Digital Darkroom Needs

[Fotos53]

I'm thinking of getting rid of my 4x5 enlarger with cold light with lens, etc. and going into digital for large format for prints. I'm wondering what I might need in computer power (I use Mac and love it) scanners, printers, etc. to get the job done, any suggestions? and yes, I have a limited budget for this. (FYI: I do alot of scanning 35mm and tranmitting images for print in my work and have the gear to get it done, anywhere) But I'm wondering about large format. Thanks for your help in advance.

[lightcraftsman]

To duplicate the results you'll get using your 4x5 enlarger and cold

light head you will need:

 

<ul type="disc">

<li>512MB RAM (256MB will get you by for black-and-white, as long

as you don't mind waiting for PhotoShop to write data to the scratch

drive all the time)

<li>Several 30GB-40GB hard drives

<li>DVD RAM or tape drive for backup

<li>Colorimeter (to keep your monitor calibrated)

<li>Epson 3000 printer with Piezography inkset and profiles,

available from <ahref="http://www.inkjetmall.com">Inkjet Mall</a>

<li>$70,000 Tango drum scanner

</ul>

 

Most of us, of course, cannot afford the Tango drum scanner. I send my

images to <a href="http://www.westcoastimaging.xom">West Coast Imaging<

/a> for scanning.

 

<p>I've taken this leap myself, and plan to buy an Epson 3000 and

Piezography inks soon.

[lightcraftsman]

</a>

 

<p>Not sure what happened to the URL above. The /a should have turned

it off. Go to http://www.westcoastimaging.com for your scanning.

[edward_hattersley2]

It should be possible to obtain excellent results from 4 x 5 without

having to spend $70,000 on a drum scanner. I have seen sample prints

produced from an Imacon Flextight Precision II scanner that were

excellent and this retails for $15000 or $499 a month for a lease.

As a starting point you could also try one of the consumer flatbed

scanners such as the Epson 1200U Photo ($400). The results will be

nowhere near the same quality but for relatively small prints, you

may be surprised by the output.

 

<p>

 

Instead of several 30-40gb drives, a single 10gb drive should be

sufficient provided that you have a CDRW drive to save images to.

 

<p>

 

Depending on the size of prints you produce, you could also go with

an Epson 2000P ($800) or Epson 1270 ($400). Both these will produce

excellent quality archival prints up to 13x19 in size.

 

<p>

 

I would agree that you should get as much memory as possible. Having

said that, I work with 256mb. A 13x19 print requires a file size of

74mb and 256mb seems sufficient.

[howard_slavitt3]

I agree with the previous poster, that Darron is exaggerating your

needs. I have a Mac G3 (225 mhz processing power) with 512 MB of RAM;

it has a built in 4 Gig hard drive and I have another 8 Gig external

drive and a CD writer. It's more than adequate to be working with 200

MB scans and getting excellent 20" x 30" or 30" x 40" prints. As for

a scanner, for large format there's a new scanner out the Artix 1100

(there's also an Agfa branded model, I think called the "Hi D") for

about $2,000. I haven't seen its output, but it's the same scanner I

have (the Microtek Scanmaker 5) with a much improved DMAX. Based on

the scans I get from the Scanmaker 5, which are very very good, and

improving the DMAX is the one area I would most want improved, you

should be able to get GREAT prints up to at least 16" x 20" for 4" x

5". By comparison, I can print great prints up to 11" x 14" on a

Lightjet 5000 off of my scanner (using 6 x 9 originals), which, while

not quite as nice as scans from a Tango (I have those done too), are

just a step below in quality; not leagues apart. The DPI of the Artix

1100 is only 1000 dpi, but that should be more than adequate for

excellent 4" x 5" scans to allow you to print up to 16" x 20" or

larger at 80 dots per centimeter. Why 80 dpc? Because that's the

lowest recommended resolution for getting Lightjet 5000 prints. If

you have your own monitor calibrator and apply the profiles that the

major labs will give you for free, you can get 16" x 20" color prints

(or black and white prints) for $27 each from a Lightjet 5000. Not

cheap, but well worth it for the quality IMHO. If you want black and

white prints, you can get very good ones up to about 13" x 20" or so,

with the Epson 1200 or other similar Epsons using special sets of

black ink sets. I personally wouldn't plan on doing high quality

color prints at home, unless you do a real lot, because of color

calibration difficulties. Calibrating a printer is the hardest part

of developing a calibrated color system; even with an expensive (over

$1,000) measuring device. Calibrating your monitor and scanner is

quite easy (IMHO), but you should definitely plan on spending between

$400 and $600 for a hardware software monitor profiling/calibration

package from the Color Partnership (they're the best, IMHO). The

Artix 1100 comes with excellent scanner profiling software (at least

my Microtek Scanmaker 5 did and I'm pretty sure it's the same, or

slightly improved software), and even comes with a Kodak 4 x 5 IT8

calibration slide (normally the slide alone costs about $100). Many

other $2,000+ scanners also come with their own profiling software.

There are many other good scanners to consider as you get into the

$3,000 - $4,000 price range and above; one feature I personally would

be hard pressed to go without is glassless scanning; after having

compared the Microtek and several other scanners in the $2,000 or less

price range a year ago, I saw a significant difference between

glassless scanning (like the Microtek/Artix/Agfa) and scanners that

have flatbed glass interfering with the optical path. The Epsons are

great printers and for black and white I believe can be calibrated

relatively effectively. However, for calibrating them for color

prints, you need to start getting into issues like dry down time and

changes in print colors for several days after you print (before they

become "archival," and all this changes depending on which ink set and

paper you're using) and then pretty soon you'll be spending all of

your time calibrating your printer rather than making prints. Fuji

Pictography's are excellent color and black and white printers that

can be calibrated easily and give photographic (or near photographic;

I can't see the difference) output. They are expensive though -- for

the 4000 which will do up to 12" x 18" prints they're about $10,000, I

think (leasing is available), but the cost per print

[howard_slavitt3]

I meant to say that the cost per print on the Fuji Pictography is

relatively low $1-$2 per print I think. I'm always getting cutoff

when I respond using my Mac and Internet Explorer 4.5; so far the only

downside I've found from using a Mac.

[dan_smith]

Why the major change? If you are printing LF you own't get any better

by going digital, just spend a lot more money. This gets you one more

step removed from the process of photography.

[kahheng]

I like Howard's approach. One thing you should always ask yourself is

"How much quality can I afford?" Going the flatbed scanner for LF

scans is a fairly good idea, especially if you're thinking of doing at

home printing on inkjets. There are many excellent scanners you can

get for $2000-3000 new. The Agfa Duoscan is one (I think that's an

Agfa badged Artix - Agfa has always been great with their scanner

drivers and other ancilliary software which is a damn fine reason for

getting an Agfa if I may say), as well as the UMAX Powerlook III.

 

<p>

 

If you are willing to out source your scanning and printing and just

make image manipulations yourself, you just need to get a nice Mac

with a lot of RAM (I'd go for at least 512 megs), and a good monitor

(Apple's own 17 inch - the current model - is pretty good) with a

color calibrator. Plug in a CD-R and you're on your way.

 

<p>

 

Be prepared to spend a lot more money on your picture making when you

'go digital'!

 

<p>

 

One other approach in 'going digital' that I'd like to point out

involves making traditional black and white silver contact prints from

digital internegs. Check on Dan Burkholder's book on the subject. Why

would one want to do that? Well, if you're into alternative processes

like platinum or gum bichromate, it's an easy way to get large contact

'internegs' made from small starting negs. The other thing is that it

allows for easy dodge and burn as well as artificact removal, on

screen, as well as making composites with Photoshop (which is probably

a lot easier than compositing the darkroom way).

 

<p>

 

Online, Don Krehbie has a very good website on the subject (even

though it deals with making digital contact prints with a Minox, the

process is the same for LF). His method is one of making internegs

with Epson inkjet paper.

 

<p>

 

http://www.slonet.org/~dkrehbie/2photo/digital/outneg/outneg.htm

[kahheng]

I just checked BUY.com for the Microtek Artixscan and the Agfa Duoscan

HiD.

 

<p>

 

I suspect that they are basically the same scanner since the

specs are so similar (Microtek has made many of Agfa's scanners for a

long time already). The Agfa sells for $2400 and the Artixscan close

to $1000 less.

[dan_smith]

After comparing the very high end scans as Darron mentions with the

mid range and the low range, I come to the same conclusions as when

comparing an 8x20 contact print with a 35mm contact print. If you

want top results you have to use the right tools for the job. Yes,

you can enlarge 35mm to 8x20, but you pay a price. You can get mid &

low range scans & get 'nice' results. But put them head to head with

scans from the top gear and there is a noticable difference, one seen

as well as the difference in 35mm and large format.

Darron is looking at this from the perspective of doing the job right

from the beginning rather than building a brick at a time and having

to constantly upgrade & replace. Quite similar to buying good LF gear

rather than going cheap & having to upgrade to get top quality a

little at a time.

I still don't see the attraction of digital compared to the fine

quality one gets from doing it all by hand in the traditional

darkroom, and yes, I have photoshop, etc. and use it. But when

working for quality I much prefer straight photography to digital.

Getting into digital on the quality level commensurate with LF

cameras will be expensive, even for mid range quality and you will be

forever kicking yourself for going the cheap route. Nothing is to be

gained by working with gear while constantly reminding ones self

that "I should have bought something better", a sure result of buying

almost anything digital.

Enlarged negs I can see, with a big caveat. Look at the digital

enlarged neg and see if it is any 'better' than the traditional

enlarged negs. If not, what has been gained? By rights, they should

be much better, with all the fine tuning and controls. But, how long

will it take to be able to really manipulate the Photoshop options to

get them this way, and will you really have the time to become expert

at it so as to get the finest results you want?

[kahheng]

But Dan, it all quite depends on what John means by 'going digital'.

Sure you would get the maximum quality by drum scanning and archiving

all your slides and negs onto CDROMs, but that could be cost

prohibitive for him.

 

<p>

 

If money is no object to John (which he has already said it IS), he

might be better off with a line scan back (or a three shot back) and

not even bother with scanning negs and chromes. You get a LOT better

quality with a high res straight to file digital capture than with the

best film scans money can buy today (albeit with certain restrictions

as to subject matter). And this is true even with a lower spec'd model

like a BetterLight 4000 which costs just under $10k.

 

<p>

 

So there are many ways of going digital. As we all know, restrictions

inevitably come with the size of one's bank account.

 

<p>

 

I would like to say that one need begin with the end in mind, that is,

perhaps John might want to tell us what size, quality and type of

output he wants, and then work backwards to find the most cost

effective solution. Meanwhile, its nice to see the different opinions

about how he should do this.

 

<p>

 

The so-called low end ways of going digital aren't necessarily bad

really. It does all come down to what desired in the end.