Let's Talk About Spending a Lot of Money on Lab Equipment with the Aim of Retiring in 25 Years.

DREW WILEY said:

Fuji makes a whole lineup of RA4 papers. Their Fujiflex Supergloss is a fabulous product with the same look as Cibachrome but easier to use, itself being standard RA4. Yes, all but one product line - the product you apparently don't like - are available in rolls only. I'm not going to press the point, since you don't have commerical RA printing in mind.
Just general information. And most of these papers do just fine with traditional optical enlargement - no need for a Lamdba or other laser printer for sake of personal printing.

Click to expand...

Yes they do but . . . . they all fade on display. At first, it's not noticeable, then after a few years it is, and then suddenly they are washed out.

If you purchase a Colour print for display, you expect it to last. I had a print on the wall a friend made, it's so washed out it's junk, he still has the 5x4 E6 tranny so I can get a colour pigment print off it.

Even Kodachromes and Cibachromes fade. An uncle was Advertising & Marketing manager at Harrods, if one backlit image by the lifts was changed new Cibachromes were made of the others as you could spot the difference.

Having met Bob Carnie, he and I would not disagree on anything except age, he was shocked to find I was SO much younger than him I would add months, not years

NortheastPhotographic said:

I'm aware but the one I don't like is the only one sold as cut sheets. I just don't think it prints well in the darkroom. I actually have a small table top processor but for the short print runs I do it's hardly worth making and filling it. Inkjet is just winning all the arguments at least in my shop.

Click to expand...

While I would rather in some ways say the opposite. inkjet/pigment prints are way better for colour.

Ian

This is a great discussion! My thoughts are make sure that whatever you get it's easy for a novice to use.

I really agree with you regarding computational digital. Maybe every wedding venue has such things and you get your images as you take off from the church.

Really need to understand the building you are in. You don't want to have to move unexpectedly.

I think analog is the only sure thing.

I would be tempted to put in 12 inch pvc pipes vertical and dip and dunk old school

Oh I've made plenty of excellent prints on that cut sheet CA medium. But one has to be selective about which images take to it well, and which don't. So it's certainly not ideal as a general purpose paper for a commercial lab, where all kinds of color negatives factor, or inversion from scanned chromes.

What they call Super C here in the US, and now Super C II, is a much punchier product, with a thicker base too, and available up to 50 in roll size. For me it has a superior gamut over inkjet, but not quite as wide a gamut as Fujiflex, which is really a deluxe product.

Inkjet makes sense for many nowadays. For optical enlargements, I manipulate film curves and hue corrections and overall contrast tweaks by supplemental film masking instead, which certainly delivers the end result well, but at too slow a pace for commercial applications, and at higher expense too.

Ian - I wouldn't go around placing bets on what fades and what allegedly doesn't. There are plenty of susceptible dyes in the makeup of inkjet inks too. Actual pigment prints, they're not, and even if they were, UV can get to almost anything over time, unless your color palette resembles the surface of Mars.

I've got hundreds of Cibachromes that look like they were made yesterday. Yeah, you want to keep them out of direct sunlight and high-UV artificial sources. But I've got one of my very first ones on a wall behind me. It sat in mountain window light for 25 years, and overall, has been on display 45 years now, and still looks beautiful; a bit of the yellow dye has shifted. The worst thing for Cibas were the hot "projector" halogen lamps once popular in galleries. I've seen those actually melt the acrylic colors on major works by famous abstract expressionist painters within a week or two. Just plain dumb.

In terms of more recent Fuji Crystal Archive media, I had fifteen big 30X40 on display under clear overhead skylights plus 18 hrs per day under quite no-no high-UV commercial CFL lighting before the building sold - 15 yr of torture. I overprinted them a bit, so that they look just about right now. Another 15 yrs should be no problem, now that some of them are being displayed under much kinder lighting. If that had been the case all along, then Fuji's projections of a 75 display potential seems entirely credible. And their more recent RA4 papers have improved in that respect even more.

I doubt I'll even be around another 30 yrs, and inkjet technology is barely 30 yrs old, so
making premature claims about that is presumptive. I always sold my own prints with a bit of advice about how to protect them from fading or mildew, etc, and it seems the advice has been followed by collectors. But big huge decor pieces are going to get inevitably abused with respect to lighting, and will likely get thrown out when the sofa or drapes are anyway.

Can we please get back to the topic of capital investments for a small lab? We have PLENTY of threads about RA4 vs. inkjet. We really don't need another one that rehashes the same arguments we've gone through over and over and over and over again. The original question was about film processing equipment.

koraks said:

Can we please get back to the topic of capital investments for a small lab? We have PLENTY of threads about RA4 vs. inkjet. We really don't need another one that rehashes the same arguments we've gone through over and over and over and over again. The original question was about film processing equipment.

Click to expand...

Well moderating.

I agree with earlier recommendation to avoid long term loans. I know nothing about taxes. Lots of farming in Iowa. The folks who survive understand depreciation on equipment.

Some people trade million dollar pieces of equipment every 3 years, to take advantage of depreciation.

Not suggesting this for a photo lab, but it's good thing to keep it in mind.

With new equipment, one can get locked into mandatory service contracts. That can be an even bigger form of financial bondage, and you can't simply amortize it on brief cycles. The fine print has to be read. It's been the downfall of more than one big photo lab.

DREW WILEY said:

With new equipment, one can get locked into mandatory service contracts. That can be an even bigger form of financial bondage, and you can't simply amortize it on brief cycles. The fine print has to be read. It's been the downfall of more than one big photo lab.

Click to expand...

Very good point. In my experience, analytical chemistry lab/ material development, the service calls, not the routine tune ups, were very expensive.
Might be prudent to select the option with less technology.

The corollary also applies - avoid a product that doesn't have associated with it robust, accessible and competent service resources, with access to parts and specialized service equipment.

From what I can gather there is no dedicated service contract. The US dealer seems to handle any and all warranty or service issues. I would prefer a more robust system, but then again it's probably too expensive to build out nationwide techs for what must be less than 100 processors...just a guess.

In my experience, routine maintenance of any processing equipment extends its reliability and working life.

When I my minilab, we had a daily, weekly, monthly and bi-annual maintenance schedule. We drew it up in consultation with our equipment supplier. They even provided service training.

Might be something to look into.

I got the quote on the D&D Roboline unit. $135k. That's about the cost of 2 RT machines actually so from a spending perspective it's similar to what I was looking at. That apparently includes some basic accessories and installation. Though I doubt it includes whatever costs I'd incur walling off the darkroom section. From the product shots it looks to me like the majority of the machine can be operated in a daylight area. This may not be perfectly ideal if I need to fix something mid development however...that being said RT machines work the same way. Once the roll is loaded, if something goes wrong you're exposing that roll to light.

(2 or 3 years ago I was quoted roughly 35-40k for an RT machine, now they're probably around 50k (65 w/ tariffs). At the time there was no dealer, now there is. I have to think that a big part of the cost inflation is this middle man. Yayyy middle men.

I'm looking into SBA and USDA programs that may have low interest loans and / or grants. We are squarely in what the USDA considers a rural area so if I could fund partially this through grants, obviously that would be incredible. Not sure what the political situation means for small business development grants however. I have to think there would be some money for this kind of thing and an operation of our kind.

You need an entire dedicated room for a D&D and also for the operator that loads the hangers, so the footprint is much higher than any minilab machine. Main problem I have seen with film developed in D&D is dirtyness, so the room and machine need careful cleaning and probably some kind of air purification system. On exchange you get very versatile machine, you can develop any format in each run and mixed together (35 mm strips with 4x5" sheets).

NortheastPhotographic said:

I got the quote on the D&D Roboline unit. $135k. That's about the cost of 2 RT machines actually so from a spending perspective it's similar to what I was looking at. That apparently includes some basic accessories and installation. Though I doubt it includes whatever costs I'd incur walling off the darkroom section. From the product shots it looks to me like the majority of the machine can be operated in a daylight area. This may not be perfectly ideal if I need to fix something mid development however...that being said RT machines work the same way. Once the roll is loaded, if something goes wrong you're exposing that roll to light.

(2 or 3 years ago I was quoted roughly 35-40k for an RT machine, now they're probably around 50k (65 w/ tariffs). At the time there was no dealer, now there is. I have to think that a big part of the cost inflation is this middle man. Yayyy middle men.

I'm looking into SBA and USDA programs that may have low interest loans and / or grants. We are squarely in what the USDA considers a rural area so if I could fund partially this through grants, obviously that would be incredible. Not sure what the political situation means for small business development grants however. I have to think there would be some money for this kind of thing and an operation of our kind.

Click to expand...

Tell the USDA it's a biofuel machine that runs on shelled corn and hog sh*t. 100% paid for

halfaman said:

D&D and also for the operator that loads the hangers, so the footprint is much higher than any minilab machine

Click to expand...

D&D is overall more labor intensive, isn't it? I'd factor that into the cost profile.

koraks said:

D&D is overall more labor intensive, isn't it? I'd factor that into the cost profile.

Click to expand...

Roll film is always done the same. You unwind the film and hang it. For 35 mm is more labour intensive than minilabs, but for 120/220 it is the opposite.

halfaman said:

but for 120/220 it is the opposite.

Click to expand...

For 120 in a minilab all you need is a dark box and a dark cassette. It is no more labor-intensive than having to remove a 35mm film from the film cassette in the darkbox. I would estimate it might take 30-40 seconds longer than using a film picker (for 35mm) and then splicing the film to the leader card.

As I said earlier, I am not a fan of D&D. They do have a bigger footprint, taking in dark & light side etc. Also, operating them requires more knowledge and experience. I have seen operators misload the rack onto the machine, racks falling mid transport, etc. (Maybe darkroom goggles would have helped).

Yes, they are very versatile, film format size, but also remember C41 correctly done and monitored will yield excellent results regardless of processor type.

Based on the available PDFs it seems like I really only need a light tight section of a room that cordons off the entrance panel and stores the racks. I'd need to hear more from Colenta on this. They have pictures showing the wet section completely caged in by side panels so I'd assume that portion could be daylight just like our RT machine is.

We actually do run an air purifier pretty much 24/7 in that space. I'm not going to say you can eat off every surface but dust is under control. It looks to me like all the tanks have little flap lids that open and close to probably prevent oxidation.

In terms of the relative complexity of operating the machine, yeah that's something I'd be concerned about. I can train up people on it but RT is very straight forward. The problem with RT is that even though they say you can run sheet film in them, it's never a great idea due to the much thicker base. So if we wanna keep running sheets, we'll probably still be maintaining a Jobo based line. A couple times a month I'll mix up 1L of C41 chems and do sheets in the Jobo, but it's a pain. All the lower tanks in the 2500 are configured for XTol and 3 bath E6, so I have to use the rear tanks. Temper it all, mix Dev plus starter etc...and then even with Expert drums there is a lot of handling of the sheets in general. Having a true touchless dry to dry system is a big advantage.

Not going back to minilab processors of any kind.

NortheastPhotographic said:

So if we wanna keep running sheets, we'll probably still be maintaining a Jobo based line. A couple times a month I'll mix up 1L of C41 chems and do sheets in the Jobo, but it's a pain. All the lower tanks in the 2500 are configured for XTol and 3 bath E6, so I have to use the rear tanks. Temper it all, mix Dev plus starter etc...

Click to expand...

A quick suggestion... if you are already running a replenished C-41 processor you are most likely throwing away perfectly good developer. The waste that goes out the overflow is the same as what is in the developer tank.

So...if you set up a small surge tank, you can feed your developer overflow into it (rig up the surge tank to overflow into the original waste line). Then anytime you need a small quantity of "ready to go" developer just pour it out of the surge tank.

Fwiw you can do the same thing with bleach. I would NOT wanna do this with fixer; in a well set up process you'll be using a multi-stage fixer system that keeps the silver more concentrated in the overflow line. So you don't wanna be doing the final fixing with moderately silver-laden fixer.

This has been an interesting thread to wade through. I owned a small business for over 30 years with a lot of attention paid to our numbers (especially after nearly tanking in our early years). We were in a service/repair business- we analyzed something like 30 different Key Performance Indicators weekly to keep us on track. As a small business we know how swiftly one can fall into unprofitable territory (I certainly do!). In our case new technology required that we spend significant sums to keep up. We were making these investments that were bets on future sales, just like what you are facing now. It’s not easy. Do the math, write the (realistic) business plan. Talk to your accountant. Determine the return on investment, be sure to add in infrastructure and increased labor costs. Paying back a $135k loan is no picnic for a business of your size. It’s fun to discuss the shiny new machines one desires, managing the $ where you make it or break it.

Very interested in this thread.

I have always thought D+D is the most elegant. I have old catalogs from Pako that showed a huge setup for developing roll film.

And wearing the tie is not an option!

And a white shirt, shined shoes. I love those old gear ads. It can get even sillier. A manufacturer was promoting a new model of table saw, and had a simulation shot of the product done in a pro photo studio. The nicely clothed model, without a bit of sawdust on him, had no eye or ear protection, and was feeding the board into the saw blade the backwards direction rotationally, with his hand directly in line with the blade. Nothing was actually plugged in, so the Mfg Rep asked what harm was there to the ad? I responded that if someone equally uninformed takes a wrong clue from that ad, and gets a hand or arm cut off, or loses an eye, or even worse, it would lead to a multimillion dollar lawsuit. The Marketing Monkeys got the point and withdrew the ad.

Now if I see someone in a white shirt with a tie, and shined shoes, I think, either a Mormon missionary or an FBI agent.

Don't want to get grease on that shirt fiddling with the unprotected chain and gears.