Straight enlargement compared to Scan and print?

[WarEaglemtn]

Have some nice chromes a friend has done with his 8x10. Velvia and intended to print on Cibachrome. His lab informed him they junked all the enlargers and now scan and print everything. "no one prints with enlargers any more" is what they told him while I we were at the counter of the lab.

I think he will not get as sharp an image with a scan as with a straight enlargement from his 8x10 chromes directly to Cibachrome. The lab guys insist 'digital is better, sharper' and every other superlative they can lay on him in trying to get him to go their route.

He is used to enlarging to 30x40 and bigger directly from the 8x10 Velvia.
Can the digital actually do what these guys claim or are they the modern incarnation of TheYellowPeril insisting RC is everything they wish it was?

 

[Eric Rose]

I see very little difference between high quality scans printed digitally and regular prints.

 

[copake_ham]

I think you need only ask this question:

If they've ditched all their enlargers and only print from scans - what else would they say except that digital is better?

 

[Jim Noel]

Digital is likely faster, uses less labor and is thus cheaper for them to make and still charge the same or more.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

There is still a factor of operator skill, or operator error, depending upon approach. It is too generalized to claim one method is better than another. If very well done by either method, then the way it was done will not be perceptible.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[boyooso]

Operator skill is vital and will make the final print shine whether in the god-ly optical realm or the nethor regions d***tal realm.

However, digital is not sharper it is false sharpness. And to shoot 8x10 and scan is completely pointless.... that is if you've seen optically printed 8x10.

I still print from 8x10 transparencies in my lab.

www.cibachrome.com

Sorry for the plug, people do still make prints from enlargers

Corey

 

[boyooso]

Digital is likely faster, uses less labor and is thus cheaper for them to make and still charge the same or more.

But the equipment is VASTLY more expensive to purchase and keep up with service contracts...

There is so much copetition to keep the equipment running 24/7 that is why labs cut prices.

Corey

 

[Bob Carnie]

This is a very loaded question which I face all the time.
I print Cibachrome both digitally and traditionally. I have compared both methods.
Here are my humble opinions

A straight enlargement from a transparancey using glass carriers will be sharper than a scan then digital print.*reasoning less generations to final print.

Here is where I will get in trouble.

I prefer a digital cibachrome print than a traditional one.*bear in mind folks I do this for a living and I can make the print either way*

Reasons.
1.original chromes coming into the lab come in all shape, sizes and conditions. They have been stored correctly incorrectly and most of the 35mm work has been put in a heated projector.
The last few years we spend untold amounts of energy cleaning the original to make a perfect dust free print.*remember dust will show as black mark and is near impossible to retouch. I only know one expert in this area and she is good but always a small imperfection will show.* we try try and try and then we get the print finished .
2. contrast control in PS is incredibley easy and allows us to use the higher grade original cibachrome emulsion.
3. Needless to say the dodge / burn controls are magnified
4. Select colour enhanment and ability to work with complimentary colours within the image is numerous.
5. Selective sharpening to draw the eye can be done to over come the sharpness issue.
6.Once the file is dustbusted there are no black marks.

Anyone thinking I am the Devil should google Bob Pace 70's in the virtual heyday of cibachrome printing and you will find that enlarged 8x10 dupes were made from the originals and all of the above enhancements were done by hand.*I did this myself as well. Trouble is since 1994 nobody will pay for complicated contrast masks, or master dupes as I describe.

I would agree with the lab in question, the only difference is I still use my enlargers on a daily basis and have no intentions of getting rid of them.
Bob

Have some nice chromes a friend has done with his 8x10. Velvia and intended to print on Cibachrome. His lab informed him they junked all the enlargers and now scan and print everything. "no one prints with enlargers any more" is what they told him while I we were at the counter of the lab.

I think he will not get as sharp an image with a scan as with a straight enlargement from his 8x10 chromes directly to Cibachrome. The lab guys insist 'digital is better, sharper' and every other superlative they can lay on him in trying to get him to go their route.

He is used to enlarging to 30x40 and bigger directly from the 8x10 Velvia.
Can the digital actually do what these guys claim or are they the modern incarnation of TheYellowPeril insisting RC is everything they wish it was?

 

[boyooso]

Bob,

Art is not an easy thing, nor should one try to make art easy. We should try to do it our best.

Most of you arguments for digital cibachrome are for the ease. NOT FOR QUALITY.

I freely admit that for dust issues I wish I could work in P.S.

Handmade cibachrome is NOT easy, and sometimes it is NOT FUN, but it is BEAUTIFUL. I can't say that for the DIGITAL ciba I've seen, though I haven't seen your prints.

I find there are some people wanting handmade prints and are willing to pay for it. There is virtually no one doing it anymore.

Corey

 

[digiconvert]

Bob,

Art is not an easy thing, nor should one try to make art easy. We should try to do it our best.

Most of you arguments for digital cibachrome are for the ease. NOT FOR QUALITY.

It depends on the end user - If you are producing work commercially the end user will likely not care a less if the picture is all analoue, all digital or hybrid . If I were doing it for myself and had a transparency which was REALLY wonderful I would want it done by a real Ilfochrome expert, for ME!! I guess one reason why a 'wet' print would be better might be that an enthusiast would take greater time over the process than someone who 'pushes the button' (I do know that not all digital workers are in this category) . Personally I am not a great fan of hair shirts but I do sometimes take the hard route because I find it interesting - wouldn't do it for a living unless I was paid a premium though.

I find there are some people wanting handmade prints and are willing to pay for it. There is virtually no one doing it anymore.

Corey

As I said pay a premium and you can have what you want - in an era where images from a cameraphone video at 320 x 240 are broadcast by the BBC I have a feeling that quality is not seen as a priority for many people though !

Keep up the good work - wish I had your skills

Chris benton

 

[Bob Carnie]

Corey
Since this is an analoque site I am respectful of the hand made print you are discussing, If the truth be known if there is anyone on this site who prints as many days a year in a wet darkroom as myself I would like to meet that person and have a beer and discuss photography.
My posts are not to be mistaken as if I globally prefer digital printing, but for Cibachrome and Colour Work I do. For Black and White work I will never move from enlarger base and split printing ,flashing,toning adjustments.
You have not seen my work digitally or traditionally so you have to basically take my word about my preferences and abilitiys.
Right now as far as I know there are a handful of labs producing cibachrome and even smaller amount producing fibre prints traditionally and digitally.
I am one of them, and will stand by the QUALITY of my work. Photography is a seven day a week 52 week a year love for me .
The original poster asked the question that I think I am more than qualified to answer as to why a cibachrome lab switched to digital cibachromes.

So far your argument is that hand made prints are harder to do therefore they are better?? sorry that dosen't wash with me.
I think that PS is a very difficult program to master and I am still on a steep learning curve. I am 54 years young and decided to enhance my skill level by combining traditional and digital.
In my market and competing against other pro art labs if one does not know how to manipulate an image to the artist needs you are sunk.
You say you wish you could work in PS for dust issues, tell me how are you adjusting local contrast, local colour corrections and how are you enhancing colours within the scene? I would be very curious to see you spell it out in your next post your maskmaking proceedures that you are doing each day to accomplish this. I have done these complicated masks in the 70's and 80's and wonder if you are doing this on a daily basis on your handcrafted art prints. I am not trying to grief you but I would like to hear how you accomplish daily what my Lab and a few others pro labs are doing on a daily basis.
If you are Hand making colour correction and contrast masks and making mural cibachrome prints with multiple exposures I bow my hat to you and will give you all the credit you would deserve. Otherwise I would ask you to consider what I do as worthy and stop the art vs method bullshit.
I would not try to confuse the issue about Art vs a well crafted cibachrome print.
In my experience Art is a easy thing and it should be made easy. It just takes 30years of very hard craftmanship and dedication to accomplish.

The lab in question must be in Europe as I am only aware of your Lab* Corey*, Hance Partners , Lamount Imaging and Elevator that are in the Cibachrome printing business. I think all these labs have not dumped any of their wet darkroom.*forgot to mention Jeff Wall but he prints his own*
Elevators darkrooms contain over 80 ft of sink , 11 4x5 enlargers, 3 8x10, 1 11x14 enlarger, and a mural room to do 40x60inch traditional hand made prints.
A Lambda unit is attached to these rooms as well and its output is processed in these rooms and in fact is one of the main reasons my traditional lab is allowed to stay such a large footprint in a very pricey real estate market.
Mixing of technologys is the reality of the photographic lab market today and will be the way of the future, there definately is a place for both.
I would prefer not to argue the merits of one method over the other as I can and have done both and everything that is in the PS manual came from traditional methods and it is pleasing to me to be finding that I am able to make complex adjustments to an image once again and get paid to do it.

Bob,

Art is not an easy thing, nor should one try to make art easy. We should try to do it our best.

Most of you arguments for digital cibachrome are for the ease. NOT FOR QUALITY.

I freely admit that for dust issues I wish I could work in P.S.

Handmade cibachrome is NOT easy, and sometimes it is NOT FUN, but it is BEAUTIFUL. I can't say that for the DIGITAL ciba I've seen, though I haven't seen your prints.

I find there are some people wanting handmade prints and are willing to pay for it. There is virtually no one doing it anymore.

Corey

 

[David Henderson]

I used to get prints made from medium format Velvia by a serious lab in London as R Types. About five years ago I switched from this to drum scan and print on a LightJet /Chromira on Crystal Archive photo paper. In my view the drum/Chromira/Crystal Archive route has given me far superior prints in terms of colour accuracy, detail, contrast handling,apparent sharpness, replicability. To the point that whilst I was somewhat uncomfortable with 18" sq optical prints from 6x6, I can now have prints made up to 36" sq at least that I'm happy to display and sell.

Further, this route opens up more control since with many providers you can choose to perform scanning or file creation or both yourself if your skills and facilities permit. If someone else is making the file I would always get a proof before the first full-size print so that interpretation can be checked/adjusted.

But the most important point is this. The quality of a LightJet or Chromira or Lambda print is not really a function of the technology. It is much more a function of the skills and attitudes of the people making them. These days everyone and their mother have set up "digital print" labs and they tend to have very similar equipment. This does not mean that they are all capable of making excellent prints or even good prints- which is why IMO anyway there are a lot of film photographers convinced that no form of digital printing will ever make as good prints from their film as they used to be able to get optically. So who you choose to do it is vitally important, and frankly I'd be looking at people with proven skills over a long period rather than someone whose just made a switch. There's a thread active now about West Coast Imaging. Take a look at what people say about them.

 

[Donald Miller]

While I no longer do color work for myself. I will go on to say that I have seen good digital output and it beats the best Cibachrome that I have ever seen...that includes the work of some well known and noteworthy photographers.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

I appreciate the discussion and am learning some things from it. I will try some of you who are lab owners/workers to see how your systems work for me in the future.

Getting reliable information is sure hard these days. Puffery and adspeak are, as almost always, the norm. In printing I do all my own B&W work and farm out the Ilfochromes. If there is a way to really take advantage of the sharpness, detail in shadows and smooth tonalities we get shooting 8x10 by merging it with the scans and control offered in Photoshop I will try it. My concern was in working with people who don't seem to understand what causes us to use big chromes or negatives in the first place.

8x10 and other contact prints are my standard for comparison. From there it gets interesting when discussing photo quality. Very much so when you talk with those who have little understanding as to why the larger formats are really used. The idea of 'bigger is better' is no more a universal solution than anything else. I use the formats (as do the buddy whose woes prompted the post) because they work for what I do and give me the results I want.

I look forward to trying out the expertise of those who have posted on this one.

 

[Jadedoto]

I think the correct question you should ask while there is where all their enlargers are so that you can get them...

 

[bob100684]

the one really nice thing about the scan/print route, once it's scanned as long as they save it, prints from that scan and lab will be far more consistant than getting optical reprints from that chrome or neg. Doing it yourself optically would probably be even more consistant than that though.

 

[davetravis]

Well, I have to agree with Bob C. on this one.
The "problems" with Ciba are much easier to fix with Scan/PS. I had one made at the local lab just to compare to my optical, and could see some small differences in shadow detail, but the sharpness was slightly less.
We photogs tend to be much more critical than the viewing public, but maybe that's a good thing.
Long live Ciba!!!

 

[nworth]

The usual lab technique is to use a machine that scans the transparency and prints it, using lasers, to a color negative paper, such as Fuji Crystal Archive or Kodak Endura. These machines are capable of very high quality prints. Some custom labs may, at a considerable price, separate the scanning step and correct the scan with software, such as Photoshop, to optimize the print.

The problem, if it is one, is that the print will not quite look like Cibachrome. It will look like a quality print on negative material (if they use that route) or a quality inkjet print (if they do it that way). There is a considerable difference in the look of a print made by these three methods.

My advice is for you to have a couple of prints done, and see if you like the results. If you do, fine. Otherwise, shop around. The abilities of labs vary a lot, and the techniques vary some, too. There are even some labs that will still make Cibachromes, although that is becoming expensive. Or you can make your own Cibachromes.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Working with a D-file from a film image (negative or positive) do have some practical and cost advantages. Besides eliminating dust and scratches, there are some things you could do (with PS or similar software) painlessly and easily than with sending off the original film material to the lab.

First, the original tranny or neg stays with you. No need to fear about these getting damaged from careless handling or accidents (which even the most fastidious are not immune from).

Second, the image's desired 'look' can be 'made' - or customised - in PS. Dodging, burning in, colour grading, and even localised colour alterations can be made. Scratches and stubborn dust can be eliminated. Hand spotting on blemished prints are no longer necessary. All these of course depends on PS skills. A certain degree of skill is also needed to make excellent wet prints.

Third, with trannies and positive film images, there is no longer a need to use special reversal papers. Unless Cibachrome prints are required. Being able to get prints from slides on 'regular' RA-4 type papers can be cost effective for applications which don't need Cibachrome specialties.

Fourth, once the 'custom' settings are locked in the file, there is no longer a need to resort to custom printing. Everytime the photo is printed, it will have all those qualities. Even a routine postcard-sized print from a mini-1 hour lab will show these.

The last is an effective way of making work prints. Even BWs can benefit with this method. Those who don't do (or can't) print wet BW printing on their own can at least preview their work and apply the needed corrections first on their computers and send the file off to be printed in a minilab. Then, if an optical print on bromide, FB paper is desired, the work print can be used as a sampler to direct or instruct the (wet) printer on how the print is supposed to be done. The work print can act as a guide, for say, where, and how much, to burn, dodge, or even crop.

Jay

 

[Chan Tran]

I think in general scan/print a transparency yields better result because you can get better color and contrast with a digital print because you have more control of them. There is one short coming of a digital print is that they are all limited to around 300ppi. So a print from an enlarger would have more details than a digital print (for an 8x10 print from an 8x10 transparency) but for many people these details may not be visible to the naked eyes. If you view the prints with a loupe the print from an enlarger would definitely yield more details.

 

[Ed_Nyari]

Hi

It seems to me, that everyone is talking about this imaginary digital process, which has an unknown scanner involved.
Which scanner are we talking about here and what kind of digital workflow.
Digital printing can look a million different ways, depending on how the files look. If you use noise reduction, and sharpening, of course it's going to look much different. But if you leave the films natural edge falloff as it is on film, and do not reduce grain, and use a drum scanner to capture the full dynamic range, it's going to look much closer to an optical print.
I hope nobody here is ruining perfectly good Ilfochrome materials by exposing them to digital files from consumer film scanners.
Of course, I still admit that opticals would look sharper, but a digital print done right should look like a slightly fuzzier version of an optical print.