Commercial print-from-negative lab

[tom williams]

I'd appreciate any leads to a commercial lab that will accept my mailed-in C-41 4x5 negatives for printing directly, rather than from a scan.
Thanks.

 

[dpurdy]

Check with Blue Moon camera and machine. In Portland. They are an advertiser here.

 

[koraks]

for printing directly, rather than from a scan

What are your expectations? I.e. why do you consider this route?

 

[Paul Howell]

Not sure where in AZ you live, but Tempe Camera imaging use to print R4 from 4X5.

 

[tom williams]

What are your expectations? I.e. why do you consider this route?

I've shot and developed my first large format color negatives, but have no experience in (or equipment for) color enlarging/printing. I want to evaluate the negatives for larger-scale enlargement and framing, so I turn to a commercial lab for intermediate prints.

My sole basis for an optical print preference comes from a comparison - by a non-professional photographer - of a pair of his prints from the same negative, one print from a scan and one optical print. Both prints processed by the same commercial lab. I thought the optical print clearly superior in clarity. Papers and finish were the same, as I recall. This was ten years ago, roughly. I can make the same comparison in present time, lab willing, but the optical print option seems hard to come by.

I've pinged Blue Moon (thanks dpurdy) and await a reply. From Tempe Camera's website (thanks Paul Howell - I'm near Prescott) I don't see any optical printing options.

I'm currently modifying an apparatus that looks like it was intended for (or capable of) stand photography, so I hope to be able to make my own digital reproductions shortly. But that would still leave the optical enlargement option hanging.

 

[koraks]

Okay, I see. The thing is, given a good quality scan, the flexibility you have in making a print is much greater. Quality wise, an optical print is not necessarily better. It really depends on the operator. I think Blue Moon are only set up to optically print from rolls (35mm and 120), but maybe they offer enlargement as well. Either way, this also means that in terms of exposure and color filtering, what you get is what the operator/printer sees fit. In the fine arts world, you either work with a printer whom you know and can trust to interpret your negatives in a way that you are happy with, or you work directly with them side by side to iterate towards the desired end result. In the digital/hybrid domain, it's easier to do the color grading/balancing yourself and then send out to any digital printer that uses the paper and surface finish of your liking. You're also not bound to RA4 that way.

Overall it's a bit as I suspected: you appear to have the perception that an optical print is necessarily better, but this really is not the case. It depends. It's also not really (really not) the case that an optical print somehow shows more of what the negative has in itself or something along those lines.

Not to discourage you from getting some optical prints done, don't get me wrong. But I do have some doubts as to how to interpret the result especially if you're working with a printer at arm's length and you're not intimately familiar with their work.

 

[Aidan Sciortino]

Check out Praus Productions in Rochester NY. Edgar does lots of mail-order work, and is fully equipped to enlarge from rolls and sheets up to 8x10.

To speak to the caliber of his work, I believe he has been tapped in the past few years to develop prototype film for Kodak. I've never had an issue with any of his work, and recommend him thoroughly!

 

[MattKing]

There are two labs around here that, when I last checked, were set up to make custom enlargements optically, if one was willing to pay for custom work.
But other than Blue Moon, I don't know of any lab that makes lower cost machine enlargements.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've shot and developed my first large format color negatives, but have no experience in (or equipment for) color enlarging/printing. I want to evaluate the negatives for larger-scale enlargement and framing, so I turn to a commercial lab for intermediate prints.

My sole basis for an optical print preference comes from a comparison - by a non-professional photographer - of a pair of his prints from the same negative, one print from a scan and one optical print. Both prints processed by the same commercial lab. I thought the optical print clearly superior in clarity. Papers and finish were the same, as I recall. This was ten years ago, roughly. I can make the same comparison in present time, lab willing, but the optical print option seems hard to come by.

I've pinged Blue Moon (thanks dpurdy) and await a reply. From Tempe Camera's website (thanks Paul Howell - I'm near Prescott) I don't see any optical printing options.

I'm currently modifying an apparatus that looks like it was intended for (or capable of) stand photography, so I hope to be able to make my own digital reproductions shortly. But that would still leave the optical enlargement option hanging.

I just check Tempe Camera websight, you will need to call to she if they still do optical enlargements.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Overall it's a bit as I suspected: you appear to have the perception that an optical print is necessarily better, but this really is not the case. It depends. It's also not really (really not) the case that an optical print somehow shows more of what the negative has in itself or something along those lines.

I fully agree with this (bold emphasis).

---------

"...ten years ago, roughly..."
I can tell you that many things have changed in printing and materials over that time! One thing that is happenig now is that RA4 printing looks to be on the way out; the last of these dinosaur-era machines are breaking down to the point of being thrown out as hard-waste. They are not repairable. Giclée might not be to the purist-purveyor's taste, but it is widespread in the print industry.

I don't agree that a darkroom print is superior, insofar as detail etc is concerned. That's a furphy held dear to the forelocks of the LF darkroom crowd that locks itself away from otherwise cost effective, industry standard practices.

 

[koraks]

One thing that is happenign now is that RA4 printing looks to be on the way out

This is most certainly the case. The total volume of RA4 paper thats being manufactured decreases by a few percent every year; it's a steady decline. How long it will stay with us, is difficult to predict. And optimistic scenario would be something like 15 years from now, so end of life around 2040. However, I think realistically speaking, there will be a rather sudden exit by Fuji sooner than this. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd put the end for the European Fuji plant around 2030-2035.

Presently, RA4 appears to be kept afloat mostly by the European market, which still uses this technology for low-end, low-cost, high-volume photographic printing, including a part of the consumer grade photo album market. There's also a large "tail" of minilab operations in e.g. Eastern Europe and Africa, but I'm not sure on combined volumes. It appears that the lion's share of the RA4 paper is consumed by a limited number of very big, centralized labs. These labs are all using other digital print technologies at the same time (e.g. inkjet for wide format) and it's a matter of time before the flick the switch on RA4. This means that demand for the paper can drop precipitously when a few major consumers switch over; the change will effectively be overnight and will come pretty much as a surprise (apart from the fact that it's evident that it will happen at some point of course).

In the end game, when the biggest produced will have ceased operations, I expect that Fujifilm will keep producing small volumes for legacy applications in Japan; prices can be expected to be far higher than what we're used to paying presently. Lucky in China will capture the bottom end of the market, so we may keep access to some form of RA4 paper even when today's relatively cheap and excellent Fuji papers become unavailable or sporadically available. What this means quality-wise is quite uncertain.

Apologies for the speculative offtopic.

 

[Samu]

Okay, I see. The thing is, given a good quality scan, the flexibility you have in making a print is much greater. Quality wise, an optical print is not necessarily better. It really depends on the operator. I think Blue Moon are only set up to optically print from rolls (35mm and 120), but maybe they offer enlargement as well. Either way, this also means that in terms of exposure and color filtering, what you get is what the operator/printer sees fit. In the fine arts world, you either work with a printer whom you know and can trust to interpret your negatives in a way that you are happy with, or you work directly with them side by side to iterate towards the desired end result. In the digital/hybrid domain, it's easier to do the color grading/balancing yourself and then send out to any digital printer that uses the paper and surface finish of your liking. You're also not bound to RA4 that way.

Overall it's a bit as I suspected: you appear to have the perception that an optical print is necessarily better, but this really is not the case. It depends. It's also not really (really not) the case that an optical print somehow shows more of what the negative has in itself or something along those lines.

Not to discourage you from getting some optical prints done, don't get me wrong. But I do have some doubts as to how to interpret the result especially if you're working with a printer at arm's length and you're not intimately familiar with their work.

Yes, but it is not only the "technically perfect" picture people are looking for. Otherwise, we all would br shooting digital. And additional print does look different than subtractive, no matter how it is made. There are lots of things to consider. Personally I am not very excited about the perspective of making pictures "better than they are" by using computer algorithms trying to do that.

 

[koraks]

Yes, but it is not only the "technically perfect" picture people are looking for.

Please note that my reflection that you quoted was not intended, and should by no means read as a discouragement of people optically printing, or a negation of whatever reasons people may have for wanting to do so. I reflected on the motives OP specifically mentioned here:

I want to evaluate the negatives for larger-scale enlargement and framing, so I turn to a commercial lab for intermediate prints.

Within this scope and purpose, an optical print is not superior, nor necessarily more desirable. The same is true for digital output. In other words: all options can be kept open.

I optically print color negatives all the time, myself. I think it's great fun. But that's me, and I have my personal/individual motives. Let's not confuse our personal preferences with the question asked here.

 

[tom williams]

But I do have some doubts as to how to interpret the result especially if you're working with a printer at arm's length and you're not intimately familiar with their work.

I hadn't thought this through at all.

I want to evaluate the negatives for larger-scale enlargement and framing, so I turn to a commercial lab for intermediate prints.

Within this scope and purpose, an optical print is not superior, nor necessarily more desirable. The same is true for digital output. In other words: all options can be kept open.

koraks, just so. Thanks for the perspective. After reading your and others' replies, I think that I'll evaluate scans of the negatives as a first step, with optical printing still in consideration for further treatment.

There is so much to learn. Luckily (I think).

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are fewer and fewer labs still doing optical enlargement. What some of the big ones can do is scan your 4x5 original, and laser print it onto RA4 paper of any size. The result can be more satisfying than inkjet prints. But the devil is in the details - which paper your select, the skill of the operator, and how well you've communicated your expectations. And the better the scan, not only the better the result, but the higher the overall price.

Otherwise, you have to submit your sample to what I'd term a "hired gun" professional printer with his own enlarging equipment. These are likely to accept only limited clientele, and will charge far more than a high volume automated commercial lab. I have the equipment, but don't print for other people at all - just my own shots. That is often the case.

Since you're in Arizona, you could try big labs in the LA area : Weldon Color Lab in LA (they can do Lightjet RA4 laser prints up to 50 inches wide) or The Darkroom in San Clemente. But there are numerous other options in the US which accept mail-in orders, and can develop your sheet film as well.

In terms of "doom and gloom" forecasting the fate of ongoing RA4 chromogenic paper printing goes, one significant fact is that these very expensive big laser printers - several brands of them - are not only still in high-volume usage, but new ones are still being made and sold. The ongoing demand is evident. In the right hands, the results can come quite close to optimized true optical enlargement.
Big enlargers are still in use too, but as per commercial applications, mostly in secondary countries, or by individual printmakers. But since the same kinds of printing paper are generally involved, both optically and laser-wise, the overall volume of RA4 product consumption is still going strong.

There are other reasons for optimism. For example, department store or other kinds of retail chains tend to need multiples of the same large advertising images for display ad purposes. This is more economical and faster to achieve using RA4 printing media rather than inkjet or offset printing press.

In your own case, there are numerous smaller labs which, when C-41 processing your film, can also furnish you with a medium quality scan at reasonable pricing, along with a basic RA4 contact sheet. Don't expect this to be fine-tuned or on a premium paper; but it will at least give you a reasonable clue what to expect from a larger print. It might be helpful in the beginning, before you learn to "read" the potential of a color negative for yourself using a lightbox.

 

[tom williams]

In your own case, there are numerous smaller labs which, when C-41 processing your film, can also furnish you with a medium quality scan at reasonable pricing, along with a basic RA4 contact sheet. Don't expect this to be fine-tuned or on a premium paper; but it will at least give you a reasonable clue what to expect from a larger print. It might be helpful in the beginning, before you learn to "read" the potential of a color negative for yourself using a lightbox.

Thanks Drew. Blue Moon is handling the 4x5 negatives for me (scans). Apparently they will also provide 'optical' prints on request. The "reasonable clue" you mention is exactly what I want from the lab just now.