Hybrid approach for digital printing?

[keithcf]

I've been reading a few of the posts on optical printing vs. scanning

and inkjet printing for color negatives. Although the opinions are

varied, seems a fair number of people are getting excellent results

from inkjet printing.

 

What are the pros and cons of scanning your own negatives at home,

manipulating the images in PhotoShop, then burning the results to a

CD and having a pro lab print on a high end inkjet?

 

With this approach you'd get all the advantages of digital editing at

home (image is cropped, etc. just the way you like), and also the

benefits of the higher end inkjet printers that a pro lab would own;

there would be no need to spend the money on buying an inkjet for

home, not to mention the costs saved on paper and ink.

 

Monitor calibration would be an issue -- but I assume you could

calibrate your home monitor to a test print from the lab.

 

Is this a sound approach? Or is it better to try and do everything

(scanning, editing, printing) yourself? Or is optical printing still

the way to go for color prints?

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Keith

[shawn_mertz]

You can also send the digital file and get an optical print. If you prefer inkjet it may

be better to do it yourself.

[john_hennessy1]

That is a common approach. The main problem is, despite calibrating everything you can control, and even if you use a shop known to control its end fastidiously, (i.e., a shop like Calypso), there will often be a difference between what you thought you saw on your monitor and the prints delivered by UPS. Depending on your skill and your tolerance for imperfection a certain percentage will need to be done again. Printing to a Lightjet, that is one's only option because the Lightjet and its processing line are too expensive to buy; with an inkjet at home one can make small test prints and get instant feedback like a darkroom.

[link]

Keith,

 

Since buying my 1st film scanner and photoshop about 6 years ago when the Epson

Stylus photo EX cameout ---well, I'll never go back to optical prints for color or for

B&W.

 

Computer controlled printing will be way more the way you want the image (if this

poorly written sentence make sense).

 

And the best news is that when you want prints you have a choice: You can print

them on your home inkjet or you can send them out to be printed on an inkjet or,

maybe better, a photographic printer that uses lasers to expose the paper with the

image on your CD. You can even get these photographic prints cheaply at places like

Walmart.

 

No matter how you will get your prints made, the best way to learn is to start with a

computer, inexpensive flatbed scanner (might only scan prints but cost less than $50)

Photoshop Elements software, and an inxepensive photo inkjet printer (I like the

epsons and there are models that you can get for well under $100).

 

By having the inkjet printer at home, you will be able to learn from your mistakes

much faster than sending off for prints.

 

And you have a very interesting and exciting learning curve ahead. You must learn

color theory and how it applies to your computer workflow, from calibrating your

monitor and your prints to "blue is the opposite of yellow".

 

The web is a good place to get started...but you may need to buy some books as well.

 

 

And for quality, I've never gotten any optical lab prints that look as good as most of

my inkjet prints I do at home.

 

-bruce

[amadou_diallo]

Keith,

As the owner of a digital print shop, I have clients who do just what you're

considering. Some even own desktop inkjets and outsource to us for larger print

sizes. Strictly from a cost perspective, a lot depends on your volume. If you're sending

out a number a prints every month, how long before you will have paid for a printer

and media? On the other hand, quality fine art printmaking involves more than just

turning on a machine. Printer maintenance, paper and ink consistency, calibration,

and climate stability are some of the factors that require constant attention for

consistent output. Some would rather spend this time and energy on shooting. Best of

luck.

 

amadou diallo

www.diallophotography.com

[gary_ferguson1]

"Epson Stylus photo EX"

 

Now there's a walk down memory lane! I remember getting one and thinking this is it, Photoshop 4 and an EX, we've reached the end of history for digital output, this is as good as it'll ever possibly be!

[jim mucklin]

Im a Hybrid, and proud of it, I got a used Coolscan IV and a refirded

Epson 980 and along with the help here I have been getting better results than wally world but not a good as the Kodak lab. But Im learning. The learning curve is easier for some than others. What I do is I have the Kodak lab dev&print all my stuff, I learned the hard way about the 1hour shops, I thought it was me or my camera turned out I can print a better 4x6 than *al-mart and I still haven't calibrated my monitor/printer, go figure.

It's nice to be able to do it all myself, but it is time consuming. Now all I have to do is learn photo editing.

[mark_herring]

I recommended doing at least SOME printing at home. This gives you an understanding of the whole process. For inkjet, the quality you can get at home is probably not hugely different than what you can buy.

[keithcf]

Thanks for all the responses -- it's awesome how many options are out there right now. For starters I'm going to compare prints from Lightjet/Chromira to ones done on inkjet (Epson 2200 or 9600) using a pro lab. I'm interested to see how the quality compares. And I'll be checking all the great info. in these forums of course ;)

 

Thanks,

 

Keith

[david_henderson]

Optical printing is not still the way to go for colour prints. Size,

detail, colour fidelity, repeatability, and contrast control are all

much better on digital prints.

 

Considering LightJet/chromira vs inkjet. It's not the quality that's

different, it's the look. And that will be influenced by the papers

you choose, especially for the inkjet.

 

The best labs will have established a set of instructions about

how your files should be prepared.

 

You can from some labs get a small proof quite cheaply to verify

the appearnce of the final print. WCI charge $15.

 

Long term, using a lab should be more expensive since

although their unit costs might be lower than yours, their labour

is not free and you have their margin to add in. I think it would

require a very large capital investment in combination with the

lower volume of a home printer to break even here. In essence

I think that if you prefer LightJet/Chromira prints or very large

inkjets then using a lab is the only way to go. If you want smaller

inkjets then it will nearly always be cheaper to produce them at

home so long as you're able to produce exactly what you want.

 

You're doing the right thing by looking at what a lab can do first,

not least because it'll provide a standard for you to meet/beat on

your own.

[keithcf]

"Long term, using a lab should be more expensive since although their unit costs might be lower than yours, their labour is not free and you have their margin to add in."

 

Plus there is the cost of calibration software to consider if I use an outside lab. I don't know exactly what my breakeven would be for home printer vs. a lab, although I could calculate it using some assumptions about the volume I'd print.

 

Two things are nagging me though about getting a home inkjet printer: 1) can I achieve the same quality at home vs. the higher end printers? An Epson 2200 at home vs. 9600 lab printer for example. 2) Obsolesence (sp?) I know how quickly technology changes. How long before the Epson 2200 is eclipsed by an even cooler must-have printer? (I know, I know -- it's part of the game :)

 

"You're doing the right thing by looking at what a lab can do first, not least because it'll provide a standard for you to meet/beat on your own."

 

Great point -- thanks again for the comments.

 

Keith