Making the Switch - What Do I Need?

[robertarthur]

I am looking into selling my DR equipment and going digital. I saw some digital black and white image prints last Friday, and it really got me thinking how great it would be to get that kind of print from my desk as opposed to my darkroom which is still in the house I grew up in and about a 15 minute drive.

Therefore, my question is this: I want to be able to process black and white images and print them up to 11x14 (various paper surfaces), other than discussing camera issues, what computer/monitor/printer combo would be recommended. I don't want have to sell the car but I don't mind spending money on quality products and I don't want to start out and then realize I should upgrade to something else.

Thanks in advance.

 

[R Shaffer]

The question is a bit broad, but I'll throw this out there.

1. Computer - least critical and any computer with dual core pentium or equivalent AMD processor. 4gig ram and preferably a graphics card on the better side.
2. Monitor - spend a little extra here and don't forget to include calibration device. I use an NEC Multisync 2690wuxi and I love it.
3. Printer - Epson 2880 as it has the three black inks. If you wanted to go with a dedicated BandW printer, then something that can use the Cone Inkset would be the cats meow.

You don't mention software. I would think that photoshop CS and a good BandW converter like Silver Efex Pro. You can get by with LightRoom (LR) and having a digital asset management software like LR is really convenient.

You can get by with less. If I had to prioritize I would spend $ on the printer as the best computer can't print a great image on a crap printer.

 

[2F/2F]

You already have the film equipment that has been serving you well to this point, so instead of "going" totally digital, I'd look into scanning. If you needed to make pictures for clients, it might be another story, but for personal work, why invest in a bunch of expensive camera stuff that you don't need, and that won't necessarily get you better results (and sometimes significantly worse)? Get the best of both worlds, and save a bunch of the money you would spend going totally digital. YMMV, but that is the way I see it.

So, if you agree, you just need a computer and a scanner, and software. Maybe a printer too, though that is a huge expense once you consider the ink. You don't need a super crazy computer. Just make sure it can get the job done. I have made do till now with 512 MB of RAM, though I do wish to upgrade at some point in the near future. Good scanners can be expensive. If you do 35mm only, I can suggest a Nikon Coolscan based on my experience of owning one. I sold mine on the used market for $700. They are even more crazy when new. If you do medium and large format, I'd suggest a flatbed scanner as a starting point. They can be quite reasonable, and with some modifications, can provide really outstanding scans.

 

[waynecrider]

I've come to a few conclusions while recently working towards putting my portfolio together. First, a good calibrated monitor is of prime importance. NEC manufactures the P221W which comes with calibration software and which I have not read a bad report yet. It's price moderately too. Secondly, I work on a single core 2.8 GHZ machine and it seems plenty fast enough for me, but my files are not all that big. I'm running 3gb of ram. A dual core (old) or Intel I5 (new) and 4 megs should work just fine. Third, owning and working in an image editor like Photoshop is a must. Expect getting alot of chair time, and if you have a bad back, well, oh well. Fourth, I have not gotten a scanned file that truly reflected the image. I have been scanning in chromes and always have to manipulate the images. I also have to always manipulate the images from my digital camera regardless of setting the right white balance; So, Fourth, the scanner is of prime importance. If scanning in 35mm, I'd lean more to a film scanner (expensive) then a flatbed. Nikon is very popular. I have read that some have had good luck with MF, and of course LF, with the Epson V700. Fifth, in the printing arena it's all about printer profiles. Personally if I was only going to print the occasional few for the wall, I'd send them to a local lab and just use a less expensive machine for the day to day stuff. With ink prices in the $70-$100 an ounce range, 11x14 proofs will drain your budget, so proof smaller. Also watch out for threads speaking as to the usage of ink of certain printers. Another thing you will need is desktop storage.
Equipment wise there are plenty of this vs that threads around. Personally I learned to buy what everybody else is buying cause it's usually very good. I'd expect to spend just over $4k without the scanner. It could stay under $5k or go to $7K depending.

 

[robertarthur]

Lot's to Think About! - Thanks.

Thank you for all the replies. It looks as though I would be able to create a good workstation by selling my darkroom equipment and not have much out of pocket.

I really have made the decision to go full digital, even though I understand the issues of silver based negs and scanning, I just really don't want to have to deal with the darkroom anymore.

What is available as far as digital backs for my old Hassey 500? Have those come down in price yet? Should I bother or should I just stay with a good digital slr?

 

[Jim Jones]

I have little enough experience with a DSLR and none with the Hassey, but believe the DSLR is much more cost effective than a digital back for the Hassey. Even some 8mp P&S cameras make satisfactory (to me and to some buyers) 11x14 prints. I just replaced a 7-year-old Epson 2450 scanner with an Epson V700. The former was fine for 4x5 negatives, but marginal for good prints from 120 film. The V700 seems considerably better. My Epson 2800 printer has given fine service for three years. 80ml ink cartridges cost about $50 (or more from Epson). I've replaced 42 of them in making about 3000 prints in sizes from 4x6" to 16x20", most of them 8x5x11".

Unless you find a generous buyer, hang on to your present darkroom gear until you are completely satisfied with a digital workflow. Traditional B&W prints are preferred to digital prints by some discerning photographers. To me the advantage of digital editing make some loss of print quality acceptable.

 

[pschwart]

I think you are looking at the wrong end of the equation. You can easily find a used SLR for a few hundred $$$ that will provide the quality you need for 11x14's.
The brand of printer and your printing workflow will have a much bigger impact on your work than the brand of SLR, so better to spend time thinking about B&W printing. Some things to consider:

- Are you going to print on baryta or watercolor papers? (If you are going to use
both matte and photo blacks, better find a printer that has live channels for
each, or auto-switches.)
- Are you going to use a native color inkset with a RIP or ABW? Or dedicate
a printer using a 3rd-party monochrome ink set (MIS, Piezography ...)?
- A photo editor is required. If you choose Photoshop, that can cost you as
much as an SLR or a good lens. You don't need to be an expert, but you will
need to become at least proficient.

I'd hang onto that darkroom, at least until you are satisfied with the digital options.

Thank you for all the replies. It looks as though I would be able to create a good workstation by selling my darkroom equipment and not have much out of pocket.

I really have made the decision to go full digital, even though I understand the issues of silver based negs and scanning, I just really don't want to have to deal with the darkroom anymore.

What is available as far as digital backs for my old Hassey 500? Have those come down in price yet? Should I bother or should I just stay with a good digital slr?

 

[waynecrider]

Since darkroom equipment for the most part is in such low demand, what you would like to get and what you can, if you can even make a sale, is not what you may expect. I find that 4x5 enlargers seem somewhat more popular.

If your looking to go full digital with a D-SLR purchase I've always found the reviews/ratings given in the British Photo magazines better then the reviews in American ones. In the "lightroom" Photoshop elements is under $100 and may be all you'll really need.

Well you've got your work cut out for you. I wish you luck in your endeavor and look to hearing your accomplishments as you move along.

 

[2F/2F]

I think it depends a lot on what you shoot and how much money you want to blow.

If you make huge prints all the time, shoot products or people for fancy clients, shoot on a tripod at lower ISOs, and have lots of money, then by all means convert your Hasselblad to digital IMO.

But if you want an "all around" system capable of providing pix in pretty much all conditions (all ISOs, tripod or hand held, small to medium prints and occasionally big ones, family fun shots, etc.), just get a small format digital SLR. The lenses and ISOs allow you to do more in various conditions, and the camera won't break the bank. The quality of the picture may be lower in the most ideal conditions (tripod, controlled light, low ISOs), but I think over all the small format system can get "good-enough" images in more situations.

Do you have any 35mm Nikon equipment, or Canon EOS film equipment? If so, each company's respective digital camera would allow you to avoid investing in new lenses.

 

[robertarthur]

I have a Canon 10D with several lenses. I could upgrade the camera easily. It is the monitor and printer and I now see software that I have to give serious consideration. Most of my work with the Hassey and the 4X5 were b&W landscape - usually longish exposures.

 

[robertarthur]

I have a big learning curve!

Some things to consider:
- Are you going to print on baryta or watercolor papers? (If you are going to use
both matte and photo blacks, better find a printer that has live channels for
each, or auto-switches.)
- Are you going to use a native color inkset with a RIP or ABW? Or dedicate
a printer using a 3rd-party monochrome ink set (MIS, Piezography ...)?

No idea on what most that means as of now. Looks like I am going to have to do some serious catching up.

Thank you to all for your responses.

 

[2F/2F]

I have a Canon 10D with several lenses. I could upgrade the camera easily. It is the monitor and printer and I now see software that I have to give serious consideration. Most of my work with the Hassey and the 4X5 were b&W landscape - usually longish exposures.

Oh, heck. Your camera is completely fine. You don't need to sped any money in that area. I have shot a 10D for nearly 8 years, and just recently "upgraded" out of professional necessity (though I am keeping the 10D, as it is worthless on the used market, and I can always borrow lenses from friends for it...including the stellar 50 1.2 that I sold to a friend.) The camera is the least of your worries. I can print 10x15's with the 10D files without upsampling, before I start seeing the image degrade (though my usual size is 8x12). Get a good monitor, software, and learn how to use it. It won't cost you much to switch, since you already have the camera and lenses.

 

[robertarthur]

Thanks again.

Oh, heck. Your camera is completely fine. You don't need to sped any money in that. It won't cost you much to switch, since you already have the camera and lenses.

That is sort of what I was figuring. Thank you.