Re: digital darkroom

[David Seifert <dseifert@earthlink.net>]

At 10:01 AM 9/5/97 -0500, Bill Grimwood wrote:
>I am going to put in a digital darkroom.  I have a HP colorsmart 35mm
>scanner and need some advice on a printer.  Can I use a good ink jet such
>as the new Epson printers or will I have to have die sub to get excellent
>results?
>
>Also I have an old version of Aldus Photo Styler but should I up date to
>new software?  If so what do you recommend?  Adobe Photoshop?  Is anyone
>using PhotoImpact 3.0
>
>I am not doing professional work but I am very serious about my work.  I
>want to be able to print 11X14 prints.
>
>Any help will be appreciated.
>
>Bill 
>
>

Earlier this year I did an analysis of this stuff when I was considering
either going entirely digital or upgrading my darkroom to do color more
easily.  Here is a summary of what I discovered.

The first thing you must do is determine how large your prints are going to
be.  This, coupled with the resolution of the printer will determine what
kind of scanner will be needed.  

For me the largest reasonable print size was B size (nominally 11x17).
Using normal photographic paper sizes lets use 11 x 14 for our example.  In
order to prevent pixel duplication with a 300 dpi printer you will need a
digital image size of 3300x4200.  Assuming your source is a 35mm slide
(highest quality input) your source image size is about 1x1.5 inches.  The
highest resolution slide scanners (Nikon, Polaroid and Microtek) are 2700
dpi.  This will produce a digital image of 2700x4050.  Thats pretty close to
the desired target. These scanners are all priced around the same level but
figure on at least $2000.

Printer technology and demonstrations are pretty dicey.  I have an HP 693C
with the Photo color kit.  It produces nice demonstration results in small
sizes.  But my own images have never looked as good as the demo prints in
the store. One fundamental, inescapable limitation of ink-jet technology is
that banding is nearly impossible.  It becomes obvious when reproducing
large patches of vibrant, highly saturated colors.  Another is that the ink
dots don't really ever mix in a predictable way.  Color lasers mix colors
better but produce very washed out results. Thermal wax transfer is better
yet but the results are not really correct colorwise and look cheesy. Dye
sublimation, of course, works by using layered translucent color masks.  Dye
sub is the only way to go if you want quality similar to that from current
commercial color processes (RA or R3000). The Fargo Pictura 310e is a very
nice B size printer.  I forget now what the price is but I seem to remember
the number $7000 with all the desireable bells and whistles.  Not a bad
value for a printer with these capabilities.  The real problem is
consumables.  It came out to several dollars per sheet.  Remember with dye
sub, you use dye film in amounts equal to the paper you print, not the
amount of color on a page.  Thats the reason most people use the thermal wax
option for proofs.  Another nice feature of the Fargo printers is that they
readily switch back and forth between the two technologies.

Next comes the software.  By most professional accounts PhotoShop is the
benchmark.  For me all this meant a new computer as well.  

My bottom line was that I really enjoy messing around in the dark and using
the processes I knew well.  The cost of consumables also looked really
daunting.   The other problem was that a digital camera which could fit into
this scheme (similar resolution etc.) costs at least $9000 and preferably
$20000+.  Without a digital camera of that class, I would still be using
traditional processes for image capture.  Since I would want to process
those films myself that meant I would need to upgrade the darkroom anyway.
The decision was easy, stick to traditional processes for now!

One major caveat, your notions of what level of quality they want from the
system would alter the analysis substantially.  Hope this is somewhat useful.

Best Regards,

David Seifert
dseifert@earthlink.net