lubow]

Let me clarify:

 

I am saying that you should go ahead and print traditionally. Personally, I would NEVER go to a lab that didn't. I have a hard time convincing myself to patronize A and I because they don't print Ilfochrome; only RA.

 

However, I would have this ability IN ADDITION to all the modern stuff, and not stake your entire business on it. If you do, I think you are truly underestimating how vapid people are in this digital age.

 

Keith

[john_castronovo]

Save your money. I've run one of the best custom labs anywhere for the last 30 years, and while we're still in business where almost all of the competition has gone away, except for a very small group of very select customers, the base has entirely shifted away from traditional printing to the point where most of our chemistry goes down the drain these days. There's no profit in that.

 

Some people will beat a path to your door and shower you with thanks for doing this but you will quickly find that you're providing a free service. Even here in Northern NJ, you just can't get enough work to justify keeping a large processor clean and active any more unless you're also feeding it output from a Lambda or Lightjet. Then you'll be looking for additional work to supplement and keep the machines working every day and you'll offer to do this work at cost or even below. B&W in trays is another matter as are many of the more esoteric printing methods. Specialize on them.

 

If you're Hell bent on this, I've got about 15 enlargers we're not using including a Durst horizontal that ran me over $70k. I'll keep the rest.

 

Also, I don't know where you got your costs for inkjet printing. Most of the costs in printing are in labor either way but a good rc print will cost you less than $7 in materials and you won't have to buy a processor, chemical mixers. water mixing valves, silver recovery and so on. Plus there's a revolution about to happen in inkjet printing that will trump everything you've seen so far.

 

john

tech photo & imaging

jcc@technicalphoto.com

[jtk]

I've scanned C22 film from the 50s that's better than some "good" C41 from the 70s (not to mention the original professional C41, Vericolor-I...Kodak warned labs it would go to hell in 6 months, and it did.

 

Don't bet on 5 years with some current minilab C41, Kodak's assurances notwithstanding.

 

Some Cibachrome prints have already proven to be less stable than their original chromes...depending on the lab.

 

If you're going promote that "100 year" idea, you might want to consider a 100-year process:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CFXe

[josh_gilreath]

john i understand what you are saying, we already use fuji paper because of it's proven

archivability, we also use fuji film. but that is a good point you bring up about the older

processes, something i deffinately will check in to!

Josh

[david jeffery]

"Plus there's a revolution about to happen in inkjet printing that will trump everything you've seen so far."

 

Can you elaborate on this a little please?

 

TIA