Where to get prints?

Amp34

Amp34

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
Now I have a a couple of dozen photos I'm fairly happy with I'd live to get a couple of prints done of them to see what they actually look like on paper rather than scanned in.

Where is a good place to get them printed? Specifically somewhere that will print them properly in a darkroom rather than scan them in and print digitally. Scanning seems to really crop the B&W dynamic range and I'd like to see how the scans compare to the actual negatives and slides (which I'm assuming prints will show me - although I understand the paper will make a huge difference in the end product).

I see Peak do printing of film, but is that digitally or on photographic paper?
Prints will probably be a couple of TMax B&W and a couple of Velvia 6x6 120 shots (to size approx 12x12").

Thanks
 
I believe CC Imaging will do proper darkroom prints for Black and White.

I'm not sure whether you'll be able to get your Velvia optically printed as the process has been discontinued. Your only option might be getting it scanned then printed via lightjet or inkjet.
 
Peak do all of their printing digitally on photographic paper (its the exact same paper as used optically, but instead the paper is exposed by an RGB laser or LEDs)

Palm Labs however do both colour C-41 and B&W hand prints:

http://www.palmlabs.co.uk/film-processing-services/black-and-white-film (you want the traditional B&W reprints)

You won't be able to get your Velvia done optically though as Cibachrome was discontinued about a year ago now, and nowhere (in the UK anyway) still offers it. You would probably be best to send in the original transparencies to the lab (such as Palm) as their scanners will be able to probably get a much better representation than most home scanners.
 
Getting good prints is a bit of an issue, it seems to me; unless you've carefully calibrated your monitor it's likely the colours and tonal depth may vary from what you expect. Peak will send you a free "simple calibration" print, and you can download a file and then compare and adjust your monitor until they look acceptably similar. I have the print but have not attempted the exercise yet. My first 3 prints from Peak are fairly ok for colour, but some of the darker areas have come out much darker than I expected. They're still up on the wall, though! (They are from 35mm transparencies scanned at 3600 dpi.)

I've discovered that the local lab in Newington here will do C-type prints up to around A3 for a bit over a fiver, so I'm going to try them, and there's also a local fine art Giclee printer, charging around 3 times that, but presumably giving a lot more manual attention. I'm still not quite decided whether to buy an A3 printer myself; they are expensive, and the supplies even more so!
 
I actually get my digital B&Ws printed via laser on photographic paper but that still means it goes through a scanner first. I'll avoid Peak for that then (use a local company for my laser photo printing) and have a look at the other companies recommended.:)

That's a shame with the discontinuing of the Velvia printing. ChrisR I have no issue printing digital files, monitor is calibrated and fine, however there are weird colour casts on my colour scans and I'd love to know if it's a scanning issue or they are true representations of the actual slide (slides don't look like they have a colour cast). That's why I would prefer not to get digital involvement. :) Looks like i'll go through Peak for the Velvia shots and see what they come out like. It'll be nice to see how representative scans are to prints for both B&W and colour.
 
Amp34 said:
That's a shame with the discontinuing of the Velvia printing. ChrisR I have no issue printing digital files, monitor is calibrated and fine, however there are weird colour casts on my colour scans and I'd love to know if it's a scanning issue or they are true representations of the actual slide (slides don't look like they have a colour cast). That's why I would prefer not to get digital involvement. :) Looks like i'll go through Peak for the Velvia shots and see what they come out like. It'll be nice to see how representative scans are to prints for both B&W and colour.
Click to expand...

Remember that the scanner itself also represents a medium that needs to be calibrated to get an accurate response, and hence why labs will usually give quite accurate prints (as their scanners will be calibrated). You can do it for your scanners fairly cheaply if you buy an IT8.7 target, theres more information and examples in the below thread:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/it8-7-profiling-before-and-after.435085/#post-5814866
 
I'm talking about professional scanners (namely Peak Images). I haven't got round to getting myself a scanner yet.
 
That's unfortunate; I've had much better results from pro scanners than my own.
 
Well it may be that the colours I'm seeing are what is on the film which is why I'd have liked to get a couple of completely analogue prints done.:)
 
Andysnap said:
Ilford do b&w in the darkroom and onto proper Ilford Silver Halide photo paper.

http://www.ilfordlab.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm

But they don't do colour
Click to expand...

But... thats still scanning and digital printing that Ilford use to expose the paper (which he doesn't want), pretty much nowhere does any exclusively optical service as standard (those that do usually charge much more as its a niche service) and the only place that I was aware of I can't find now so I suspect they might have gone out of business (they were called 'Westminster Photography' or something similar?). TBH the reason for this is likely because the modern digital process can produce results just as good or better and quicker.
 
Ah, I didn't realise that, I assumed that they still used the darkroom for printing as well as devving. How disappointing. But, as you say, digital printing produces some fantastic quality with far less hassle.
 
Well there is still a darkroom effectively (i.e inside the print lab machine) as the paper still has to be exposed, go through the dev, stop, fix etc, the only real difference is that a laser or LED's are are used for the exposure and its the exact same paper thats used (although some paper types are 'optimised' more for digital exposure they can still be used with the traditional optical process as well).
 
I suppose its still a similar process and a lot of the 'look' is from the paper its printed on, so they're forgiven.:D
 
Not sure where you live Amp, but if you are near me in Manchester you (and anyone else) are welcome to use my home darkroom and I can help you print the B&W negatives, although I can't do colour.

And yes, put a wet print next to an inkjet print of the same negative and you can tell the difference.
 
What would be interesting, from an academic point of view, would be to compare an optical print with a digital-optical hybrid. Presumably the laser or led act as a dot matrix, exposing a line or part off at a time?
 
Steve said:
And yes, put a wet print next to an inkjet print of the same negative and you can tell the difference.
Click to expand...
steveo_mcg said:
What would be interesting, from an academic point of view, would be to compare an optical print with a digital-optical hybrid. Presumably the laser or led act as a dot matrix, exposing a line or part off at a time?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the issue is wet print (purely optical) versus digital print on photo paper (C-type?). Actually, someone with a darkroom is particularly well placed to undertake that experiment...:whistling: However, I can't think of a way of sharing the results (other than simply trusting the experimenter) that doesn't involve scanning them both, which would kinda defeat the point!:thinking:
 
We could all go and visit the victim....I mean volunteer and stand over him (or her) whilst they work...no pressure.:naughty:
 
haha...

I took a couple of studio photos over the weekend and will try printing one version in the darkroom and another from a scanned negative on my inkjet printer for comparison.

But what is best way to share the results? Maybe take a digital photo of the two prints side by side? I could try scanning the wet print, but to be honest the results from this are usually worse than scanning the negative. Maybe poor scanning technique on my part but thats my recent experience.

Alternatvely an open day at my house :)
 
Steve for the non-wet print, I was suggesting a C-type print on photo paper as a better comparison than an inkjet, which usually means from a lab like Peak... of course, this does mean money.

Actually there are so many variables the comparison isn't really going to tell us anything (eg for example many decent inkjet printers are comparatively pants at black and white, which is your staple fare), but still a lot of fun.

I'd happily accept an eyeball comparison, with later adjudication from passing F&C eminences grises! :)
 
Would a couple of prints go by large letter stamp?

I should really stop being lazy and go down to the local community dark room and do my own comparison. It is my curiosity...
 
Not sure what a C type printer is tbh, but I'm using an Epson R3000 which is surprisingly good for an inkjet and compares favourably to the prints I get from DS Colour.

Will do the comparison for a bit of fun, and my interest has been aroused.

Would be happy to post the results around...wouldn't cost much but let me print them first in case the digital is better and I make a fool of myself.

If I disappear from the forum, you can assume that my world has been turned upside down by the revelation digital is better and I have died from shame :)
 
A 'C-Type' print is literally just a print on traditional light sensitive 'chromogenic' colour photo paper (like has always been used), and these days seem to be used to refer exclusively to digitally exposed prints where instead of the paper having the negative directly exposed onto it a laser or LED's are used to output a scan on it (even though in the past it actually meant any sort of print on colour paper).

The majority of labs these days use exclusively colour paper as digital exposure makes it easily possible to output both colour and B&W on it with little to no difference if the printer is correctly set up (although Ilford's prints on traditional B&W silver-halide paper do look lovely as well!)
 
Andysnap said:
Ah, I didn't realise that, I assumed that they still used the darkroom for printing as well as devving. How disappointing. But, as you say, digital printing produces some fantastic quality with far less hassle.
Click to expand...
It depends if the scan they do can get all of the tones and dynamic range from the film. Both companies scans I've been sent plainly show that the dynamic range of the scanner just doesn't seem to touch what is available on the film (in B&W negative), with lots of "over" and "under" exposed sections in the scans that have plenty of detail in the negatives when viewed with the naked eye. I'm making the assumption that optical printing onto photo paper should pick up all those tones the scanner couldn't, although I may be wrong, which is why I'd love to try it. :lol:

Steve said:
Not sure where you live Amp, but if you are near me in Manchester you (and anyone else) are welcome to use my home darkroom and I can help you print the B&W negatives, although I can't do colour.

And yes, put a wet print next to an inkjet print of the same negative and you can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I'm in London, thanks for the offer though, very kind of you!:) It looks like I'm not barking up the wrong tree then.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
It depends if the scan they do can get all of the tones and dynamic range from the film. Both companies scans I've been sent plainly show that the dynamic range of the scanner just doesn't seem to touch what is available on the film (in B&W negative), with lots of "over" and "under" exposed sections in the scans that have plenty of detail in the negatives when viewed with the naked eye. I'm making the assumption that optical printing onto photo paper should pick up all those tones the scanner couldn't, although I may be wrong, which is why I'd love to try it. :lol:
Click to expand...

Remember that the actual dynamic range of the paper itself is limited compared to the film which may explain what your seeing, if I recall B&W negative has a DR of ~14 stops but paper is limited to only ~5 or 6 stops which is why techniques such as dodging/burning and split grading are useful, and additionally when you look at a negative with the naked eye you are looking at something which is naturally quite low contrast as the contrast is applied during the printing (from the reduced DR of the paper in comparison to the negative so some details will be lost which can be reduced if expansion techniques such as mentioned above are used, and this similarly applies with scanning).
 
robhooley167 said:
I believe CC Imaging will do proper darkroom prints for Black and White.
Click to expand...

I used their service myself last year and was delighted with it. Can't remember the name of the fella who does it but he's really friendly and helpful.
 
i sent a 5x4 off to illford for a 20x16 print and tbh i was a little dissapointed with it. I sent a scan off from the same neg for printing and i felt that the scanned print was better. I think it was down to illford simply printing the neg as is with no processing on it. With the scan i could adjust things to get it looking "right". I think if i was printing myself then it would be a better option.
 
essexash said:
i sent a 5x4 off to illford for a 20x16 print and tbh i was a little dissapointed with it. I sent a scan off from the same neg for printing and i felt that the scanned print was better. I think it was down to illford simply printing the neg as is with no processing on it. With the scan i could adjust things to get it looking "right". I think if i was printing myself then it would be a better option.
Click to expand...

This is a really good point, and I'm finding a big barrier in making a comparison. If I do a wet print, I can realistically only do a limited amount of PP with my skillset. Contrast can be changed with multigrade paper, and I can manage split toning and some dodging and burning but thats about it. The resulting wet prints are pleasing to me.

When I scan the negative, if I restrict myself to basic or no PP the resulting inkjet print is inferior to the wet print.

But PP is so easy in photoshop, that I find myself doing things to improve the image by using a variety of easy editing tools; curves, cloning, sharpening etc. The resulting inkjet print is then likely to be superior to the wet print. Not because the printing process or paper is any better, but because the photo itself has been enhanced in such way to improve it that I can't do in the darkroom.

I could say that any film photo scanned should not be subjected to any PP. But this seems a bit daft to not improve something? And surely once a negative is scanned, it is no longer film. It has been converted to digital and can be treated as a digital photo would.

Not sure what I'm trying to say apart from I don't know how to proceed with coming up with a comparison test.
 
I could say that any film photo scanned should not be subjected to any PP
Click to expand...

i dont think anyone should not PP an image. Its been an important part of the creation of an image since photography was invented. It just seems to be a modern thing that people who do PP are frowned upon a little. Adjusting the print is as important a part of the workflow as is adjusting development times or under or over exposing the shot in camera in the first place. In fact if you work to the complete zone system you have to carry out post processing be it on the print if you self print negs or in the scanner / PS if you replace that step with the computer.
 
personally, it's not so much about the "ethics" so to speak, it's down to the image. I pretty much treat scanned images much as I would RAW files from the digital camera - not the same way, necessarily, but with the same approach of "ok, that's a bit...hmmmm...so, what do I need to do to make it look like the image I had in my mind when I pressed the shutter release". Mostly it's (the far easier, for sure) dust/dirt spotting in fairness, plus the usual tweaks to contrast that'd be taken care of with paper choice, and the occasional D&B session. Anything much more advanced than that (compositing etc) I generally draw the line at on film (unless I've no other source of images of course) - anyone who's had a look at some of my POTY stuff in the gallery probably realises that there's a bit of fiddling going on in lots of my shots...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top