digital printing from 35mm

Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget) and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.

Would anyone like to give opinions or recommendations on the above or other
alternatives?

What sort of quality / longevity is likely for large inkjet prints (say 10x8
and above)?

In order to get good quality does one need to spend a lot more money on
paper, special inks, additional software, etc?

There seems to be a lot of talk about inkjet prints not lasting, is the
level of deteriation really not acceptable even at the enthusiast level?

Many thanks for any advice


Phil Hobgen
-------------------------------------------

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash

"Phil Hobgen" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe
output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up
at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget)
and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.

Would anyone like to give opinions or recommendations on the above or
other
alternatives?

What sort of quality / longevity is likely for large inkjet prints (say
10x8
and above)?

In order to get good quality does one need to spend a lot more money on
paper, special inks, additional software, etc?

There seems to be a lot of talk about inkjet prints not lasting, is the
level of deteriation really not acceptable even at the enthusiast level?


Find a good online printer that produces prints on real photo paper, using
real photo dyes and chemicals, rather than inkjet prints. In the US I have
had very good results from OFOTO.COM.

Unless you need prints in hurry, you may find, as I have, that the "REAL"
prints that you get from an online lab like OFOTO are both cheaper and
better than anything you could produce at home, using any but the very best
(translate="expensive") printer.

I've used camera stores to print when I really needed something same day,
and they are better than anything I could do at home, although OFOTO really
produces a better product.

The one thing that I missed when I got my digicam was the absence of
traditional photo prints--like those I got from my film-based equipment.
OFOTO has solved that problem for me.

You did not say whether you required the ability to print yourself, for
purposes of speed, but if you can afford to wait a few days to get your
prints, you really should give an online printing service a try. I do
recommend that you find one that makes "real" prints, rather than inkjet or
dye-sub prints.

Best of luck in your search.

"Phil Hobgen" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe
output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up
at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget)
and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.

Would anyone like to give opinions or recommendations on the above or
other
alternatives?

What sort of quality / longevity is likely for large inkjet prints (say
10x8
and above)?

In order to get good quality does one need to spend a lot more money on
paper, special inks, additional software, etc?

There seems to be a lot of talk about inkjet prints not lasting, is the
level of deteriation really not acceptable even at the enthusiast level?


Find a good online printer that produces prints on real photo paper, using
real photo dyes and chemicals, rather than inkjet prints. In the US I have
had very good results from OFOTO.COM.

Unless you need prints in hurry, you may find, as I have, that the "REAL"
prints that you get from an online lab like OFOTO are both cheaper and
better than anything you could produce at home, using any but the very best
(translate="expensive") printer.

I've used camera stores to print when I really needed something same day,
and they are better than anything I could do at home, although OFOTO really
produces a better product.

The one thing that I missed when I got my digicam was the absence of
traditional photo prints--like those I got from my film-based equipment.
OFOTO has solved that problem for me.

You did not say whether you required the ability to print yourself, for
purposes of speed, but if you can afford to wait a few days to get your
prints, you really should give an online printing service a try. I do
recommend that you find one that makes "real" prints, rather than inkjet or
dye-sub prints.

Best of luck in your search.

Phil Hobgen wrote:

Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget) and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.


The costs of printing at home, esp. reprinting after any number
of problems (color, paper issues, cropping, etc) are higher than
getting prints done at a decent shop. The only advantage is
convenience. Buying cartridges gets to be tedious and expensive,
and good (not great, just good) paper is expensive too, esp.
after the rejects...

I have a decent inkjet printer, but overall it is cheaper to go
to the shop.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Phil Hobgen wrote:

Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget) and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.


The costs of printing at home, esp. reprinting after any number
of problems (color, paper issues, cropping, etc) are higher than
getting prints done at a decent shop. The only advantage is
convenience. Buying cartridges gets to be tedious and expensive,
and good (not great, just good) paper is expensive too, esp.
after the rejects...

I have a decent inkjet printer, but overall it is cheaper to go
to the shop.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Phil Hobgen wrote:

Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget) and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.


The costs of printing at home, esp. reprinting after any number
of problems (color, paper issues, cropping, etc) are higher than
getting prints done at a decent shop. The only advantage is
convenience. Buying cartridges gets to be tedious and expensive,
and good (not great, just good) paper is expensive too, esp.
after the rejects...

I have a decent inkjet printer, but overall it is cheaper to go
to the shop.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

From: "Phil Hobgen"

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour)

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget) and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.

Would anyone like to give opinions or recommendations on the above or other
alternatives?

You can get a decent enough print from a 'budget inkjet' but not really top
notch. Try to get one of the 6 color "photo" models instead of the 4 color
business models, if possible.

Many labs do a very good job printing digital files for not much money. This
would probably be the least expensive, least hassle-free way to go and you can
ease your way into digital printing this way.

Epson 2100 is more like having your own custom digital darkroom (once you have
the right software), that's what I use (and now the larger Epson 4000). But
there's a fairly steep learning curve since you'll need to learn how to use
either a consumer grade editing program like Elements or PaintShop Pro or a top
quality program with more options like Photoshop. You'll probably also want to
shell out for a monitor calibration tool like the Sypder to get a closer match
between monitor and print too. If you enjoy futzing around in a darkroom
making test prints etc then you'll likely enjoy learning how to do-it-yourself
with the 2100; if you don't, then just send them out to the lab.

What sort of quality / longevity is likely for large inkjet prints (say 10x8
and above)?

The 2100 has very high print quality up to 13x19", the "budget inkjet" likely
much less so. The 2100 uses pigment inks which last much longer than
conventional prints, some of the budget inks will fade quickly while some of
the newer budget printers actually do OK. All depends on the paper and ink
combo plus how you store them.

In order to get good quality does one need to spend a lot more money on
paper, special inks, additional software, etc?

It helps to learn Photoshop or similar. The 2100 inks and better fine art
papers are a bit more costly than a budget printer but for $2 US you can make a
fine long-lasting 2100 print on matte paper and for about $4 a beautiful print
on their finest fine-art paper (Velvet-Fine Art). Semigloss, glossy and Luster
prints are about $3.

There seems to be a lot of talk about inkjet prints not lasting, is the
level of deteriation really not acceptable even at the enthusiast level?

Not a problem with the 2100 pigment inks ... big problem with cheaper inks ...
for more info:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...61,pg,1,00.asp (see chart on pg
3)
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/longevity/index.html (2200 is US version of your
2100)
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111767,00.asp (problems with cheap
inks)

Bill

From: "Phil Hobgen"

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour)

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget) and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.

Would anyone like to give opinions or recommendations on the above or other
alternatives?

You can get a decent enough print from a 'budget inkjet' but not really top
notch. Try to get one of the 6 color "photo" models instead of the 4 color
business models, if possible.

Many labs do a very good job printing digital files for not much money. This
would probably be the least expensive, least hassle-free way to go and you can
ease your way into digital printing this way.

Epson 2100 is more like having your own custom digital darkroom (once you have
the right software), that's what I use (and now the larger Epson 4000). But
there's a fairly steep learning curve since you'll need to learn how to use
either a consumer grade editing program like Elements or PaintShop Pro or a top
quality program with more options like Photoshop. You'll probably also want to
shell out for a monitor calibration tool like the Sypder to get a closer match
between monitor and print too. If you enjoy futzing around in a darkroom
making test prints etc then you'll likely enjoy learning how to do-it-yourself
with the 2100; if you don't, then just send them out to the lab.

What sort of quality / longevity is likely for large inkjet prints (say 10x8
and above)?

The 2100 has very high print quality up to 13x19", the "budget inkjet" likely
much less so. The 2100 uses pigment inks which last much longer than
conventional prints, some of the budget inks will fade quickly while some of
the newer budget printers actually do OK. All depends on the paper and ink
combo plus how you store them.

In order to get good quality does one need to spend a lot more money on
paper, special inks, additional software, etc?

It helps to learn Photoshop or similar. The 2100 inks and better fine art
papers are a bit more costly than a budget printer but for $2 US you can make a
fine long-lasting 2100 print on matte paper and for about $4 a beautiful print
on their finest fine-art paper (Velvet-Fine Art). Semigloss, glossy and Luster
prints are about $3.

There seems to be a lot of talk about inkjet prints not lasting, is the
level of deteriation really not acceptable even at the enthusiast level?

Not a problem with the 2100 pigment inks ... big problem with cheaper inks ...
for more info:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...61,pg,1,00.asp (see chart on pg
3)
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/longevity/index.html (2200 is US version of your
2100)
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111767,00.asp (problems with cheap
inks)

Bill

Thanks for the posts! All opions gratefully taken into consideration.



Phil Hobgen
-------------------------------------------

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash
"Phil Hobgen" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe
output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up
at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget)
and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.

Would anyone like to give opinions or recommendations on the above or
other
alternatives?

What sort of quality / longevity is likely for large inkjet prints (say
10x8
and above)?

In order to get good quality does one need to spend a lot more money on
paper, special inks, additional software, etc?

There seems to be a lot of talk about inkjet prints not lasting, is the
level of deteriation really not acceptable even at the enthusiast level?

Many thanks for any advice


Phil Hobgen
-------------------------------------------

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash

Thanks for the posts! All opions gratefully taken into consideration.



Phil Hobgen
-------------------------------------------

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash
"Phil Hobgen" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I have just bought a 35mm film scanner (4000dpi), as I wanted to use 35mm
and do my own processing (b&w + colour), but can't currently set up a
darkroom for printing. Scanning seems a good way to assess and maybe
output,
both new negs and those in storage from years gone by.

Now I think I'm faced with the choice of either printing family shots and
stuff on a budget inkjet printer and choosing some shots to be printed up
at
a good lab, OR getting a 'better' inkjet (Epson 2100 would be in budget)
and
rarely having to go to the lab for printing.

Would anyone like to give opinions or recommendations on the above or
other
alternatives?

What sort of quality / longevity is likely for large inkjet prints (say
10x8
and above)?

In order to get good quality does one need to spend a lot more money on
paper, special inks, additional software, etc?

There seems to be a lot of talk about inkjet prints not lasting, is the
level of deteriation really not acceptable even at the enthusiast level?

Many thanks for any advice


Phil Hobgen
-------------------------------------------

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash