Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] B&W elementary tech
From: chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich)
Date: Thu Aug 11 15:19:12 2005
References: <BF210D36.3900%bdcolen@comcast.net> <42FBB282.5080202@adrenaline.com>

Yes this has been my experience size matters.

I want to print as big as possible.  A digital work flow which will match 
my expectations includes drum scanning ($200/day rental) and printing 
16x20, $80 first print then $70 there after, discount for bulk runs.  Under 
the best circumstances I would pay $200 for a day of scanning, say in 8 
hours I can scan 40 negs at 12 minutes per scan (I have no idea how long a 
40 meg drum scan takes).  I then go home do post production and return to 
print my 40 negs 16x20 without mistakes.  Total cost $3,400 or $85 per 
print. Not bad really.

What if I bought the equipment myself?

$4,000 cheapest simulated drum scanner
$2,000 large printer and ink set
$500 for software
Good paper? $70 for box of 50 16x20 and I make no mistakes when printing. 
$1.40 per print.
Assuming I have the computer equipment.
Total $6,600


In the darkroom the cost is lower.  50 sheets 16x 20 runs about 
$90.  I  waste about 20 8x10 figuring out a print ($12.00) and a couple 
16x20's getting the new base exposure, so I can get say 40 prints from a 
box on a good day.  $90 +$12 = $102 or $2.55 per print.  And it probably 
has better blacks.

Cost for my equipment:
Beseler enlarger - Free
Cold light head - $400 new
Multi-functional proportional timer with light senser- $250
Filter $15
Large trays - I got 6 for $40
process timer - wall clock I found
Amber light - $5 bulbs in a regular socket
Large Easel - $200
Chemistry - $100
Large Washer - $300
Total $1310

Wet printing is about 30% cheaper due to the equipment costs. Not too bad 
all in all.






Chris

At 04:18 PM 8/11/2005, you wrote:
>I've been printing B&W digitally for about a year, while a buddy of
>mine has been running back and forth to a pro lab looking at contact
>sheets and getting wet prints.  I have to admit that most of his prints
>are nicer.  Not so much at 5x7, but beyond 8x10, my subjective
>experience is that the wet printing process is better at pushing that
>little 135 negative to larger prints.  Same goes for the really grainy
>films like P3200.
>
>OTOH, he can't or isn't willing to pay for custom dodge/burn work,
>while I can mask the shadows of a scanned image and bring them up
>15% in PictureWindow Pro in about 2 minutes.  So, I'm a pretty happy
>camper (usually) with the tools currently at my disposal.
>
>Scott
>
>B. D. Colen wrote:
>
>>God I never thought I'd end up defending wet prints...but Walt, the
>>suggestion that " Adobe Photoshop, Nikon Coolscan and a good Epson printer(
>>in the right hands) can blow away most wet prints" is complete and utter
>>nonsense, assuming you're referring to wet printing "in the right hands."
>>
>>Digital printing is digital printing, whether using the OEM inks, or 
>>systems
>>such as the Cone quadtones, or MIS inks. And silver printing is silver
>>printing. Both will, in the hands of a competent printer, produce gorgeous
>>results. But neither will be 'better' than the other.
>>
>>Now, if you want to say that a competent digital printer can more quickly
>>produce, and infinitely more quickly reproduce a print than even the best
>>wet printer, you're absolutely correct. :-)
>>B. D.
>>
>>
>>
>>On 8/11/05 1:58 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bill:
>>>
>>>You can certainly scan you b&w negative and print on an inkjet with good
>>>results. As a matter of fact, a few simple tools can insure better results
>>>than a Focomat V35.
>>>
>>>Adobe Photoshop, Nikon Coolscan and a good Epson printer( in the right 
>>>hands)
>>>can blow away most wet prints. Most importantly, the results are 
>>>repeatable.
>>>
>>>There are some very good links on the subject  and one of the best is 
>>>Clayton
>>>Jones. http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn1.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>Walt  J.
>>>walt@waltjohnson.com
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Leica Users Group.
>>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

Chris Saganich, Sr. Physicist
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
New York Presbyterian Hospital

Ph. 212.746.6964
Fax. 212.746.4800
A0049 



Replies: Reply from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] B&W elementary tech)
Reply from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] B&W elementary tech)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] B&W elementary tech)
Message from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] B&W elementary tech)