Hidden costs in medium format?

I think I may have found a solution, R&K photographic
(http://www.randkphotographic.co.uk/scanning2.htm) charge £4 a scan
from a 6x7. I'm guessing this is done on a nikon coolscan 9000 or
similar, so the quality might not be quite as high as a drum scan. At
over 10x cheaper it's prob worth it though!

"Laura Halliday" wrote in message
m...
Stacey wrote in message
...

But the OP was complaining about costs! Prints from chromes have never
been
the cheap way to get prints and sometimes trying to print a certain
chrome
on ilfochrome paper can be a nightmare.

Try reading the post *I* was responding to, which had
raised a side issue.

At the cost I pay for Ilfochrome paper and P30 chemistry
locally, I can do 20 to 25 prints for the cost of one
of the original poster's scans.

Is that not cheap enough?


I didn't raise a side issue--Stacey did when he condescendingly told the OP
that print film is for prints.

Here's how it went:

How do you guys cope with getting prints? Only shoot print film?

Uh yea, there's a reason it's called "print film". I think they call it
that because it's the kind of film you shoot if you are wanting prints.

Contrary to Stacey's sarcastic implication, that's not exclusively
true--many people get prints from chromes, it is a viable option, and if you
are only going to print a few per roll, it's an economical route to take.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

"Laura Halliday" wrote in message
m...
Stacey wrote in message
...

But the OP was complaining about costs! Prints from chromes have never
been
the cheap way to get prints and sometimes trying to print a certain
chrome
on ilfochrome paper can be a nightmare.

Try reading the post *I* was responding to, which had
raised a side issue.

At the cost I pay for Ilfochrome paper and P30 chemistry
locally, I can do 20 to 25 prints for the cost of one
of the original poster's scans.

Is that not cheap enough?


I didn't raise a side issue--Stacey did when he condescendingly told the
OP that print film is for prints.

Well it is! That's why it's called "print film" isn't it?


Here's how it went:

How do you guys cope with getting prints? Only shoot print film?

Uh yea, there's a reason it's called "print film". I think they call it
that because it's the kind of film you shoot if you are wanting prints.

Contrary to Stacey's sarcastic implication, that's not exclusively
true--many people get prints from chromes, it is a viable option,

But expensive and very hard to control the contrast. Yes ilfochromes can
look great but it's very time consuming and I've never done a ilfochrome
that didn't take a lot of dodgeing and burning or makeing contrast masks
etc to get something nice out of it. If you want prints, the simple
solution is to shoot print film. I seriously doubt the OP has a darkroom to
do their own ilfochromes and paying someone else to do even an 8X10 (not a
machine done "prints from slides" stuff) isn't cheap. Personally I see no
advantage for shooting slide film if the end product is a print except to
prove you can do it some other way.

--

Stacey

Laura Halliday wrote:

Stacey wrote in message
...

But the OP was complaining about costs! Prints from chromes have never
been the cheap way to get prints and sometimes trying to print a certain
chrome on ilfochrome paper can be a nightmare.

Try reading the post *I* was responding to, which had
raised a side issue.

At the cost I pay for Ilfochrome paper and P30 chemistry
locally, I can do 20 to 25 prints for the cost of one
of the original poster's scans.

But you obviously own a darkroom, I doubt the OP does..


Is that not cheap enough?


After you've set up a darkroom and if you consider your time worth nothing I
supose. :-) I've done ilfochromes at home and know how long it takes to get
a good one done. Printing from print film is MUCH easier to do and 1/3 the
price if not less than that!

100 sheets of paper is $80

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=24913&is=REG

Chemistry to do the above type paper is another $40

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=144539&is=REG

While RA4 is $25 for the chemistry (for the expencive room temp type, the
high temp is half that much..)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=109273&is=REG

And 100 sheets is $30

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=261890&is=REG

Plus the chemicals for RA4 aren't anywhere near as toxic as the ilfochrome
stuff is.
--

Stacey

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Personally I
see no advantage for shooting slide film if the end product is a print
except to prove you can do it some other way.

I do it to show the lab the correct colors. They will print anything they
want otherwise. It is that simple. Not to mention, MF slides are great
to look at by eye, unlike tiny 35mm slides.

"Elemental" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Personally I
see no advantage for shooting slide film if the end product is a print
except to prove you can do it some other way.

Slide films have a lot more contrast, saturation, finer grain, and different
color rendition. Some people like those, and negative films come up very
short in those areas.

I do it to show the lab the correct colors. They will print anything they
want otherwise. It is that simple. Not to mention, MF slides are great
to look at by eye, unlike tiny 35mm slides.

Yup.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Elemental wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Personally I
see no advantage for shooting slide film if the end product is a print
except to prove you can do it some other way.

I do it to show the lab the correct colors. They will print anything they
want otherwise. It is that simple.

Then you need to find a new lab.

--

Stacey

I'm on the side of film and scanning to digital.
The important factor in digital quality is information. Image quality and color
depth is still a function of image information available. Roll film trannies or
negs provide huge amounts of digital information to work with. The 6x4.5 and
larger roll film originals are fantastic sources for digital work.

Rich

Medium format scanners are the best and in the long run, most cost effective
investments for pos. or neg. originals, if there is a large quantity of files
to print. I have files going back to the early '60's that I am printing on a
Canon s9000 after scanning on a Microtek Artxscan 120. The results are
fantastic. I make corrections in PhotoShop and for an old school photographer
like this one, this digitral world is like a dreamworld.
I will soon invest in an Epson 4000 or 7600 and then I can die and go to
heaven.

I read some news from Netherlands that the data kept in CD couldn't keep for
long. The scientist said the poor quality CD could only last for two years.
I even don't think the best quality CD can last for 100 years. Therefore I
don't trust digital. I have some medium format negatives scanned to CD four
years ago. I couldn't read one of the disk now although it was protected
for storage. It was a "Kodak Gold CD" which was quite expensive at that
time.

"CorrPro96" ¦b¶l¥ó
¤¤¼¶¼g...
Medium format scanners are the best and in the long run, most cost
effective
investments for pos. or neg. originals, if there is a large quantity of
files
to print. I have files going back to the early '60's that I am printing on
a
Canon s9000 after scanning on a Microtek Artxscan 120. The results are
fantastic. I make corrections in PhotoShop and for an old school
photographer
like this one, this digitral world is like a dreamworld.
I will soon invest in an Epson 4000 or 7600 and then I can die and go to
heaven.