Process and print questions

[osh]

I'm considering starting to use film for more general day to day photography as opposed to just landscape, and was thinking that (I know this sound very old fashioned!) of simply getting prints made at the same time as processing to put in photo albums. I appreciate that I could scan negatives and send them off to be printed, but realistically know that I wouldn't get round to it. With that in mind, does anybody have any recommendations for the best labs to use, both for black and white and for colour?

Also, for prints of around 5x7, would I be just as well off using a 35mm camera as opposed to a medium format 6x6 or 6x7 camera? I can see that a bigger negative gives more flexibility if I wanted to scan myself, print big at a later date etc but I suppose that needs to be weighted up with the fact that it seems to cost roughly the same to process and print 10 120 pictures as it does to process and print 36 35mm pictures.

 

[Steve Smith]

Well done. Not everything needs to end up on a computer!

There are other variables such as type of film, weather conditions, tripod or hand held, etc. which will affect an image more than using 35mm or medium format when printed to 5x7.

However, although it costs the same to get 36 prints from 35mm as it does 10 or 12 from 120, I have found that I take more care with the medium format and produce better pictures.

For black and white, I suggest Ilford Lab Direct. They will give you prints on real black and white paper, not colour paper adjusted for a neutral tone, or even worse, inkjet prints. For colour, I usually use Peak Imaging or Transpacolor.


Steve.

 

[ChrisR]

I've only had 3 shots printed externally so far, all at Peak, and they did a great job, and not too expensive. It was a C-type print, I think. There's a mob in Edinburgh called something like Glicee UK who do quality inkjet printing, a tad expensive and I guess outside your workflow idea.

I've actually found good results from printing at home on a Canon MG5250, up to (well, so far only) A4 size. I got Kodak Premium Plus paper from WH Smith at a stupid discount, and use Canon inks, print from Aperture. I'm sure I could do better, but noticed no significant improvement in the A4 shot I got from Peak. Most have been colour so far, and my few goes at black and white haven't been quite so good, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. An acquaintance who prints a lot of black and white told me he'd changed from Canon to an A3 Epson, but I didn't want that expense. I've also bought a Canon MG6350 which has 6 inks (the extra a grey, for better b&w) but haven't really used that in anger yet.

On choice of camera, at a 5*7 level I think you should let other considerations dictate your camera; 35mm would be fine, with reasonable lenses (my guess even half frame would be OK).

 

[trevorbray]

Mmm...had my last roll of 35mm colour film processed at AG. Got them to send me 7x5 prints but no scan. Thought process involved me thinking i'll scan anything worthwhile myself...never gonna happen.
Great quality prints though, pity the shots weren't as good.
Definitely do it again, something special about prints. Even if the shots aren't so good.

 

[osh]

Well done. Not everything needs to end up on a computer!

There are other variables such as type of film, weather conditions, tripod or hand held, etc. which will affect an image more than using 35mm or medium format when printed to 5x7.

However, although it costs the same to get 36 prints from 35mm as it does 10 or 12 from 120, I have found that I take more care with the medium format and produce better pictures.

For black and white, I suggest Ilford Lab Direct. They will give you prints on real black and white paper, not colour paper adjusted for a neutral tone, or even worse, inkjet prints. For colour, I usually use Peak Imaging or Transpacolor.


Steve.

Thanks Steve. Good point about taking more care - I doubt I would get as many keepers with 36 shots to a roll! I suppose there are other factors too, for example even with small prints there would be less grain from fast films on medium format and more sharpness with handheld photos with a lower shutter speed(?)

I was thinking Peak for colour too. Come to think of it I did once get some 8x8 prints made from a roll of Portra shot on my Rolleiflex once and they were very nice. Good to hear Ilford Lab is good for black and white too. I've always been a bit disappointed with scans from labs, and worry that prints would look similar. I think I'll try and shoot a roll and send it off soon just to see.

I've only had 3 shots printed externally so far, all at Peak, and they did a great job, and not too expensive. It was a C-type print, I think. There's a mob in Edinburgh called something like Glicee UK who do quality inkjet printing, a tad expensive and I guess outside your workflow idea.

I've actually found good results from printing at home on a Canon MG5250, up to (well, so far only) A4 size. I got Kodak Premium Plus paper from WH Smith at a stupid discount, and use Canon inks, print from Aperture. I'm sure I could do better, but noticed no significant improvement in the A4 shot I got from Peak. Most have been colour so far, and my few goes at black and white haven't been quite so good, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. An acquaintance who prints a lot of black and white told me he'd changed from Canon to an A3 Epson, but I didn't want that expense. I've also bought a Canon MG6350 which has 6 inks (the extra a grey, for better b&w) but haven't really used that in anger yet.

On choice of camera, at a 5*7 level I think you should let other considerations dictate your camera; 35mm would be fine, with reasonable lenses (my guess even half frame would be OK).

Thanks Chris. Printing at home sounds like a good practical solution too and I will look into that. My only concern is that the weak part of my workflow at the moment is the scanning stage so getting prints from a lab could avoid that (though I could try and get my own scans printed to see how they look). Another solution possibly would be to send negatives to UK Film Lab to be processed and scanned and then send the scans to be printed by Peak or Ilford Lab or print them myself. They seem to get very good results.

I have used Peak too for scanned film. I sent a scan of a Velvia transparency which I had scanned on an Imacon by Ian Scovell (great service and I keep meaning to send some more to him!) to be printed on Fujiflex paper and it looks absolutely lovely - must get some more done the same way, and with scans of around 8,000 pixels at the longest length (6x7) you could print pretty big!

So to conclude a rather rambling post I think my overall aim this year is to come up with a better workflow than just scanning film and putting the pictures on the web.

 

[osh]

Mmm...had my last roll of 35mm colour film processed at AG. Got them to send me 7x5 prints but no scan. Thought process involved me thinking i'll scan anything worthwhile myself...never gonna happen.
Great quality prints though, pity the shots weren't as good.
Definitely do it again, something special about prints. Even if the shots aren't so good.

Thanks Trevor I definitely agree that there's something special about prints, even when the pictures aren't fantastic. Also I think it would be good to have them to look back at in the future rather than just having negatives in an envelope...

 

[Steve Smith]

My possibly derogatory comment about ink jet prints in my earlier post was only aimed at black and white. For colour, I think it's possible to make very good colour prints using good paper, inks and technique but for black and white, ink jet doesn't stand a chance against proper photographic paper.


Steve.