Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks for the careful analysis. I should have mentioned that I'm using "consumer" digital equipment - Nikon Coolscan V, Vuescan, PictureWindow Pro, Epson 2200 + Quadtone RIP and so on. Getting good B&W 11x14's and 11x17's as good as my buddy's wet prints from the lab has proven quite "elusive." I have yet to profile my own papers with QTR on the 2200, so there is definitely still some room for improvement. I'm working on it :-) I will say I'm reasonably happy up to 8x10 with B&W and up to 11x17 or 11x14 printing color on the more common papers (EEM, Premier Semigloss, etc.) for which there are already reasonably good (IMHO) profiles. Scott Chris Saganich wrote: > Yes this has been my experience size matters. > > I want to print as big as possible. A digital work flow which will > match my expectations includes drum scanning ($200/day rental) and > printing 16x20, $80 first print then $70 there after, discount for > bulk runs. Under the best circumstances I would pay $200 for a day of > scanning, say in 8 hours I can scan 40 negs at 12 minutes per scan (I > have no idea how long a 40 meg drum scan takes). I then go home do > post production and return to print my 40 negs 16x20 without > mistakes. Total cost $3,400 or $85 per print. Not bad really. > > What if I bought the equipment myself? > > $4,000 cheapest simulated drum scanner > $2,000 large printer and ink set > $500 for software > Good paper? $70 for box of 50 16x20 and I make no mistakes when > printing. $1.40 per print. > Assuming I have the computer equipment. > Total $6,600 > > > In the darkroom the cost is lower. 50 sheets 16x 20 runs about $90. > I waste about 20 8x10 figuring out a print ($12.00) and a couple > 16x20's getting the new base exposure, so I can get say 40 prints from > a box on a good day. $90 +$12 = $102 or $2.55 per print. And it > probably has better blacks. > > Cost for my equipment: > Beseler enlarger - Free > Cold light head - $400 new > Multi-functional proportional timer with light senser- $250 > Filter $15 > Large trays - I got 6 for $40 > process timer - wall clock I found > Amber light - $5 bulbs in a regular socket > Large Easel - $200 > Chemistry - $100 > Large Washer - $300 > Total $1310 > > Wet printing is about 30% cheaper due to the equipment costs. Not too > bad all in all. > > > > > > > Chris > > At 04:18 PM 8/11/2005, you wrote: > >> I've been printing B&W digitally for about a year, while a buddy of >> mine has been running back and forth to a pro lab looking at contact >> sheets and getting wet prints. I have to admit that most of his prints >> are nicer. Not so much at 5x7, but beyond 8x10, my subjective >> experience is that the wet printing process is better at pushing that >> little 135 negative to larger prints. Same goes for the really grainy >> films like P3200. >> >> OTOH, he can't or isn't willing to pay for custom dodge/burn work, >> while I can mask the shadows of a scanned image and bring them up >> 15% in PictureWindow Pro in about 2 minutes. So, I'm a pretty happy >> camper (usually) with the tools currently at my disposal. >> >> Scott >> >> B. D. Colen wrote: >> >>> God I never thought I'd end up defending wet prints...but Walt, the >>> suggestion that " Adobe Photoshop, Nikon Coolscan and a good Epson >>> printer( >>> in the right hands) can blow away most wet prints" is complete and >>> utter >>> nonsense, assuming you're referring to wet printing "in the right >>> hands." >>> >>> Digital printing is digital printing, whether using the OEM inks, or >>> systems >>> such as the Cone quadtones, or MIS inks. And silver printing is silver >>> printing. Both will, in the hands of a competent printer, produce >>> gorgeous >>> results. But neither will be 'better' than the other. >>> >>> Now, if you want to say that a competent digital printer can more >>> quickly >>> produce, and infinitely more quickly reproduce a print than even the >>> best >>> wet printer, you're absolutely correct. :-) >>> B. D. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/11/05 1:58 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Bill: >>>> >>>> You can certainly scan you b&w negative and print on an inkjet with >>>> good >>>> results. As a matter of fact, a few simple tools can insure better >>>> results >>>> than a Focomat V35. >>>> >>>> Adobe Photoshop, Nikon Coolscan and a good Epson printer( in the >>>> right hands) >>>> can blow away most wet prints. Most importantly, the results are >>>> repeatable. >>>> >>>> There are some very good links on the subject and one of the best >>>> is Clayton >>>> Jones. http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn1.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> Walt J. >>>> walt@waltjohnson.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > Chris Saganich, Sr. Physicist > Weill Medical College of Cornell University > New York Presbyterian Hospital > > Ph. 212.746.6964 > Fax. 212.746.4800 > A0049 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information