electronic printing?

[wieslaw1]

<p><strong>Is the electronic projector a feasible substitue for a traditional condenser photo enlarger?</strong><br /><br /><br />Fililm has been my life’s medium, basically B&W, (35mm to 5x7) but occasionaly I shoot in color as well. <br />I also have cheap, digital, waterproff Canon (250$) which I sometimes use as suplementary camera.<br /><br />Recently I decided to purchase electronic Leica ME (5 500$+lens). The question is do you have enough money to pay for high quality prints on a sustainable basis? <br /><br />The answer is no!<br /><br />So when I reflected upon the idea and started wondering what I shall do with all those magnificent pictures on my hardrive, the digital Leica was not so hot any longer.<br />Watching the images on a screen? You do not see the Leica quality on a computer monitor, or should I print the digital files on a home, letter size, printer? C’mon!<br /><br />True, there are labs making high quality prints but the prices start at 100$ per print.<br /><br />But the color films are not cheap either. For example high quality scans on drum scanner + printing on a traditional photosensitive paper using the laser Durst Lambda technique, are in 150 - 200$ price range for 60x70 cm print.<br /><br />But first, a commercial lab has to develop your film. Last year I paid 20$ for a 120 (6x6cm) roll of a slide film.<br /><br />The B&W film, on the other hand, I can develop myself for 10 cents per roll. Then I select and print the negatives myself, certainly at a fraction of what the commercial labs are charging and better than they can do.<br /><br />Although I have made some 40 color, exhibition quality prints by the Lambda technique (you can see them here: http://peterphoto.com/waz/patagonia/ and http://peterphoto.com/waz/patagonia_2/ ), it was quite an investement. For these reasons, in the future, I decided to stick to B&W photography and do the job the old fashion way, i.e. myself.<br /><br />So what about the magnificent digital Leica M E?<br /><br />If there were enlargers on the market which would allow photographer to print from digital files onto the traditional photo papers, then this would be a solution. Yes, Durst Lambda is such a machine, but this is for a factory, not for home use.<br /><br />My question therefore is: Could I use electronic projector as an enlarger? Instead of directing the image on a wall, I would expose the photographic paper. Does this make sense?<br />I have no idea what resolution the electronic projectors offer.<br /><br />Anybody has a suggestion?<br />Thanks.<br /><br />WAZ<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[andrew_becker1]

<p>Short Answer- No.<br>

Digital projectors only have a resolution of around 1080p at maximum, which is the equivalent of 2.1 MP. These are for high-end, HD projectors, and even if you managed to get the projector to function as an enlarger, it wouldn't do your fantastic Leica camera justice.<br>

On the otherhand, for around the same price as one of those HD projectors, you can get a professional grade large-format (24 inch wide) printer which has a resolution of 1200x1200 DPI. For a 60x70 cm print, that's the equivalent of 934 megapixels, which is definitely a little bit excessive. Here's a link to that printer---<br>

<a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/inkjet-printers/hp-designjet-t120-eprinter/4505-3156_7-35499838.html">http://reviews.cnet.com/inkjet-printers/hp-designjet-t120-eprinter/4505-3156_7-35499838.html</a><br>

I think the best choice for digital printing is using the technology designed for it. I've explored the idea of projection for printing, but it just has too low resolution to work.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[machts gut]

<p>It often amazes me that people don't give a thought about the final product (print or screen) and the costs they are willing to pay for the whole process. This goes in both directions: Buying a FF-DSLR and watching photos only on the screen or, as seems to be in your case, spend thousands of dollars for a camera and not willing to pay 100 Dollar for a quality print. Why don't you just buy a cheaper camera, like a FF-DSLR, and save the money for a couple of good prints. How many 60x70cm prints are you able to hang in your house? If you sell the prints you get them paid anyway. Sorry, if my answer seems a bit harsh, but IMO your rant about the costs is not appropriate. BTW I always understood that b&w inkjet prints over high quality and the examples I saw in many exhibitions proof that.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Or, buy a printer like the Epson 3880 and make all the large, glorious prints you want, on the paper you want, when you want. When you do the math, it starts to make sense.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I'm not sure the math actually does make sense, given the way inkjet printers eat ink, the cost of big paper, and the need for multiple proofs before you get a keeper. It certainly makes more sense than sending the files out to be printed, that's for sure. I think that many, many people only look at their stuff on a monitor when it comes to digital. Amazing, but that's what I suspect. There are a lot of things to consider in any medium. Why shoot MF and only print small prints is a good one too. Other than doing my own B&W developing and printing, the only way I ever got a handle on the cost was to scan my negs and print 12x18 using black ink only on old Epson printers. That probably ran me about $5 a large print, including proofs. so not too bad. However, one day a LF photographer invited me to look at his large enlargements on fiber paper, and so much for my inkjet prints. Good as they were, they weren't much looking at his stuff, so I had to go to a darkroom.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>I'm with Matt. My Epson 3880 has produced over 5000 prints. That spreads the initial cost of the printer quite thin. The cost of ink has well surpassed the initial cost of the printer, but remains under $1 per square foot of normal coverage. Some reputable on-line companies offer prints for about the cost of using the Epson, but the convenience of printing at home or office is worth much. Checking the histogram and using a calibrated monitor eliminates most test prints. Much of the information needed can be provided in a small test print. Some people may never be satisfied by anything less than a traditional darkroom print, but the best of digital prints come close enough for many of us.</p>

[wieslaw1]

<p><br />Thanks everybody for your input.<br /><br />Yes, the recommended printer Epson 3880 is a high quality product and „cheap“, only 250$. The catch is that it would not work. Why? because you need extra 450$ for the ink cartridges. So the real cost is 700$. I noticed that Ilford is making special papers for ink printers but they cost same as traditional photo sensitive papers. But the account of JJ shows us that the costs of individual prints are perhaps reasonable.<br /><br /> There is, however, another major drawback of the digital hoopla than the cost. - The mindless pressing of the shutter. It does not cost anything to capture one picture or one thousand pictures. You do not even need to engage your brain in any kind of selection process. Why not to take a picture?<br /><br />Selection process, „previsualization“ process, choosing a point of view, composing the picture, changing perspective, or any other creative (and time consuming) approach to photography became obsolete, as the milions of photographers around the globe prove it every day. Just press the shutter several times. The more times you press it, the better, (its free) and somewhere, at the end of the day, you will surely end up with a good photo!<br /><br />However, for some of us, high resolving powers of such cameras like digital Leicas, offer new opportunity. If you can enlarge a picture to a 1m in size without loosing definition, you will discover that it is a mosaic composed of many, smaller images, full of details, some worth of separating into individulal photos. A wide angle lens will eliminate the need for a telephoto. (The limitation of a tele is the shallow depth of focus, here, with a wide, or normal f lens, everything will be in focus.)<br /><br />In other words let us experience the reversal of Henri Cartier Bresson approach to framing and composing.<br /><br />For the time being, the digital photography for me remains limited to distributing pictures to magazines and friends via internet or CD.<br>

WAZ<br>

PS By the way, I just got Leica M6 so I stick to the old canons.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>When I want to make prints from my digital files, I send the files to MPix. They use a lightjet printer and I get back wonderful, high-quality chromogenic prints in any size I want. I don't have the expense running a premium inkjet printer, either.</p>