# *Analog* printing



## selmerdave (Jun 21, 2006)

Just got an 8 x 10 back from a local (NYC) pro lab, and while it looks okay it's clear that it is a digital reproduction, which is a PIA because it is a nice photo with nice 25asa B&W film and I'm sure it would be nicer without the digital blotches.

So is Duggal the only place in NYC that would still do an analog enlargement (or would they)?  Or is it offered by most pro places but only on request?  I don't get it though, if I can tell the difference with a relatively quick glance, *why* is this becoming the industry standard?

Dave


----------



## JamesD (Jun 22, 2006)

Because it's cheap, and the mass market just doesn't care.  And even if they do, then they can just say that the rest of the mass market doesn't care.  It's all about money.  And, if they've invested in that expensive digital printer, they need to get their money's worth out of it--that's just good business sense.

What kind of film was it?  Black and white, or Slide?  (I don't know of any color negative films at 25, so...)

Try calling around and finding out whether the various places will do an optical enlargement, rather than a digital one.  Be aware that it's going to cost you more.  You might also try taking the print back and telling them that it's not satisfactory.


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 22, 2006)

Well, I can buy the cheap argument for the 4x6's, but when you're getting an enlargement done at a pro lab you're generally not talking about what works for the masses.

What would you say I should expect to pay for optical enlargement?  This one was around $10 for the 8x10.

I'm probably not going to take it back to complain, it looks basically fine and I did not clarify the digital/optical thing when I brought it to them.  Mostly I'm just surprised that it's acceptable for pro's.

The film was ADOX 25 B&W.

Dave


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 23, 2006)

What looks wrong with it? I shoot Adox/Efke a lot, person like it&#8217;s look. Who develop and scanned it you or lab? Have you been shooting with it very long? Myself I&#8217;ve been using it for maybe 2-1/2 years. IMO, it&#8217;s not an easy film to work with because of it's soft or thin emulsion it scratches easy. Does the print look extremely grainy? But with very fine grain? That been one of my experience with Adox/Efke. 

Also, Did you get the film from J and C Photo?


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 23, 2006)

Yes I got it from J&C.  I don't think there is anything wrong with it, the same pro lab that did the print did the processing.  The print basically looks fine, it's not grainy or anything, but upon close inspection there are tell-tale signs of digital.  For example transitions from one shade of gray to a slightly darker shade are not smooth in places, leaving a blotch of one shade.  It looks exactly how it looks if I were to make a print with my computer printer, but to a much smaller extent of course.  I don't have a lot of doubt that the one and only issue here is that, the film, camera, (dare I say) photo and processing are fine.  I just would like to know if anyone knows of somewhere in NYC that specializes in or exclusively does optical printing, as apparently the run-of-the-mill pro places do not.  Thanks for the help.

Dave


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 24, 2006)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> ---For example transitions from one shade of gray to a slightly darker shade are not smooth in places, ---


 
Not sure what to say, the only lab that I use in NY is Adorama online, I don&#8217;t see this issue with the B&W they have done for me, but I developed and scanned the film myself and then upload it Adorama. How do images look on your monitor, one thing that seems possible is poor scans, those CD that you get when the film is initially developed are not the best.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Jun 24, 2006)

I gave up trying to find a lab like that in toronto. I just print optically myself if I have the time and care enough about it.


----------



## Paul Ron (Jun 24, 2006)

That truely ****es me off, I'd take it back! This deceptive practice should be made public. The salesperson where I had enlargements made told me I should convert to digital, it's better, that's why my print looks so bad. BULL! My prints would look better than ddigital crap if they'd print it analog instead of scanning and doing it via computer.

This is why i do strictly B&W and do all my own work. If I need to do color, it's for birthdays and snapshots i don't care about, I'll use my point n shoot idiot camera, the D70.


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 24, 2006)

Jeff Canes said:
			
		

> Not sure what to say, the only lab that I use in NY is Adorama online, I dont see this issue with the B&W they have done for me, but I developed and scanned the film myself and then upload it Adorama. How do images look on your monitor, one thing that seems possible is poor scans, those CD that you get when the film is initially developed are not the best.



Jeff the issue is that seems to be what they have done.  They scanned that roll for me as well, I needed some that way, and the 18MB scans looked okay.  Not nearly the subtlety of gradation as the prints but the resolution was acceptable.  But for the enlargement they had the negative and made the print digitally, and again I didn't clarify whether it would be digital or optical when I took it in, but then I didn't really expect to be able to see the difference in a digital print from a pro lab.  I thought digital was further along than that.

Dave


----------



## markc (Jun 24, 2006)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> I thought digital was further along than that.


It is. But a lot of places either don't have the equipment or don't use what they have to the fullest extent.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 24, 2006)

If you have 18MPs scans my subject would be to upload them to a few online prints and order a 8x10 test print, should cost less that $10 with 5 day shipping each. Mpix.com is very good. But I a little surprised you cannot find a traditional lab in NY/NJ area. 


?? Also did they use a laser jet or ink jet printer, a thought came to me, that an ink jet printer would allow the inks to blend naturally?


----------



## markc (Jun 24, 2006)

This page also talks a little about the issue of trying to print b&w with color ink sets: http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Why_Not_Color.htm


----------



## selmerdave (Jul 21, 2006)

Just an update, I inquired at the lab and the print I got was in fact digital.  They do optical enlargement by hand, but only by request and at a higher cost.  When people don't request it they assume the cheapest and do it digitally.  I got some optical 8" x 12" enlargements back yesterday and they look excellent.  

Dave


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 21, 2006)

selmerdave 
Set up a darkroom in your bathtub, kitchen, basement, attic or anywhere in your house, even a closet. It's so much fun to print your own B&W as well as getting a much nicer picture worthy of a nice frame in your living room. 

Darkroom equipment is so cheap these days since everyone is dumping their stuff for better printers and that chceap digital look they think is really cool... that is untill you put it next to a real print.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 21, 2006)

Try a different lab.  I don't have any problem getting good BW and color prints from 35mm or medium format film with the newer digital printing systems.  They don't look as nice as real gelatin silver prints, but they look as good as machine printed lab prints ever did.

It's usually not the medium itself, but the skill of the people involved.  A guy who knows how to print great from negs may not know anything about printing from files.  A friend of mine who spent the last 15 years printing his own cibachromes from large format transparencies has now switched over to digital printing processes with great success.  I see lots of crappy digital prints out there, but when I look at my friend's prints they are stunning.  He has invested the time and energy to figure how to do it right.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 21, 2006)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> Just an update, I inquired at the lab and the print I got was in fact digital.  They do optical enlargement by hand, but only by request and at a higher cost.  When people don't request it they assume the cheapest and do it digitally.  I got some optical 8" x 12" enlargements back yesterday and they look excellent.
> 
> Dave



A sure sign they don't know what they are doing with digital, or they have cheap/old digital printing equipment.  You can find a lab that will do a decent job with machine prints.

You can walk into many art galleries these days and see excellent examples of large photographs printed with a digital process, so some folks know how to do it right.


----------



## selmerdave (Jul 22, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> A sure sign they don't know what they are doing with digital, or they have cheap/old digital printing equipment.  You can find a lab that will do a decent job with machine prints.
> 
> You can walk into many art galleries these days and see excellent examples of large photographs printed with a digital process, so some folks know how to do it right.



Well, a drum scan is going to cost more than an optical enlargement, so while I'm sure it's possible to get very good digital printing I'm not sure it's worth paying extra for it.  

I don't think the lab is incompetent, my results with them have been better than with Duggal, for example.  What I got originally is consistent with a print from a ~20MB scan, which is consistent with a $10 8" x 10".  From any reasonable distance it looks pretty good, but lacks a depth I thought it should have.  Upon closer inspection I could see the hallmarks of digital.  Probably for 99+ people out of 100 it would be fine and qualify as a "decent job", but for my photo that is for me it wasn't good enough and initially I was frustrated because the point of using film in the first place was to stay away from digital.  Now I know how to do that.  Thanks for the comments though.

Dave


----------



## selmerdave (Jul 22, 2006)

Paul Ron said:
			
		

> selmerdave
> Set up a darkroom in your bathtub, kitchen, basement, attic or anywhere in your house, even a closet. It's so much fun to print your own B&W as well as getting a much nicer picture worthy of a nice frame in your living room.
> 
> Darkroom equipment is so cheap these days since everyone is dumping their stuff for better printers and that chceap digital look they think is really cool... that is untill you put it next to a real print.



Paul/Ron,

I wish I could do it.  I have passed up so many opportunities for cheap enlargers and complete setups, but I just don't have the space or a wife that is comfortable enough with the chemicals to use a shared space.  I'm sure I would love doing it and enjoy the results, so sometime down the road hopefully I'll be able to do it.  Hopefully before the "rediscovery" of optical printing and subsequent skyrocketing of prices.

Dave


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 22, 2006)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> Well, a drum scan is going to cost more than an optical enlargement, so while I'm sure it's possible to get very good digital printing I'm not sure it's worth paying extra for it.



Nope.  I'm not talking about drum scans.  I'm talking about the standard, contemporary printing equipment that most labs, pro and el-cheapo, have gone to these days:  Fuji, Noritsu, whatever....  I'm paying $2.50 for an 8"x10" on BW paper.  If you are getting prints from negs where you can see digital artifacts their equipment is out dated, or whoever made the prints is doing something wrong, or there is something up with your negs that makes them hard to print.  Particularly with small prints like 8"x10"s.    

I'm sure there are plenty of labs in the NY area that can do a good job cheap, but if you really can't find one, try www.mpix.com.  That's the consumer side of Miller's Professional Imaging (serving professional photographers in all 50 states since 1939).  The consumer side only offers prints from files or 35mm, but they do a great job.

You may like the hand printed, BW prints on real gelatin silver paper better than machine prints, I know I do, but that's a different kind of paper/print than machine made lab prints whether from an optical or digital system.  The process forms the image using minimal amounts of silver coupled with dyes rather than all silver.  Even when they say it's "true BW", it's still the color print process, just with monochrome dyes instead of colored dyes.

By the way, I'm very picky when it comes to going over prints.  That's why I still keep my BW darkroom running, and regularly use it to print my 35mm, medium format, and 4x5 negs.  But I'm still getting wonderful prints from negs from pro labs that use digital printing systems for their machine prints.


----------



## selmerdave (Jul 23, 2006)

Matt,

I don't see how you can get an 8x10 for $2.50.  It costs around $8 to get a basic 15 or 20 MB scan, before you've done any of the printing, and for me that kind of resolution is not really enough.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding and the digital process you are describing doesn't use a scan, and perhaps you could elaborate. 

Dave


----------



## markc (Jul 23, 2006)

Digital capture from a digital camera.

I shoot using a 10D and print using Piezography quadtone monochromatic pigment inks on Hahnemühle archival fine-art papers. On my Epson 1280 I can print most image at 12x18 on 13x19 paper with no major issues to my eye.

If you want to see what quality digital printing looks like, you might want to order some samples:
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw/piezographyBW-sample.html
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/samples.html
http://www.colorfolio.com/sample_request.htm

I've only gotten samples from the first link, so I can't vouch for the others. The samples are small, but they do show you what the ink system is capable of.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 24, 2006)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> Matt,
> 
> I don't see how you can get an 8x10 for $2.50.  It costs around $8 to get a basic 15 or 20 MB scan, before you've done any of the printing, and for me that kind of resolution is not really enough.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding and the digital process you are describing doesn't use a scan, and perhaps you could elaborate.



I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.  I'm just talking about standard lab prints.  All the labs I use got rid of their big, automatic, optical printers 4 or 5 years ago (and I was sad at the time).  I'm not talking about ink jet printers.  I'm talking about the big, beige or off white Fuji or Noritsu printing machine sitting in the middle of the lab.  It used to be optical.  Now it's digital.  If you put in a file, it prints from file on standard process color photographic paper.  If you put in a neg, it scans it, then prints from file on standard process color photographic paper.  Even the labs I use that still offer hand printed BW and color prints ( for a price! ) use digital printing systems for their standard machine made lab prints.    

My local full service lab actually charges $6 for an 8"x10" from file, 35mm, or medium format, but mpix.com will do 8"x10" prints from 35mm negs or digital files on monochrome color process paper for $2.50.

IMHO getting back prints of any kind with digital artifacts from a pro/full service lab these days is just unacceptable, unless there is a problem with what the lab is being provided to print from.  Personally, I'd be shocked to see it.  Just walk into a different full service lab, hand them the negs, ask for an 8"x10", and the odds are it will be a decent print.


----------

