DIY Printing vs. Lab Printing

[Alex1994]

Hello

I've been shooting film for about 5 years now, so I'm quite new to the hobby but declined going digital due to the prohibitive cost of equipment and the shoddy nature of it. So far I shoot mostly colour print film and I get it developed at a specialist photo lab with 'no mods' specified on it.

I was recently told that the results given by a lab are 'average' and that printing there means losing an important part of the photographic process, giving up a whole load of creativity and control to an automatic process.

How far is this true? I've never had the time or money to invest in a darkroom and equipment, but how much am I missing out on?

Thanks

Alex

 

[Tom Kershaw]

If you are working with black & white then it is very true. However, getting good at printing takes a while...

Tom

 

[Rick A]

If you are working with black & white then it is very true. However, getting good at printing takes a while...

Tom

That is somewhat true, it depends on the individuals learning abilities. The rewards are well worth the expenditure for equiptment and supplies, as well as the time invested to learn, which if done properly, will take a life time. By that last statement, I mean it should never grow old and always present a new situation that requires thought as well as drawing from experience. I personally do not print color(did it in the 70's) cant get enough B&W to satisfy my soul.

Rick

 

[Patrick Latour]

Printing color, required a little bit more, dichro head on the enlarger, chemicals different than B&W etc...

For B&W, I can tell you about my own experience. Processing film and print is not really expensive, but to be honest, do not do it for the economy, you will not be happy.

A friend of mine, show me how to process films manually in a tank and give me one of is old enlarger (Durst M600). That is whith what I started. I can swear, if you do not process your film and print your self, you are missing at least 80% of the fun. For me, shooting itself, is just like an appetizer. The real fun is after.

Once you know where to get your chemicals, papers and accessories, the hardest part is done.

You do not have to use equipment that is accurate to 1000th of second, or to have a very high tech darkroom. I started in a closet under the stairs, using a clock to time my processing. I started with $100. Today, I use an 45MXT, with both, dichro and condenser head, in a 11x12 room and all this with a $300.00 invested.

To wrapup my point: Just do it. But be careful, it is very addictive.

Good luck !!!

 

[Ian Grant]

The colour printing at many small minilabs is excellent these days, and now even some pro-labs use minilab equipment for much of their 35mm & 120 work with no drop in quality.

Colour printing isn't difficult at all and you're right when you say it gives increase controls, but it's really B&W work where there's the greatest increase & advantages in terms of control & creativity.

Ian

 

[perkeleellinen]

I think there's more creative options in B&W, but that's not to say that colour is totally automated. I dodge/burn in colour just like I do with B&W. But that's really where the creativity ends for me (I suppose I could attempt masking and I'm planning to try diffusion screens soon). Another great benefit I've found with the darkroom is it's immensely satisfying to make your own prints.

 

[Neal]

Dear Alex1994,

This is not an endeavor to enter without the acceptance that significant funds must be spent. You don't say where you are, but I advise looking for a local darkroom and give b&w printing a try. Many community colleges still offer classes as well. If you like it, you can decide how far you want to go.

Enjoy,

Neal Wydra

 

[fotch]

Hi Alex, I always thought of the Darkroom side as 50% of the creative process, and fun. Its reasonably easy to get good results, in B&W, will take more of an investment in knowledge and time to get great results.

I found that I could do better than sending it out although certainly that depends on where you would send it.

Try it, you may like it.

 

[2F/2F]

I was recently told that the results given by a lab are 'average' and that printing there means losing an important part of the photographic process, giving up a whole load of creativity and control to an automatic process

It all depends...very, very much.

1. Are you going to a professional lab?

2. Are you having custom enlargements made there, or machine prints?

3. How involved are you in the printing process? (It usually takes a couple of work prints to get what I want at a lab, personally.)

Just because you can set up your own printing lab at home does not mean that you can produce better results than a lab. It all depends on how good you are vs. how good the lab is.

The only time I go to a lab for custom enlargements is when I know that I have been paid enough for the print to make it worth the cost. Otherwise, I am too cheap, and I do everything myself.

Any time I print color that is already in digital format, I borrow a friend's card and go to Costco. They do Lightjet printing for ultra cheap on professional Fuji Crystal Archive paper. All you have to do is a few tests so that what you see on your monitor is what you get on the print.

 

[Alex1994]

Thank you all for your insightful and helpful responses.

So, from what I can deduce, DIY printing gives better results than lab for B&W photography (by better I mean more like what the photog intends, more contrast etc).

However, most of the film I shoot is bog-standard C-41 process, I only do b&w occasionally, and that's 120 film as opposed to 35mm. However, my early forays into B&W were really productive, so I'll be using it more and more often.

I usually use the C-41 developing at Asda (UK equivalent of Wal-mart). The results are pleasing enough to me, but I've never printed anything myself to compare it against. For B&W I go to club35 or digitalab which are specialist, professional labs. Results from there have also been very pleasing, but similarly I haven't compared it to anything I have produced myself.

I think the best thing to do would be to try and borrow someone's darkroom and equipment in order to acquaint myself with the process (I know nothing about printing!).

Thanks again for all the help

Alex

 

[sorange]

As someone relatively new to B&W printing, the biggest challenges for me have been time and space. My setup is a bay in my garage, with windows blacked out and the lights removed from the garage door opener (my wife is not a big fan of that one). My main enlarger has been a Beseler 45 MCRX with Dichro DG-1 color head (with the big blower). I purchased because I have a 4x5 Graflex camera and that 4x5 enlargers are both cheap & provide more options. Along with that there is a Jobo CPP2 with lift which I bought for a song. All my equipment is great quality and was ultra-cheap - compared with a digital camera and Epson 2400 printer I am way ahead of the game. The only challenge set-up wise is that I don't have a sink, and have to go out the back door for water and dump chemicals in the bathroom sink nearby. It's a bit of a pain but the process worked OK.

Then my work got busy. (I'm a small business owner of a professional services firm.) Very little time to shoot, so I thought I could at least spend time in the dark room. The trouble was, after an evening of working with my prints I'd have maybe a couple I liked but they weren't where I wanted them to be. For a while I thought it was the enlarger, because I seemed to have sharper prints and more exposure control on an Omega C700 (much smaller but I sold it). Then I thought it was the chemistry, some of which had been mixed for quite a while and might have been going off. But then the tables everything sat on had to be used for a fair by my wife (I was "borrowing" the tables in the first place), and "everything" wound up on the floor where it has sat the last 2 years.

Then, last weekend I happened to be browsing Craigslist and there was a Beseler 45 MX with the Dichro 45 S color head I've long wanted at a price I couldn't pass up ($100 plus some 2 lenses etc.) It was in near-perfect condition (original owner) and he threw in a Durst M370 enlarger for $5 he couldn't get rid of on Craigslist. I figure if I can't get the results I want out of the equipment I've always wanted, it will be time to pack it in. But I will have to spend the time in the darkroom to see if I can get the technique where it needs to be.

Sorry for the long story, but thought it might lend some perspective if you're new to DIY printing. FYI it can also get in the way of your camera work, which is what draws most to photography in the first place. (Henri Cartier-Bresson stuck with his camera and reviewed contact sheets, letting others do the printing.) If you're willing to take the time, it can be rewarding. Darkroom equipment has been stupidly cheap on the used market, and labs are closing by the day. Thank Goodness for APUG, because the advice here can save you a lot of time and make the printing more enjoyable. Good luck either way!

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The quality of color printing is very dependent on the operator of the mini-lab. A well run mini-lab can produce color prints the equal of a custom lab. The exception is if you want any sort of manipulation such as burning or dodging - where you would be out of luck with a mini-lab.

My experience with C-41 printing was that a good mini-lab could print better than I could, could do it faster, and could do it for far less cost. I use a digital route now for any color printing I have to do myself.

For black and white, though, a darkroom is essential for good work. You can use a custom lab and get very good results but the fees charged, while fair, would buy you your own darkroom in short order.

 

[kauffman v36]

IMO color printing is a PITA compared to b&w printing. all my color work is now done digitally unless its kodachrome slides in which case i either have them scanned professionally or if i have enough money to make send off to get ilfochromes done. for b&w i process my film and home and do all my printing at the local community college. they have an excellent darkroom, great enlargers, and a very very very clean working area. 3 sink water bath, the whole 9 yards. if you want to start printing b&w then go for it, it wont cost too much, but color, i see as very expensive when compared.

 

[Ian Grant]

The quality of color printing is very dependent on the operator of the mini-lab. A well run mini-lab can produce color prints the equal of a custom lab. The exception is if you want any sort of manipulation such as burning or dodging - where you would be out of luck with a mini-lab.

My experience with C-41 printing was that a good mini-lab could print better than I could, could do it faster, and could do it for far less cost. I use a digital route now for any color printing I have to do myself.

For black and white, though, a darkroom is essential for good work. You can use a custom lab and get very good results but the fees charged, while fair, would buy you your own darkroom in short order.

You can always use the scans a minilab generates off your negatives, and then go to Hybridphoto.com to discover how to dodge & burn then return the files to the minilab for printing

Ian

 

[John Koehrer]

I'd sort of agree with Nicholas_Lindan. A decent minilab can give a pretty decent print but someone who knows what their doing in a lab will give you unbelievable prints. No comparison at all!
There's quite a bit of a learning curve though.
You may want to keep an eye on the galleries for exhibitions of both color and B&W prints, although many are average The great ones will knock your socks off.

 

[richard ide]

Suggestion:

Take the negative of a print you really like and have a custom lab make it's version. Relatively expensive but this will give you a comparison. With care in your printing, it will not be too long before your own prints are superior to what a minilab can give you.

 

[Bob-D659]

Printing RA4 colour may be less expensive than black and white. An 8x10 cost about 80 cents inc Kodak paper and chemistry used as one shot when the paper was $40 per hundred, now its up to $56 per hundred in 50 packs. Which is still under a dollar a print.

Now that colour darkroom equip is pennies on the dollar or less, it makes sense to try colour printing.

 

[fschifano]

Printing RA4 colour may be less expensive than black and white. An 8x10 cost about 80 cents inc Kodak paper and chemistry used as one shot when the paper was $40 per hundred, now its up to $56 per hundred in 50 packs. Which is still under a dollar a print.

Now that colour darkroom equip is pennies on the dollar or less, it makes sense to try colour printing.

The economics are not quite that simple. Enlargers with dichro color heads are inexpensive on the used market; and while they can be used equally effectively as B&W enlargers, they do command higher prices than simpler condenser enlargers designed primarily for B&W work. RA-4 paper is certainly inexpensive; but RA-4 chemistry is not and requires more precise temperature control than B&W print chemistry to yield good results. So now you have to figure in the cost of some sort of temperature control hardware, and let's not forget that all processing must be carried out in total darkness. That means even more hardware or standing over trays in the dark. No safelights allowed. Only Tetanal offers a room temperature kit of RA-4 chemistry that makes 2.5L and sells in NY for nearly $50 USD. Keeping qualities are an unkown to me. Compare that to a B&W print developer like Dektol which is dirt cheap at under $6 to make 3 gallons (almost 12L) of working strength solution, is very insensitive to processing temperature, and has a very good shelf life, and color printing at home doesn't look very attractive unless you plan to do a lot of it.

 

[nickandre]

Hello

I've been shooting film for about 5 years now, so I'm quite new to the hobby but declined going digital due to the prohibitive cost of equipment and the shoddy nature of it. So far I shoot mostly colour print film and I get it developed at a specialist photo lab with 'no mods' specified on it.

I was recently told that the results given by a lab are 'average' and that printing there means losing an important part of the photographic process, giving up a whole load of creativity and control to an automatic process.

How far is this true? I've never had the time or money to invest in a darkroom and equipment, but how much am I missing out on?

Thanks

Alex

You are losing color gamut. It's a fun hobby to do and you can make really nice 20x30 prints that you can't get out of an inkjet, but it doesn't make good business sense. Personally, I've found Ektar 100 film on Supra Endura to look very nice. It's a great step to take after you've learned the basics of printing black and white, but not a good idea if you have no idea how to print. Too many variables to control. If you choose to try it feel free to PM me with any questions you have.

 

[nickandre]

The economics are not quite that simple. Enlargers with dichro color heads are inexpensive on the used market; and while they can be used equally effectively as B&W enlargers, they do command higher prices than simpler condenser enlargers designed primarily for B&W work. RA-4 paper is certainly inexpensive; but RA-4 chemistry is not and requires more precise temperature control than B&W print chemistry to yield good results. So now you have to figure in the cost of some sort of temperature control hardware, and let's not forget that all processing must be carried out in total darkness. That means even more hardware or standing over trays in the dark. No safelights allowed. Only Tetanal offers a room temperature kit of RA-4 chemistry that makes 2.5L and sells in NY for nearly $50 USD. Keeping qualities are an unkown to me. Compare that to a B&W print developer like Dektol which is dirt cheap at under $6 to make 3 gallons (almost 12L) of working strength solution, is very insensitive to processing temperature, and has a very good shelf life, and color printing at home doesn't look very attractive unless you plan to do a lot of it.

RA4 chemistry (kodak, the real deal) costs $50 for 10 liters which will do 40-100 16x20 prints. How much does inkjet ink cost again? A hell of a lot more than that. It costs $15 per cartidge times 8 or so to get the printer running which is $120. I doubt that ink will run even 10 16x20 prints, not to mention you need a printer that can handle them. The paper is cheaper than inkjet paper and the chemistry is cheaper than ink. Furthermore, the kodak kit can easily be used at room temperature with kodak paper yielding amazing results. I've had no problems with temperature control and crossover; I just throw the chemistry in trays and pour it back when I'm done (pouring back can be difficult though ) Black and white paper costs 4 times as much. I've never had a developer go bad on me yet. If you're printing only 8x10s you can mix up a half liter which will run 8 prints, and then discard that when you're done. A half liter in a full bottle lasts months.

 

[photoncatcher]

The vast majority of my work is B&W, and I'm lucky enough to have my dark room in my basement. I have never been tempted to try color at home due to the cost, and the fact that temp control is not easily achieved in my basement. I do all my printing( up to 11x14), and if I need something bigger, I've got a local lab that does amazing work. I think it would be a good idea to try your hand at a friends darkroom before you invest heavily.

 

[Jeff Searust]

I am going to say it here and now.... "Going digital because of the prohibitive cost" is the biggest load of hooey I have ever come across. I see people on this board and I see people on other boards spouting this silly line and it's just a load of BS.

I want to see the price you paid for that digital camera, I want to see the price you paid for all the lenses and memory cards and the printer and the inks and the fancy paper, and the card readers and the batteries and the chargers and the cables, and all the other little digital BS that goes along with it and then I want to put that multi-thousand dollar price along side a medium format camera and a hundred rolls of film and the chemistry to develop it, or an 8x10 camera and a couple hundred sheets of film,... All someone means when they say digital is cheaper, is that they really don't care what their images look like, they just like pushing the button. That's all I hear.

 

[Alex1994]

I am going to say it here and now.... "Going digital because of the prohibitive cost" is the biggest load of hooey I have ever come across. I see people on this board and I see people on other boards spouting this silly line and it's just a load of BS.

I want to see the price you paid for that digital camera, I want to see the price you paid for all the lenses and memory cards and the printer and the inks and the fancy paper, and the card readers and the batteries and the chargers and the cables, and all the other little digital BS that goes along with it and then I want to put that multi-thousand dollar price along side a medium format camera and a hundred rolls of film and the chemistry to develop it, or an 8x10 camera and a couple hundred sheets of film,... All someone means when they say digital is cheaper, is that they really don't care what their images look like, they just like pushing the button. That's all I hear.

Jeff, I did say I didn't go digital for the exact reasons you just mentioned ;-) The setup I use most is an OM-1 with 50mm f1.4 (£80) along with a 100mm Zuiko f2.8 (£65), a 35-135 zoom (£90) and I can buy a Zuiko 28mm f2.8 for £40. Total cost 275 pounds (440 USD) for a well-sorted, well-designed mechanical SLR system in excellent condition. Now all I need to do is develop the skill to extract it's full potential =)

Back on topic: developing. Where does one actually buy all the materials needed to develop, say, colour print 35mm and B&W 120 film? I know an enlarger can be found on eBay (unless there's a specialist site that deals in used ones--I live in the UK). What about the paper and chemicals?

Thanks once again for your valuable info, it is enormously appreciated.

Alex

 

[Anon Ymous]

...Back on topic: developing. Where does one actually buy all the materials needed to develop, say, colour print 35mm and B&W 120 film? I know an enlarger can be found on eBay (unless there's a specialist site that deals in used ones--I live in the UK). What about the paper and chemicals?

Alex, while color print film development and traditional color printing is doable without exotic equipment, it would be wise to start film development and printing with BW materials. It would be better to acquire some experience in BW first and then try C41 and RA4. Regarding equipment, and if you wish to try RA4 printing, you'd better get an enlarger with a colorhead. This way, you can alter the contrast of BW variable contrast papers without using filters and you have all you need to start RA4 printing any time you wish. There are several shops in the UK which specialise in analog materials. Silverprint (in London) and Ag-Photographic (Birmingham) are two choices.

 

[markbarendt]

Technical and practical are two different things here.

Practically you should ask your self "do I want anything different than I'm getting?"

I use a pro-lab for all my event work, senior photos, etc... Anything in the "straight photography" or "pure camera work" range is fair game for a lab.

For my artistic endeavors, I want different.