Printing Photos?

[Ricochetrider]

Howdy everyone.

Looking to get some photos printed this year in hopes of having a show locally. Ovwer the years, I've looked & looked at printing options, and did have one B&W film photo printed in the traditional way by Hidden Light LLC out in Arizona a few years back. They did a lovely job of it but the cost wasn't inexpensive.

 

I've gone back n forth in my head overt & over again, between traditional lab prints and modern "digital" prints- such as Cone Editions' Pieziography (for B&W), but honestly don't know which way to turn for having maybe 8-10 prints made.

 

Do I print "editions" with myabe 2 prints of each shot?

Can I print on any paper were I to choose digital or pieziography?

Does anyone still do traditional wet lab printing for color photos?

What about "alternative" processes like carbon or platinum?

 

Ideally, I'd like to print on heavy paper. I've looked at tradtional Japanese papers and other, old process cotton or natural fiber papers. Seems like most of these types of paper would be suited far better for a didgtal print- I have no idea what papers are available for tradtional or wet prints?

 

Also ideally, I'd love for any prints to be distintive and something beyond "run of the mill"... add $$$ for sure, I get it.

 

Any ideas, sources, suggestions, etc are welcome.

 

Thanks in advance!

Tom

[JDMvW]

Some printers are much better than others at printing monochrome. I seldom print anymore, but I was very happy with my old Epson Stylus Photo R1600 when I did. When you use the papers made by the manufacturer for their machines, results can be excellent. The R1600 was also good with color.

 

I suppose, but do not know, that the Epson Expression Photo HD XP-15000 is something similar.

 

Cheap paper is rarely a bargain except for proofs and adjustments. The big printer makers have full lines of different papers for different jobs. Not unlike Zig Zag, when you think about it:rolleyes:

 

Check the current reviews and see what is recommended for printers and papers these days.

[AlanKlein]

Some printers are much better than others at printing monochrome. I seldom print anymore, but I was very happy with my old Epson Stylus Photo R1600 when I did. When you use the papers made by the manufacturer for their machines, results can be excellent. The R1600 was also good with color.

 

Cheap paper is rarely a bargain except for proofs and adjustments. The big printer makers have full lines of different papers for different jobs. Not unlike Zig Zag, when you think about it:rolleyes:

 

Check the current reviews and see what is recommended for printers and papers these days.

What reviews? Where?

[JDMvW]

What reviews? Where?

Although the magazines are mostly gone, there are lots of on-line sources where people are still doing comparisons. Like anything, you have to use your savvy and analytical senses to sort out the flacks from the sincere efforts; but that was true in print days too.

 

Remember Google™?

[glen_h]

(snip)

 

Do I print "editions" with myabe 2 prints of each shot?

Can I print on any paper were I to choose digital or pieziography?

Does anyone still do traditional wet lab printing for color photos?

What about "alternative" processes like carbon or platinum?

 

Ideally, I'd like to print on heavy paper. I've looked at tradtional Japanese papers and other, old process cotton or natural fiber papers. Seems like most of these types of paper would be suited far better for a didgtal print- I have no idea what papers are available for tradtional or wet prints?

 

(snip)

 

It is not unusual to do traditional wet printing from digital images.

If you send a negative, they scan it and print the scan.

 

"Fuji Crystal Archive" seems to be the usual one. I get that from Shutterfly, for example.

 

You have to decide if that is traditional enough. It is exposed by a high-speed scanning laser

(well, three of them) instead of lenses and a negative. But the paper then goes through

the usual chemical steps inside a machine. (Not in side by side trays.)

 

The data sheet for Crystal Archive says that it can be used from microsecond to minutes exposure time.

 

I am not sure if you can tell the difference, looking at the image under magnification.

 

I believe that can be done with black and white paper, but I don't know anyone doing that.

You can print black and white images on color paper just fine.

 

For inkjet, it is easy to select black ink only for black and white prints.

[Wayne Melia]

I have printed several black and whites on my canon pro 1000. Very pleased!

Used red river palo duro softgloss rag mostly. (be careful with red river names -- be exact!). This paper is noted for rich blacks which is important to me, and is heavy -310(?) grams per something or other. The result is an item that "feels" substantial, especialy a 17" x 25" specimen. Part of the tactile feel is a result of it being made from cotton - no lignins or optical brightners which can both be detrimental to print stability.

I print out of the lightroom print module using profile supplied by Red River (I believe created by chromix). I use the same paper for color and am equally pleased.

[Jochen_S]

@glen_h I'd stick away from color paper for BW since it is quite a nightmare to get neutral looking results out.

When Leica introduced their first Monochroms, they named some file to FB paper printing firms.

[Niels - NHSN]

Do I print "editions" with myabe 2 prints of each shot?

If you don't have gallery representation that requires you to do so, I'd say don't make editions. You'd just put restrictions on yourself and open a big can of worms.

I personally find it to be a little bit pseudo artsy - but if that stands between a sale or not, it may be worth reconsidering of course.

Ansel Adams and many others got by without the limits of editioning.

[glen_h]

@glen_h I'd stick away from color paper for BW since it is quite a nightmare to get neutral looking results out.

When Leica introduced their first Monochroms, they named some file to FB paper printing firms.

 

I do agree, but manufacturers don't. Kodak stopped making black and white paper many years ago.

Ilford still makes it. I don't know that Fuji ever did.

 

Some years ago, I found someone selling Panalure, and bought some of it.

 

And yes, if you can afford a Monochrom, you can probably afford some rare place that prints it.

 

Some time ago, there was a PN thread asking, as close as I remember,

if you could have any (one) camera free, which one would it be?

 

I chose Monochrom, as it is the one camera that I couldn't argue for buying myself.

 

But yes, getting neutral is hard. Then again, tone was always part of black and white.

I remember papers marked "cold tone" and "warm tone".

[glen_h]

@glen_h I'd stick away from color paper for BW since it is quite a nightmare to get neutral looking results out.

When Leica introduced their first Monochroms, they named some file to FB paper printing firms.

 

OK, the first one I found with a quick web search, and maybe not the only one:

 

DSI Digital Silver Prints® Silver Gelatin Prints Directly from your Digital File

 

When something is so rare and special that you name the company after it ...

 

They charge $47 for a 5x7 with the regular one, or $32 for the value version.

 

Shutterfly charges $0.99 for theirs, on color paper. And they have sales pretty often.

 

And both make larger prints for higher prices.

[Wayne Melia]

@glen_h I'd stick away from color paper for BW since it is quite a nightmare to get neutral looking results out. <snip>

not in my experience

[conrad_hoffman]

What are you starting with, film negatives or digital files? For film negs I'd find somebody to do traditional wet process. Look at the papers Freestyle has available. IMO, it's hard to get the traditional look without the curves of real photo paper. For digital files I'd go with a Canon PRO-100 or 200. Lots of paper choices from Red River, Freestyle and others. One thing I've never quite understood is the fascination with "art" papers. You get the least dynamic range from matte and rough papers- the worst blacks. I tend to like, if not a glossy surface, a very fine surface that doesn't completely destroy the dynamic range. Only some images work well with the rougher "art" papers.

[glen_h]

(snip)

One thing I've never quite understood is the fascination with "art" papers. You get the least dynamic range from matte and rough papers- the worst blacks. I tend to like, if not a glossy surface, a very fine surface that doesn't completely destroy the dynamic range. Only some images work well with the rougher "art" papers.

 

I think I am remembering Kodak N surface.

 

Well, when I was young, about 50 years ago, I needed to make passport pictures for me and my brother.

They had to be single weight, and got N for it.

 

That is the last I remember of N, (if I remember it right), but I think I liked it. It is very smooth, but not glossy.

Maybe about like flat black paint is different from glossy paint.

 

Well, before RC, glossy paper never came out glossy without ferrotyping, which I mostly didn't do.

[AJG]

I think I am remembering Kodak N surface.

 

Well, when I was young, about 50 years ago, I needed to make passport pictures for me and my brother.

They had to be single weight, and got N for it.

 

That is the last I remember of N, (if I remember it right), but I think I liked it. It is very smooth, but not glossy.

Maybe about like flat black paint is different from glossy paint.

 

Well, before RC, glossy paper never came out glossy without ferrotyping, which I mostly didn't do.

I remember N surface Kodak RC paper--it didn't have much of a deep black, like a lot of matte surface papers. I agree with Conrad--my gallery prints have almost always been on non ferrotyped glossy paper in order to have the widest possible tonal range without the plasticky look of glossy RC or ferrotyped FB papers. Maybe the fascination with "art papers" is a throwback to the Pictorialist era at the turn of 20th century when lots of photographers were using printing methods that emulated other processes, like gravure or gum printing in order to get some respect for photography as a legitimate art medium. While some of those images still hold up, many of them don't, and the alternative printing processes aren't always helpful, at least to my eye. If contemporary photographers think they will get more respect for their work by making it look like something it isn't I suspect they will be disappointed.

 

Back to the OP: If you shot these images on film and there aren't a lot of them, then consider having them wet printed at a good lab. Good FB prints from a good lab will look different from a print made from a scan. You may prefer one or the other, but at least you'll know what good wet prints can look like. I still remember a show I saw at Eastman House 12 years ago of 1960's rock n' roll concert photographs. Most of them were scanned and printed digitally, but a few were wet printed from the negatives. I didn't realize this at first, but when I did it made sense to me. The wet prints had more depth and presence than the inkjet prints did, even though the inkjet prints were excellent. I realize this is subjective, but I encourage you to find out for yourself. In any case, don't be surprised if the framing costs more than the prints!

[conrad_hoffman]

OK, now you made me pull out my old black 1969 Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide! I remember N surface (not in the guide) which was designed for pencil retouching, but what I really remember is the V surface; that was like fine sandpaper! Claimed to be reflection-free. I also used some Y surface that was embossed with a fine silk or lenticular pattern I found pleasing for some things. Still, the bulk of everything I ever did was F, air dried.

[Ricochetrider]

Thanks to everyone for your comments. Pretty much all the prints I’d want to make are shot on film, so the negatives are available… that said I’m kinda leaning towards pieziography but will check alll options.

[glen_h]

(snip)

Still, the bulk of everything I ever did was F, air dried.

 

I used to have a Kodak "Photo Blotter Roll" like this one:

 

VINTAGE UNOPENED KODAK BLOTTER ROLL 11.5 X 6 FT FOR DRYING PAPER PRINTS #11603C | eBay

 

It has one sheet of blotter paper, one that is cloth coated, and corrugated cardboard in between.

 

You roll the prints up facing the cloth, which also gives them a slight curve the opposite way.

 

If you just air dry single weight, it curls up too much.

 

I mostly remember that for 7th and 8th grade yearbook photography, where I made

a lot of prints. Dry them in the roll overnight, and to school the next day.

[pavel_l.]

I use National Photo Lab, usually waiting for end of the year sale or their coupons (at least 30% off)

[glen_h]

There seems to be Nations Photo Lab, which looks like what you mean.

 

I have bought from Shutterfly, Printerpix, and Snapfish.

 

All often have sales, if you wait until the right time.

[pavel_l.]

There seems to be Nations Photo Lab, which looks like what you mean.

 

I have bought from Shutterfly, Printerpix, and Snapfish.

 

All often have sales, if you wait until the right time.

 

You are correct, thank you.

[john_shriver]

mpix.com will digitally print on Ilford B&W RC paper. Send them your JPEG, and get back a nice print.

[glen_h]

mpix.com will digitally print on Ilford B&W RC paper. Send them your JPEG, and get back a nice print.

 

Only slightly more expensive than color paper.

 

Neither color or black and white say what company or type of paper they use.

 

Strangely, they say panchromatic for the black and white paper, but I presume it converts

all colors into the blue laser before exposing.

 

(It would be nice to have Panalure back again.)

[Robin Smith]

I suggest you just try MPix, and see if you like it. I find that my black and white prints from my Canon Pro100 are neutral, so I don't think it will be a real problem to get the same from a commercial printer. Of course, there may be better options, some people want rag or matte for black and white as it looks more special (just don't put them behind glass). I can't remember whether MPix offer this.

[Jennifer Johnson]

On 8/28/2022 at 2:27 PM, Ricochetrider said:

Howdy everyone.

Looking to get some photos printed this year in hopes of having a show locally. Ovwer the years, I've looked & looked at printing options, and did have one B&W film photo printed in the traditional way by Hidden Light LLC out in Arizona a few years back. They did a lovely job of it but the cost wasn't inexpensive.

 

I've gone back n forth in my head overt & over again, between traditional lab prints and modern "digital" prints- such as Cone Editions' Pieziography (for B&W), but honestly don't know which way to turn for having maybe 8-10 prints made.

 

Do I print "editions" with myabe 2 prints of each shot?

Can I print on any paper were I to choose digital or pieziography?

Does anyone still do traditional wet lab printing for color photos?

What about "alternative" processes like carbon or platinum?

 

Ideally, I'd like to print on heavy paper. I've looked at tradtional Japanese papers and other, old process cotton or natural fiber papers. Seems like most of these types of paper would be suited far better for a didgtal print- I have no idea what papers are available for tradtional or wet prints?

 

Also ideally, I'd love for any prints to be distintive and something beyond "run of the mill"... add $$$ for sure, I get it.

 

Any ideas, sources, suggestions, etc are welcome.

 

Thanks in advance!

Tom

Hello there,

I am new to this forum but I found this site because of my professor and class assignments. There are talented students at colleges that would print these for you, possibly as an assignment by a teacher for extra credit or side cash? We have access to the machines to process prints.