Aesthetic question about optical RA4

Photo Engineer said:

There is a big difference to the way a print appears depending on the spectral response of the paper and the dyes in the films. Yes, Portra > Endura will be a winner as they are designed to be! We did it for years that way and I was involved in the process.

PE

Click to expand...

I'd go in on this process big time if Kodak shows signs of stability in the future, I can absolutely see the difference in my experience.

Being in the portrait business, I can see how much RA4 is consumed by labs on a daily basis, there HAS to be a way for this to be financially sustainable because its still WAY more cost effective than digital alternatives as a photographer selling photographic products to clients IMHO.

As I said in an earlier post, I favor the Kodak color palette and taking it from negative to print makes the most sense to me to truly differentiate from digital and other hybrid processes.

L Gebhardt said:

If you use a good lab that has a properly run machine you can submit files and get back very consistent results. Then all the work goes into creating the file. You have the same level of control, however not nearly the same turn around time in most cases.

Click to expand...

Do you do any color correction on your scanned images? If so, do you experience any problems with the lab returning prints that do not match the color on your screen? This would occur if your monitor and the lab's printers are not calibrated with each other, which is likely. It seems that this would be a common problem with files given to labs to print by customers who do their own color correction. If the lab color corrects for you, then you are at their mercy. It is the kind of thing I avoid by doing my own printing.

RPC said:

Do you do any color correction on your scanned images? If so, do you experience any problems with the lab returning prints that do not match the color on your screen? This would occur if your monitor and the lab's printers are not calibrated with each other, which is likely. It seems that this would be a common problem with files given to labs to print by customers who do their own color correction. If the lab color corrects for you, then you are at their mercy. It is the kind of thing I avoid by doing my own printing.

Click to expand...

Thats why you calibrate your monitor with a dedicated calibration device and you work with and stick to the same lab.

RPC said:

If one scans to print to RA-4, then doesn't one have to go to a lab for printing the files? I know of no way it can be done at home, and that is a big factor that kills it for me. I want to have exact control over the results; color, density, cropping, aspect ratio, etc. when I want it, instead of waiting for some lab to mess it up. So optical printing at home is the only way for me to do that. Inkjets are out of the question.

Click to expand...

If photographers want to get anal with colour, density, cropping, aspect ratio, etc. etc., they are best doing the printing at home. Photographers who constantly change things and tie up lab resources are the ones charged a fortune for the priviledge. On the other hand, photographers often work with a dedicated lab professional during the staging of the print. The lab makes the decision on who they think among their clients has the depth of knowledge to contribute rather than obstruct and impede the work of not only themselves but all of the other clients. Know your stuff, finalise it before sending it to the lab and accept that there are thousands of ways to complete a print. Inkjet (giclee) prints are of excellent quality now and continue to improve with new media being manufactured. Some of Australia's best landscape photographers print to giclee media but generally my personal belief is that it cheapens the best photography.

RPC said:

Do you do any color correction on your scanned images? If so, do you experience any problems with the lab returning prints that do not match the color on your screen? This would occur if your monitor and the lab's printers are not calibrated with each other, which is likely. It seems that this would be a common problem with files given to labs to print by customers who do their own color correction. If the lab color corrects for you, then you are at their mercy. It is the kind of thing I avoid by doing my own printing.

Click to expand...

I have a color calibrated monitor. I of course adjust the image to look exactly as I want it before printing. If the lab is any good the print will match the image, within the gamut of the printer. I have had issues with certain labs giving bad results. If they can't fix it I move on.

If your monitor is profiled and the printer is also profiled they do not need to be specifically calibrated to each other. The image file will have a color profile that defines how the numbers used in the file map to colors in the CIELab space. Then the monitor profile is used to convert those numbers to the display colors and the printer profile is used to convert the image colors to the printer values.

To me one of the biggest issues with digital imaging is that on the computer you are adjusting for an emissive display where as when you print it's on a reflective surface. The main problem is getting the monitor brightness set to match the brightness of the light the prints will be displayed in. Most people run their monitors way too bright, and some monitors can't be dimmed enough for adequate editing work. It's a very similar issue to printing in the darkroom where your proofing light is too bright and all your prints come out too dark for the intended display space.

For my silver gelatin work I print optically, as I love the darkroom and working on an enlarger... I find that the silver gelatin digital prints I make are just as nice, but I like the whole.. getting away from the world in that red soft light not being bothered by anything and listening to music. It is quite an experience...

operating a Lambda through PS and a Cheeta Rip just does not give me that warm and fuzzy feel.

For colour work I am very happy with the digital route over the optical route due to the immediate complete control of colour balance, contrast density, colour enhancements ... This type of control just is not there. with optical enlarging.
There will be those voices that will say with masking on an enlarger one can do all that.. been there done that and I can honestly say the two methods don't match up.


One thing though about an optical colour print from large format original colour neg , one finds a nice palette (softness of tones). so I think there is lots to say about this route.

Personally I am putting pt pd base down and colouring it with tri colour gums in register.. and this look has me completely fascinated. A complete hybrid approach. Think about permanent dye transfers .

hgaude said:

I hope that doesn't happen! I definitely am not concerned about comparing the two because I am totally familiar with the scanned to print route.

I am curious though; since you do both, in what cases do you choose to print optically?

Click to expand...