Traditional chemical or inkjet prints?

[Chess]

I have no experience with film printed via inkjet printers in modern day labs.
My question, is there a big difference between having prints made using the conventional chemical process v inkjet?

I'll be looking to have prints made but have reservations about inkjet printers. I've only quickly started to look at labs and it appears many now print via inkjet. If anyone has any traditional lab suggestions for Melbourne, Australia, please feel free to pass them on.

Any info or experiences I'd love to read them!

 

[removed account4]

There are many differences that hard core film and chemical photograph makers claim they notice between ink (pigment) prints and silver prints. They claim the image is on the surface of the paper instead of part of the paper (whatever that means) because its not a chemical reaction. Personally I have no idea what they are talking about, I've been making both for myself ( well not pigment but ink ) and for clients ( archival / pigment but not ink ) for decades, and have paid fine labs to make some pigment prints for me as well. They look and feel and seem the same to me and behind glass I can't tell the difference. Cost ? neither prints made well by a professional are inexpensive.

These are my experiences, and I am certain there are people who will come out of the woodwork and say the opposite of me because they are haters and have axes to grind ( SSDD ) and probably have no experience with ink jet or pigment prints made by someone who knows what they are doing. The differences I have found are minuscule if the prints are made well, not made well ... well that's a different story. you can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig ( whether it is silver or pigment ).

good luck!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have no experience with film printed via inkjet printers in modern day labs.
My question, is there a big difference between having prints made using the conventional chemical process v inkjet?

I'll be looking to have prints made but have reservations about inkjet printers. I've only quickly started to look at labs and it appears many now print via inkjet. If anyone has any traditional lab suggestions for Melbourne, Australia, please feel free to pass them on.

Any info or experiences I'd love to read them!

I have no experience with Labs down under but, in Germany are use a lab called 'white wall who make inkjet prints that rival any wet dark room print I've seen.

 

[foc]

The differences I have found are minuscule if the prints are made well,

Exactly. A good print is a good print.
Personally, I like RA4 prints but I am being picky. ( I used to own a lab). The inkjet technology used in minilabs like the Fuji Frontier is excellent and the results are top quality.
The deciding factor is the labs quality control.
To be perfectly honest, most people don't know or care about the difference.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I have found ink-jet prints fall apart when it comes to deep shadow detail. Ink-jet printers set up with 4 cartridges with black/dark grey/grey/light grey inks do a much better job as do printers with a high dots/pixel ratio. Consumer printers are rather horrid when it comes to shadow detail. Scanning also contributes to lack of shadow detail as a 24 bit color scan can only produce 256 shades of grey, this is OK in the highlights but not so much in the shadows.

To exaggerate the difference: Take a silver print and illuminate it from the back to illuminate the shadow detail; Do the same with an ink jet print to illuminate the lack of same.

For 99.9% of the prints the lack of deep shadow detail is irrelevant. Then there are the obsessives who worry about such things and examine prints with a high power LED flashlight and a 10x jewelers' loupe. I find there is something transcendent in information you can not see clearly but who's existence can be revealed - it makes the print 'organic'. But then there is the issue of an analog medium's S/N ratio, in this case the grain.

 

[BradS]

Yes, of course there is a difference. How can there not be? One is made by a human being and one is made by a computer controlled machine.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, of course there is a difference. How can there not be? One is made by a human being and one is made by a computer controlled machine.

computer, scanner and printer are tools; so is the darkroom; all are controlled by a human. if the technologies are sufficient, this human can create a perfect print with any of them.rarely do these prints have to compete side-by-side. all that matters is that they can satisfy the observer.

 

[Pioneer]

If I print for myself I like them all.

If I print for my friends they don't ask questions.

If I print for a contest or a forum exchange I follow their rules.

 

[MattKing]

Thread moved to a sub-forum where it sort of fits.
The subject kind of straddles a couple of different forum subjects.
On the subject itself, I either make my own darkroom prints, or I send digital files out to be printed on colour photographic (RA4 process) paper or, when I need something quick and cheap and local, I send digital files out to be printed on inkjets.
I get much nicer black and white prints if I do them in a darkroom, but that is as much a measure of my interests, experience and skills as anything else.
I used to make really good colour darkroom prints as well, but haven't done much of that recently.
I prefer colour prints on RA4 paper to inkjet prints, but that doesn't mean that I haven't seen some spectacularly good colour inkjet prints. I have friends who are very skilled at making those.

 

[faberryman]

The easy way to answer the question is to get a chomogenic print and an inkjet print of the same image and decide which one you like. Me telling you I like one or the other isn't really that helpful.

One thing you might want to think about is how the print is derived. Did you give the printer a negative and did he make a print from the negative? Or did he scan it and send it to say a Fuji Frontier or Noritsu print machine which makes chromogenic prints from digital files. If it was a transparency, did he make a film internegative and print from that or scan it and make a chromogenic print from the scan. If the print is made from a scan, how good is the scanner? There are quite a number of variables to consider.

 

[foc]

Three years ago I went to a Fuji Frontier dry lab (inkjet) demo. I brought along two silver halide prints, each in 6x4 & 8x12inch in luster (matte) finish, that I had printed on my own Fuji Frontier 7700 wet lab.
I also had the same two digital files on a USB drive. It was these two images, for reference.



We printed out, on the dry lab, a set of prints in the same sizes and finish as the ones I had brought. We lay them side by side on the table and asked 4 people from the office to come in and pick the wet and dry prints. They could only tell the difference when they picked up the print. The drylab print surface feels slightly tacky.
Other than that, they thought they looked the same.
I brought all the prints back to my shop and did a similar survey with customers at the counter. Again no one saw any difference.

I use this as an example, as the OP had asked about prints from a lab.

If you make prints on a home inkjet, well that can be completely different as you have other factors like, paper quality, printer quality, ink quality.

 

[faberryman]

We lay them side by side on the table and asked 4 people from the office to come in and pick the wet and dry prints. They could only tell the difference when they picked up the print. The drylab print surface feels slightly tacky. Other than that, they thought they looked the same.

I brought all the prints back to my shop and did a similar survey with customers at the counter. Again no one saw any difference.

I think the question is not can other people tell the difference, but whether you can tell a difference, and is that difference important to you.

 

[Bikerider]

For ease and speed for printing I would go Inkjet and they are very good now, but I simply do not get the satisfaction of a darkroom wet print, either colour or B&W. You have to work at it which when it all come together is a source of a sense of achievement 'cos it is by your hand, skill and not done for you. Apart from anything else if you are good at it darkroom printing can work out cheaper.

 

[Pieter12]

For color, I am pretty happy with inkjet. But I only shoot digital color and don't even do that much color at the moment. For black and white, I have had excellent results from inkjet/piezography prints from digital files. With film negatives, I prefer to print my own wet prints because I like the experience of making those prints, and they complete the process from making the decision about what film and developer to use, composing and taking the photo and finally cropping and printing.

 

[guangong]

If you don’t do the work yourself, does the process used really make a difference? Part of the pleasure of photography is practicing the whole process from start to finish. Certain areas of professional photography, such as advertising, wedding, or news, only make sense with a division of labor. My late friend Louie Stettner did all of his own darkroom work. I understand that C-B had others do his darkroom work.
There are many approaches to a finished photo. The best is the one that suits the photographer.

 

[gone]

Unless you're using carbon black ink(s), an inkjet print isn't going to be as archival as a properly made darkroom print. If you store your prints in boxes, the inkjet prints will lose some of their ink due to scuffing against each other, and over time won't look as fresh. It doesn't take much to affect the image, it's sitting up on top of the paper, a darkroom print has the image IN the print. Inkjets are printed on coated papers, and no one knows how long they will last. Same w/ the inks.

So sure, an inkjet print can look great, I have some....... or HAD some. They faded away due to the slow loss of the inks. Now they don't look so great. The darkroom prints look fine.

Just my 2 cents here. I wasted 20 years scanning and printing inkjet prints. To get quality prints, sending them out to be printed is very expensive and you have zero control over that. Not good. I want to control the whole process, from taking the picture to choosing the developer myself, dilution strength, all that. I know how I want it to look, someone else doesn't. And film is indeed an optical process, not one of ones and zeros. People have been making darkroom prints for what, 100 years or more? There's a good reason for that. It works really well.

But if I had the money to send everything out to be darkroom printed to my satisfaction (think BIG money), I would.

 

[Pieter12]

If you don’t do the work yourself, does the process used really make a difference? Part of the pleasure of photography is practicing the whole process from start to finish. Certain areas of professional photography, such as advertising, wedding, or news, only make sense with a division of labor. My late friend Louie Stettner did all of his own darkroom work. I understand that C-B had others do his darkroom work.
There are many approaches to a finished photo. The best is the one that suits the photographer.

I know many professional commercial photographers who are very happy to be liberated from darkroom work, done either by themselves or others. Given the turnaround and client demands, it is not worth the trouble. On the other hand, some of them still do all-analog work for their personal projects.

 

[Chess]

Ok, thanks to all for the great replies. It appears there is a mixed response. I won't quote individual posts because I'll likely be quoting quite a few so I'll just make my own comments below.

Here is why I asked. I recently viewed some conventional mini lab prints from 17 years ago. Now, since digital, I've had many prints made. All from digital files and from some of the highest quality labs and printing processes in my country.
When I viewed these traditional mini lab prints, I have to say, they looked sensational! Completely surprised me how good the tones, the color, the prints almost looked smooth (as one type of description) compared to any of the many digital prints I'd been looking at over the digital era. These mini lab shots were just some window light portraits and some on-camera bounce flash, nothing fancy camera wise. But they simply looked sensational!

That's what prompted the question as I immediately started questioning inkjet quality. I have not printed any prints from film since those film days and thought maybe there is some big difference between traditional and inkjet.

As mentioned by someone, many variables can come into play why the old prints may look so appealing. Film stock itself is certainly one.

I still haven't shot my first roll of film since the film days and since joining this site. I have a digital project I want to finish up first. I will then shoot film, I'll be using the same film stock that I used 17 years ago. I'll get it printed on inkjet and I'll see what comes back. I'll really be fascinated to see.

I do have a good eye for noticing differences. I did in the past print myself for both consumers and professionals.

One last point on the fading of inkjet. I have some prints from the first generation of Epson photo inkjet printers. These first inks were reportedly fading after 12 months. It was only after these first generation of inks that companies like Epson then started looking at making their inks more archival. These prints were likely printed 20 years or so ago at a guess. I stored them in archival plastic sheets in a portfolio case. They've sat there for 20 years, away from light but have always been kept in the room where temperature fluctuates the most. The room gets very hot in summer. Today, those prints with those very first inks look like they came off the printer 5 minutes ago. They are flawless. I think if a normal common sense approach is taken with inkjet prints, they should last a very long time.

When I do eventually shoot my first roll of film and get the results back, I may bump up this thread if people are interested.

Thanks again to everyone! This is a great site for us film fans.

 

[Bikerider]

Part of the pleasure of photography is practicing the whole process from start to finish. /QUOTE]

Absolutely!

That part of your reply says it all for me, I could not agree more. I can understand it if you are running a photography business a digital set up will take a lot of the work load, but as amateurs where mass production is not your next weeks food on the table it is a nice activity to get involved with.

I have heard it compared to the work of a cabinet maker where he/she is tasked to make a good sturdy rocking chair. Buying to wood then measuring up and cutting and trimming the wood by hand, to eventually screw or glue it all together and finish it off with fine coating which was French Polished.

Then the opposite view would be to go to a furniture shop and buy a ready made but still in a flat pack form. the with a screwdriver and possibly a small spanner, construct a chair that was functional and served the purpose but made by the person who bought it with little feeling or knowledge about how the components were formed.

 

[gone]

You can upload files to Fromex and they'll optically machine print it (not an inkjet) on real photographic paper. Unfortunately, it's not a true B&W paper, and doesn't look as good as a B&W darkroom print. But it's easy and affordable. You get a decent image.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

If you want the highest color quality prints, have them printed on FujiFlex crystal archive with polyester base - the hi gloss has a similar finish to the polyester ilfochromes - it just doesn’t get any better than fujiflex. You can get a similar effect on inkjet with pictorico high gloss film which is similar to the Ilford Smooth hi gloss inkjet media (no longer made I believe) and you’ll get “nicer” color prints using dye inks but at the cost of longevity, and i think dye printers are limited to 13” x 19”

Another interesting color option is to print onto Chromaluxe aluminum panels with a dye sub printer.

For black and white, it’s hard to beat a Piezography inkjet print, personally I find they have even better depth and tonality than a real platinum print.

 

[MattKing]

Back in the day, when the photographic lab market was very vibrant, one could obtain a really wide variety of quality in prints, at a wide variety of prices.
I can remember getting really good prints at reasonable prices, and excellent prints at just a bit more.
I also saw many, many mediocre at best prints, frequently from labs that competed on cost.
I worked at places that offered D&P services from budget labs, and would cringe sometimes when customers and I looked at the results.
All of those prints were on traditional photographic paper, and were printed optically.
There is much less competition now, almost everything is printed from digital files, and the majority of labs don't use traditional photographic paper.
Well I prefer the results from traditional photographic paper, I can assure you that the quality of results depends far more on the skill and experience and attitude of those who use the materials and operate the equipment then it does on those materials and that equipment.

 

[Richard Man]

I have been digitally printing for ~15-18 years. I am now printing B&W using Piezography. I have seen museum prints from Avedon, Adams, Fan Ho, and have small number of prints from Ross, Sexton, Ryuji, including small platinum prints etc. etc.

I can say that from a technical printing perspective, piezography is as good, or better than any darkroom prints.

 

[Chess]

Well I prefer the results from traditional photographic paper, I can assure you that the quality of results depends far more on the skill and experience and attitude of those who use the materials and operate the equipment then it does on those materials and that equipment.

I'm totally aware and totally agree. I printed consumer films on a Copal mini lab printer back in the 90's. If I was half a stop out on exposure, I'd redo it. Cheap labs could easily be 2 full stops out and happily hand over the prints. I see the same today with digital printing. I've sourced my first lab to try for my first roll of film. They have very good reviews but the proof will really be when I see the scans and have the prints in my hand.

 

[MattKing]

They have very good reviews but the proof will really be when I see the scans and have the prints in my hand.

Depending on the equipment being used, the scans you receive may or may not be the ones that the lab used to make the prints.