To print or not to print?

[jeff_white3]

I have been a lurker here (or actually, on the old forum before it

was moved) for a few weeks now and would just like to thank everyone

for maintaining one of the most useful forums I've ever visited! I

hope you guys can help me out too. I have been shooting 35mm (nature

mostly) for years now, and recently began experimenting with a

Pacemaker Speed Graphic that my uncle gave me (he did photo recon.

work for the army with it during the Korean War). I have been

absolutely blown away by the transparencies! While in this

experimenting mood, I have considered buying a used enlarger to try

my hand at printing (for both my LF trans and my 35mm). I have had

dozens of prints made at "Pro" labs over the years and have been

reasonably satisfied with the results. However, since I'm sure that

I care a whole lot more about my images than any lab ever could, I'm

wondering if I might not be better off printing them myself (not to

mention the cost savings and the luxury of not having to wait weeks

to get the finished product back!). Is it reasonable to believe that

I can create prints of at least comparable quality to lab prints?

Also, what kind of investment should I expect to have to make? Any

recommendations of enlargers/paper processors would be appreciated.

[ramy_sadek]

Jeff, you can CERTAINLY hope to achieve good results. There are many books dedicated to teaching how to print very very well. In particular, the third in Ansel's trilogy (The Camera, The Negative, The Print) is very good. Some complain that it is too complicated, and prefer The Zone VI workshop by Picker. Supposedly it is straightforward and very informative.

 

As for equipment, I purchased a used enlarger on E-bay for $86. It's a Durst from the 80s and works great (35mm only). You can get similar deals very easily. I imagine if you want one to do LF prints (depending on how large...) it might cost a little more.

 

Since I saved so much on the enlarger, I spent the bulk of the money on the lens. I got a nice APO lens from Rodenstock. $300. You can go alot cheaper easily. I chose not to.

 

So, for small cost, (say under $500 easily) you can get up and running. I think it is well worth it. And with a little practice you'll be likely to out-do yourself. I think you'll be very glad if you do it. Go for it!

 

Finally, you might read a couple of books on setting up a darkroom. I think Kodak publishes one, and I like The New Darkroom Handbook. Very useful.

 

In closing, you can get going cheap. The nicer you want your set up, the more it will cost. But you can get high-quality results cheaply.

 

-Ramy

[eugene_singer]

Jeff, I am assuming from your question that you are talking about printing color transparencies. This is not as simple as printing black and white negs. For color, you will need a dichroic head on your enlarger. Paper and chemicals are expensive for color printing. You may want to consider using black and white film in your Speed Graphic. It will open a whole new world of creativity for you. Of course, trannies can be scanned, and printed with ink jet equipment. That would eliminate the need for a darkroom for printing your color transparencies.

[brian_ellis3]

I realize this is something of a controversial area, but if I were you and just starting out to make color prints from transparencies, I'd forget about a traditional color darkroom and think scanner, Photoshop, computer, printer. The world of color photography has gone digital in a big way - it isn't even that easy to find a pro lab that does anything other than digital these days. The main reason is that a traditional color darkroom is fairly limiting, especially from transparencies, unless you get into things like masking. Even then, you can do much more with Photoshop than you can in a traditional color darkroom, not to mention the fact that you don't need to create a darkroom in your home. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there are people who would disagree.

[Troll]

For B&W the way to go is still photographic. But for color, state of the art is now digital, in both quality and cost. Listen to Brian.

[david_goldfarb]

I'll agree with the above comments, even as someone firmly oriented toward the wet darkroom for B&W.

 

If you're working from color transparencies, you can still get great results with Fuji R-print material or with Ilfochrome if you're willing to work at it. You can get excellent results as well, though, from LightJet with continuous tone output on regular photographic paper with no artifacts associated with inkjet, Giclee, or pigment printing, and while this area is constantly improving, R-printing seems to be on the decline. Drum scanning and LightJet also really looks better when you start doing big enlargements. This may not be such an advantage from 4x5" (unless to do large murals), but from 35mm or medium format, you'll see the difference at around 11x14" for 35mm and 16x20" for MF.

 

So if you are just getting started and want to do traditional B&W, I'd say go for it--used equipment is really cheap right now, and digital processes will never replicate the look of a traditional print (not that digital B&W can't look good, but it will always look different, at least until someone figures out how to handle B&W papers in a LightJet-type printer), but if your main interest is color, I'd put the money into a good film scanner.

[gary_meader]

Jeff

Listen to these guys, they know from whence they speak. I

printed cibas for a # of years, and won't got back to it. Personally,

I think the learning curve is too steep to print great color.

Although I'm investing in a quad tone ink jet system for my black

and white work, I'll never give up my darkroom. Color chemistry

is also too toxic for my septic system, I think. Something to

consider. And welcome to LF

[james_chinn]

Jeff, I would expose several transparencies of the same subject and have a variety of labs process them. Pick out the best one and then discuss your work with the lab and any questions or concerns. The problem with color in the darkroom is unless you are producing a great number of prints, the costs are quite a bit higher than a lab on a per print or trany basis (as opposed to B&W where the cost is a fraction of a labs). Add in the cost of materials while learning and an enlarger and JOBO processor, (easiest and most consistent way to home process film and prints),and you have a pretty good start up investment.

 

I have a lab do my color processing and am migrating to digital to make my color prints. I still find a wet darkroom the way to go for B&W (i work with 35mm up to 11x14) and my 6yr old daughter can process film and make prints as good as the best custom local lab.

 

BTW, the speed graphic is a great camera to start out in LF. I still use mine as a hand held camera with TriX or HP5. If you don't already have one, try to find a flash unit on Ebay or go to the Graflex.com site. I think they have some instructions for adopting modern flash to different shutters.

[jeff_white3]

Hello everyone,

 

Thanks so much for your helpful and thorough responses. I have been strongly considering going digital, and after seeing how much the price of Lightjet prints has dropped, I think I may just give it a shot. The last time I checked on them, it was about 4 or 5 years ago when there were only 1 or 2 labs in the US with this tech. The price then was far out of my reach. However, after reading your posts, I did a little investigation and was surprised by how much the price has dropped. It is now very competetive in my opinion, and the sample Lightjet print that I received upon my original inquiry makes me think that this is definitely the way to go. Also, I have had a few Fuji Frontier prints made in the past by Linhoff photo. The Fuji Frontier is a printer very much like the Lightjet, utilizing laser exposure, and it is also printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I have been very impressed with the prints, and they are quite inexpensive. The color and tonal range of the original slide are duplicated almost exactly. One of the major complaints that I always had about traditional prints from slides was that the critical shadow and highlight details were almost always blown out (without a contrast mask). This process handles them beautifully. However, the printer's max output size is 10x15 :-( If the Frontier can give me such good results, I can't wait to see what a Lightjet can do!

 

On a related note, has anyone heard about the new Epson 2200P that is to be unveiled in July? It promises 2880x1440 dpi resolution and a 7 color printing process which will utilize Epson's new UltraChrome inks (more water resistant, greater lightfastness, and wider color gamut). Print life is said to be up to 80 to 100 years, the print time is down significantly from the 2000P, and the price will be about $200 less than the 2000! The regular retail will be $699. Larger versions (24" and 44" wide) will also be available for those with the wallet to handle it. Just wondering if anyone else has heard of this development. I am considering purchasing one for my smaller prints (up to 11x14).

[ramy_sadek]

You meant color trannies. Whoops. I guess I missed that. I know nothing about that stuff, but I'm glad I read everyone elses posts, I sure learned alot. Thanks guys.

 

-Ramy

[chris_jordan3]

Jeff, i vividly recall the first few 4x5 trannies i made, using a borrowed crown graphic. once you see those jewels, there's no going back to 35mm!!

 

the new Epson printers will be amaaaaaaazing-- definitely get one of those (i've got my 7600 ordered already). computer-wise, make sure to get as much RAM as you can (it's very cheap) for photoshop use. Then, get your images drum scanned at a reputable place (such as calypso or colorfolio, both easy to find on the internet) instead of trying to make your own scans-- that's the most important step in the whole digital imaging process, and the quality difference between a good drum scan and an el-cheapo flatbed scan is enormous. Then, once you've got the scan (which unfortunately is a significant front-end expense for each image), you're off to the races making gorgeous prints! You'll need to get a profile for your printer, and learn the concept of color management, which is a pain-in-the-butt learning curve thing, but once you get all your stuff dialed in then you won't need to worry about it after that. Check digitaldog.com for some excellent articles on color management. A great Photoshop book is "Photoshop for Photographers", available on Amazon.com.

 

the very short version of photoshop imaging is to do EVERYTHING as adjustment layers, so you never make any changes to your original scan. this may not mean much to you now; just keep that in mind and make sure you learn how to accomplish it. feel free to write me privately if you want more help. (www.chris@chrisjordanphoto.com)

 

The whole knowledge ramp-up in digital printing is a bit daunting at the beginning, but it's the same whichever way you go-- darkroom or digital; both printing methods are crafts requiring a high degree of knowledge and skill. There are tons of great websites out there with tips and stuff-- try www.luminous-landscape.com for some good articles on scan resolution and digital imaging stuff.

 

best of luck. you're jumping into digital printing at the most amazing time-- the goddess is alive and there's magic afoot in all directions!

 

~chris jordan (Seattle)

 

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

seen some stuff on the 2200p ... i'd have a hard time swallowing anything epson fed me though.

 

 

cough... choke,

[doug_paramore]

Jeff: The key to getting what you want from a pro lab is communication. Let them know exactly what you want in a custom print and you will probably get it. If you just send them a neg and let them pick the way the print will look, human nature being what it is they will pick the easy way out. If possible, pay the lab a visit and explain the quality level you are after. It is a lost cause to try and do color prints yourself.

 

 

Regards,

 

Doug.