Are labs now scanning and digitally printing?

daleeman · Jul 6, 2012

Have you experienced your lab of choice digitally scanning your film and then digitally printing on a high end ink jet kind of printer? I had a conversation with my favorite lab of choice and they no longer offer enlarged prints created from an enlarger and souped.

Is this the future of all professional labs, especially the color labs?

Lee

Moopheus · Jul 6, 2012

It's not the future, it's the present. Very few labs still do optical machine prints. Some labs will still do optical lab prints, but the will generally be costly and must be ordered individually.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 6, 2012

I would guess that 99.9% of all lab prints are made with digital means, i.e. scanning and digital paper exposure.

Diapositivo · Jul 6, 2012

I think most laboratories are hybrid. They do scan, but then they often print on photographic paper so they do the "souped" part of your question. I don't think it is common to print with ink-jet technology.

The printing on photographic papers is made with machines like the Durst Lambda, which projects coloured light with continuous tone on the paper. This is, in fact, optical printing although it is not made with an enlarger.

thanos · Jul 6, 2012

I agree with everyone above. My lab also has this option to print on "fine art" paper of my choice which they print in a high end inkjet.

daleeman · Jul 6, 2012

Diapositivo said:
I think most laboratories are hybrid. They do scan, but then they often print on photographic paper so they do the "souped" part of your question. I don't think it is common to print with ink-jet technology.

The printing on photographic papers is made with machines like the Durst Lambda, which projects coloured light with continuous tone on the paper. This is, in fact, optical printing although it is not made with an enlarger.

Work-flo and cash-flo certainly would dictate this kind of process. I should send a well kept negative into a lab I had printed back in 1991 or 92 and compare the difference.

Might Apug be a good place to collect a list of true optical and soup labs still in existance? This might help those skilled lab workers to keep their jobs and keep the art alive too. I fear the number of individuals who know how to actually work film in the labs that handle commercial or art printing has dropped a lot.

Even my favorite B&W custom printer gal I use to make large and or museum quality prints for me has taken a send job to keep her 2nd generation lab open. (plug for her, Chris @ www.theimageinn.com )

CGW · Jul 6, 2012

Diapositivo said:
I think most laboratories are hybrid. They do scan, but then they often print on photographic paper so they do the "souped" part of your question. I don't think it is common to print with ink-jet technology.

The printing on photographic papers is made with machines like the Durst Lambda, which projects coloured light with continuous tone on the paper. This is, in fact, optical printing although it is not made with an enlarger.

A lot more common than you think. The new Fuji dry machines are nothing to sneeze at. Custom optical prints aren't exactly bargain-priced now.

Baffles me how some assume that only analog workflow/optical printing require any degree of skill.

removed account4 · Jul 6, 2012

its been that way for 5-10 years

there are still labs like BLUE MOON
that hand process and hand print everything

Bob Carnie · Jul 6, 2012

Most labs have switched to either Lambda , Lightjet, or Chromira and offer Inkjet as well.
My lab is a Lambda lab, and we have inkjet,, we still make optical BW prints, and are soon to offer contact exposure alternative process using hybrid technology. We also image from the Lambda directly to silver gelatin paper and wet process- thanks Harmon for still making this paper.

The Lambda is exactly like a Durst CLS 2000 or above and uses laser exposure rather than halogen light exposure. One difference is the Lambda can out print 10 optical darkrooms.
All the old good optical technicians are working on these units so do not worry about our jobs... but thanks for the thought..

In my experience as a lab owner in Toronto, competing against Colourgenics , Toronto Image Works, and others the bulk of imaging today in Toronto is on inkjet and RA4 being second, and optical prints a very distant third.
I do enough Optical prints a year for my wife and I to survive quite nicely for as long as Simon makes paper{ We would have to move out of Toronto for cheaper rent but there still is enough film and prints to have a good life}.. But Elevator has overhead and staff to consider and Elevator would be out of business without digital printing to ink or RA4. The core business is what allows me to expand into a very niche pigment carbon and platinum area where it will take time to generate enough business to survive.

The future is now on us with flatbed imaging directly to substrates like diabond,metal and sintra. The quality is not there yet and I bet the farm that it will only be a matter of time before the quality will match good inkjet on paper.
These units are around 120k and the price will drop as the quality goes up.
As CGW points out that the Fuji dry prints are amazing good, I toured the Fuji Plant here in Mississauga and considered one of these units I was blown away with the potential but it does not match our service platform.
I figure within two years every Mom and Pa shop in NA will have one going. Probably at every corner variety store as well. This unit is 10k which in a lab world is very little investment for the potential gain.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jul 6, 2012

I havent ordered a print for last 10 years or more since kodak traditional machines dissapperad. Half of the labs use terrible gretag machines here , they scan good but print terrible. I wouldnt use a ink jet printing lab either.

Chan Tran · Jul 6, 2012

it's hard to find a lab that do optical print. Also most labs don't do digital prints on RA-4 paper any more. Most of them now are inkjet.

DanielStone · Jul 8, 2012

all the "major" labs here in LA still do the majority of their printing via Lightjet/chromira or digital minilabs that use RA-4 chems. I'm not talking about your wal-mart's or CVS's. I'm talking "PRO" labs that cater to higher-end clientele/professional photographers, but also charge a higher cost/print.

However, many of them are also offering inkjet services as a standard service. Not that its a "bad" thing, its just a personal preference on the part of the customer depending on what "look" they're going for.

Personally, MY preference is for GLOSSY paper(actually the "Pearl"(similar to Kodak's metallic) paper from Fuji is really beautiful)) exposed via lightjet/chromira.

I still make optical color proofsheets though. I gang up all my best rolls(not all, only the ones I deem suitable/worthy of a contact sheet) 1X/yr, and make proofsheets.

I drum scan color work, b/w gets optically/contact printed, and the subsequent prints get scanned if intended for web/display/etc...

Lee(OP), don't let some of these people talk you down about "hybrid" prints. When done well throughout the entire workflow(good scan, good lab, good printer/technique), the results will be vastly better than going to Wal-Mart or Costco(not that Costco's "bad", but IMO, they aren't a pro-lab by a loooooooooooong shot) for your printing needs.

-Dan

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 8, 2012

[h=2]Are labs now scanning and digitally printing?[/h]Yes they are, and I can look back and confidently say it's been this way since 2002 when a noticeable drop off of traditional (colour) printing occurred. D printing is not a patch at all on the now-defunct and much lamented Ilfochrome and probably never will be, but the way we are going is the only way we have. Wise to skill-up on hybridising work to understand what is involved and assist the labs in getting the very best out of the image — and this is definitely not a job for Walmart or any other high street shop, only a pro lab. Input is either home-scan or drum scan (often at horrendous cost, proportional to Mb and print size). Output is on a bewildering array of papers from silk fibre to traditional very heavy way art media or film and the results are very, very good indeed. You think I'm easy to please? Na-da!! To dateI'm very happy with what I'm doing but I do miss Ilfochrome, but have saved a fortune in prints on it.

Andrew K · Jul 9, 2012

In Australia we have both wet and dry labs..

The most popular lab is the Fuji Frontier, which is a wet lan using RA chemistry printing on conventional color photo paper - but using a laser to print scanned negs/digital files.

It's actually funny how often I hear local photographers comment they are "traditionalists" or "go old school" as they shoot film, but they don't realise that their films are not printed optically.

I've been involved in the photographic industry for nearly 30 years, and was a lab printer for over 15 years, and have used both typoes of lab - optical and digital. Digital labs are quicker because film scanners are much better now than they were say 5 or 8 years ago. If a lab has a older scanner where each image needs to be adjusted for exposure/color etc then it would take about the same amount of time for an experienced printer to print the same film.

However there aren't many experienced printeres left, at least those that have printed color on optical labs and can read negatives. It's relativly easy to teach someone to read color on a screen and adjust color so it looks right. I can remember about 12-14 years ago it was one of the biggest selling points with labs - now that they had built in color screens (think old fashioned CRT/tv screens) anyone with basic training and average color vision (normal eyesight) could make acceptable prints quickly..

I would love to find someone who has a optical mini lab to do printing for me, as I think the prints look better, probably because the color/density/contrast rely on having good negatives.

Plus, optical labs were set up to print almost any sized neg from 110 to 120 - you could even print minox negs in a 110 carier with care...

To be honest I usually chose to get HP inkjet prints made when I get prints done - the black and whites are far better than on conventional paper, and the color is at least as good as it is from the Frontier....

Ektagraphic · Jul 10, 2012

The scary part of this is whether or not the future will be with "dry-labs" for consumer and professional alike. Fuji has the inkjet Frontier minlab and Kodak has their APEX.

wildbill · Jul 10, 2012

It'll be a sad day when all the drug stores/labs/shutterfly drop ra-4 printing all together. Fuji will no longer make the paper so chromiras, lightjets, enlargers won't have anything to eat. Then I'll be forced to buy a $4k epson that will last less than ten (realistically 5) years. I won't be able to continue this as a hobby any longer. Just check the price of a lightjet vs. Inkj*t.

daleeman · Jul 11, 2012

I've gleamed a lot of information here on this topic and hope we can find ways to uphold our personal calling, hobby, art creation and more. I've been blessed with some insightful PM in my inbox too that have me thinking and forming up some replies.

Personally I am not looking forward to a large cash outlay for a inkjet printer of any kind. I think a crack addiction would be cheaper than all those $ 5,000 a gallon ink cartridges. Like $ 40.00 a cartridge for 1.2 ounces of black ink is not an addiction issues.

foc · Jul 11, 2012

I have a conversation recently with Fuji Ireland regarding wet and dry labs. It all boils down to economics. A dry lab is cheaper to install but the comsumables are higher, the ink being the most expensive. A dry lab print can cost up to three times more to produce than cost of a wet RA4 print. So a dry lab is suitable for a low volumn operation.

If the lab has any bigger volumn then a wet lab is the way to go. I know of one lab owner who was tempted to change to a dry lab but after further research and cost evulations he decided to invest in a new wet RA4 Frontier printer. So I think the future for RA4 is safe for the moment.

When the big chain stored decided to enter the one hour lab market in the 1990's, they did so thinking that this was another money earner, which it was. But they didn't think that more knowledge and experience was needed to operate these machines. That was one of the reasons that you hear comments on the web about how poor some of their results were and poor film handling etc. The chains began to manopolise the market, driving out the smaller stores. Now that the film processing market has shrank these chain stores are now ditching their wet labs.

For the smaller operator this should lead to an increase in their portion of the market, if they can provide a good service for a good price. I have often read about $1.00 process only. In my opinion it would be uneconomical for a lab to continue at that price. I operate a minilab in Ireland and we charge Euro 4.50 process only or dev and print (4x6"/10x15cm) for 7.99. We don't rely on film processing to maintain our buisness, digital printing camera sales etc do that for us. BUT because I like and enjoy film photography and processing I try to be active in promoting film and its uses. Yes it does time and effort to train staff and have them enthusiastic about film, but it is worth it. We have seen our film sales increase, our film processing volumn increase and our second hand film camera sales take off.

I think it will come down to the survival of the fittest. Home inkjet printers havw been around for a long time and I don't think they are a threat to minilabs. Remember when Pc's first came into use, we were told we would have a paperless office? When digital cameras came in we were told that we wouldn't have to print another photo again?

greenrhino · Jul 12, 2012

I own/run/sweepup at a boutique fine art lab in NYC and have done so for almost 25years. While the business has changed a lot in that time, we still do analogue prints when that is the best working method. Mostly though the prints are done digitally as both silver halide (ra-4) and pigment prints. Analogue prints are beautiful but many people have gotten used to the control possible with the digital front end and prefer a finely crafted digital print done either on a chromira or an inkjet printer. The controls on a color enlarger are linear and the non linear aspects of color correction done digitally are sometimes needed to make the best possible print. I can go in and make color correction masks for an analogue print but the costs start to go up very quickly and will surpass the cost of a pmt drum scan and digitally exposed print. I still believe that the best print is made from a film original. I can even take a straight digital file and turn it into a neg to print analogue but this is usually saved for a case where retouching a damaged negative is needed or an original is lost and all that exists is a print to work from.
About 30% of the print work is RA4, 30% is Pigment and then the last 30% is split between gelatin, platinum, gum bichromate, salt, albumen and polyplate gravure (leaning towards the plat and silver) There are clients that for conceptual reasons still insist on a color coupler print and will for a some time to come, either because they prefer it aesthically or they have images with outstanding numbers in their print editions. Luckily we still have enough call for the color coupler print that the chemistry stays alive. If costs is an overriding issue the coupler print costs a bit less than a pigment print due to material costs and the extremely delicate nature of pigment prints. Getting and keeping the surface perfect on oversize pigment print can be challenging and can eat up paper and ink in pursuit of it......anyway, I'm rambling.

Ektagraphic · Jul 12, 2012

That's good to know Foc! Let's keep the RA-4 coming!

williamkazak · Jan 13, 2013

Thanks for the lab recommendation, daleeman. I just sent Chris an email.

PKM-25 · Jan 13, 2013

This is part of the reason I am doing mostly black and white. That said, we need to keep Blue Moon Camera in business. They get a lot of work and are great at it.

AgX · Jan 13, 2013

Diapositivo said:
The printing on photographic papers is made with machines like the Durst Lambda, which projects coloured light with continuous tone on the paper. This is, in fact, optical printing although it is not made with an enlarger.

`

You are right. However the manufacturers of halide paper don't call this optical printing but digital printing, which could be confused with something like ink-jet printing...

Sirius Glass · Jan 13, 2013

Costco scans all 35mm film and prints chemically.
Penn Camera, Tysons Corner Virgina, prints optically but cannot raise the enlarger head to crop out the Hasselblad film back film clamp bite out of the print.
Samys Camera, Los Angeles and Southern California, prints optically and can raise the enlarger head to crop on request.
Golden Color, Los Angeles, http://goldencolor.com/ 9020 West Olympic Blvd Beverly Hills CA, optically prints and can print VERY LARGE PRINTS including 8"x10". When I want a 24"x36" print from 35mm, I go to them.

Bob Carnie · Jan 13, 2013

If it was optical printing I would be happy then I could talk about our Lambda services here on APUG.
I have been hesitant due to Sean's mission statement.

AgX said:
`

You are right. However the manufacturers of halide paper don't call this optical printing but digital printing, which could be confused with something like ink-jet printing...

Are labs now scanning and digitally printing?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency