mark_davidson

Both printers use lasers to expose the paper. However, they differ in their

architecture.

The Lambda runs paper from roll to roll with the lasers exposing the image as

the paper passes by.

The Lightjet resembles an imagesetter (from which it was derived) whereby

the paper is advanced inside a drum and kept in position by a vacuum. The

image is then written with the lasers. This method limited print size to 50x50

inches in early models as the paper was held in a fixed position. Because of

Lambda competition, Lightjet engineers developed a method of making the

initial exposure, advancing the paper, and making a second exposure. This

allowed a total length of 90 inches.

Both machines are capable of producing stunning results. If you need prints

longer than 90 inches the Lambda is your only choice.

The results you get will depend on two main factors.

1. Your scan quality. (who did it and does he/she know what they are doing?)

2. Your lab. Just because they can afford 400-500K for a machine doesn't

mean they are doing a job that will make you happy.

As to price, what is happening in the custom and commercial lab market is

that competition is getting brutal. Many labs went whole hog investing in

digital equipment just as their prime targets ( Pros who shoot lots of film) were

going digital. These pros cut their lab usage tremendously. This placed and

continues to place these labs in a severe cash flow crunch. Several labs in

the L.A. area have gone broke and I have seen near hysteria in bidding for

jobs to get a deal in the door.

What this means is that you can find agressive pricing if you look around.

What it means for the future is that the large labs will be fewer and further

between. And their prices will be higher as the pool of available competitors

continues to shrink.

Although I seem to be drifting off topic here, I would also point out that zillions

of smaller labs are cutting into this business by offering large format inkjet

prints.

You are correct in your observations on the suitability and advantages of

transparencies in many applications.

You are also correct that Kodak has had a habit of keeping many small

volume products in production for many years.

However Kodak is a very different company these days. Their recent

agreement to continue Kodachrome 200 production going with the

understanding that prices would rise to 25 dollars a roll is an example of

where they will be going. E-6 may continue but the price per roll and the cost

of processing will dissuade most amateurs and hasten the transition to digital

by pros.

I would not discount the rate of digital evolution either. Take a look at the new

Kodak DCS 14n and the Canon 1-Ds. I love film as much as the next guy but

I'm seeing the change every day.

I would add an amen to Roger's post.

As a lab owner, I have to answer this question all the time.

Good labs these days will most likely be printing your image digitally with or

without your knowledge. They are good labs because they are making the

jump to the higher quality that digital delivers. This is not to say that all digital

labs are by definition good or that optical labs are bad. What I am saying is

that good optical labs, are trying to become digital labs because the quality is

so much better whether printing negs or trans.

If your lab is going to print optically, you should use a neg. The results will flat

out be better.

Roger is also corect about type R disappearing. I would add, that as odd as it

may seem to the readers of this forum, the next product to disappear will be K-

14 followed by E-6. This is a simple result of pros moving to digital image

capture.

Neither color neg film nor slide film were ever designed to be scanned.

Rather, film scanners were developed to scan transparency film in the early

days of digital.

This was because that was what professional photographers used.

Both the dynamic range of the early scanners, and the software to drive them

were optimized to get the best results from transparency film.

When Kodak introduced the Photo CD, they developed a scanner that was

optimized for color negative film. It was only fair at transparency film because

of its limited dynamic range. Because of the intended market this was not

seen as a real brawback.

Today, we find film manufacturers tweaking film emulsions to improve their

scanning characteristics. Scanner manufacturers are also improving their

software for negative film scanning and the differences are now very small.

The fact that scans from transparencies are still preferred rests more on the

shortcomings of drum scanners and many other high end scanners to process

negative data very well. Thus, if the highest quality scanners only scan

transparencies well, people who want good scans shoot tranparencies.

In theory, a film without an orange mask and increased contrast could be

produced, but it would be completely incompatible with todays papers and

processors.

The reason photo labs print on color negative paper is that it is extremely

inexpensive, easy to process and yields exceptional image quality.

The reason for printing digitally in the first place is because of the significant

improvement in image quality over optical. A good scan from a neg or a trans

will outperform virtually any other method reproduction no matter how much

hype you hear.

Scott is correct in saying that with a good profile you can get good results with

any output device. That is because we are no longer speaking in the

language of film and paper emulsions, but rather in numerical color values

that will be translated appropriately( we hope ) to the output device of our

choice.

A significant issue here is the rapidly declining use of transparency film by

pros. This is because they are replacing their equipment with digital cameras.

The resulting decline in film processed is pushing a number of photo labs out

of that business. Though still readily available, E-6 is definitely on its way out

but will be preceded by K-14.

So sometime in the future, if you wish to scan film you may have no choice but

to use color neg.

The reason people will buy the H-1 is the same reason that others buy the

Contax. They will be convinced by a variety of reasons ranging from , but not

limited to, belief in the brand, desirability of features and their percieved

superiority over the competition, tight integration of digital features, etc.

Many pros use Hasselblad for their livelihood. Far more use Mamiya. Fewer

use Bronica and Pentax even fewer seem to use Contax as excellent as they

all are.

All of these are capable of producing technically stunning images. What sells

to the pro is reliability, suitability to the type of work, and affordability.

For the amateur, the issues revolve around technical arcana and the image

the amateur wishes to project when wearing his new photo jewelry.