Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Who Da Man? I'm Da Man...
Old 11-22-2004   #1
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Who Da Man? I'm Da Man...

Scuze me, I'm doing a little "superior" dance over here. I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago on RFF...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ighlight=kiosk

And now...hehehehe....here's the news story.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...printstory.jsp

OK, so anybody could have seen this coming. But I actually wrote about here - gratifying to see it reflected in a newspaper story. Maybe I missed my calling...

Anyway, sorry to bug you all with this, but I find it a fascinating time to be alive and involved in photography!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks - wannabe photography writer

Quote:
Digital camera spurs battles
Retailers, printer makers try to lure consumers into film processing with them
By PUI-WING TAM
The Wall Street Journal

Like millions of other Americans, Julie Berry got a digital camera this year. What the 35-year-old stay-at-home mom does with the pictures is the subject of the next big battle over the future of photography.

After snapping shots of her 2-year-old daughter, Ginger, Berry printed them out in her study — and was disappointed. “The photos just didn’t have great color or great resolution,” she said. “I just thought: ‘Oh well, I guess we have to buy a better printer.’”

A few weeks later, Berry had more luck at the digital printing kiosk at the CVS Corp. pharmacy in Mansfield, Mass.

On her first try, Ms. Berry produced 30 digital prints for 29 cents a pop in less than half an hour. Now, she’s a convert.

“It’s easy and it’s very reasonably priced,” she said, “especially considering I don’t want to spend time and money and run out to buy a new printer.”

The switch to digital cameras has already brought sweeping change to the $85 billion photography business. Eastman Kodak Co., the big film company, saw its business drop off and is struggling to adjust. Camera makers found a hot new product.

Now, the next battlefield is rapidly taking shape: Printer makers like Hewlett-Packard Co. are in a fierce struggle with big retailers like CVS and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. as well as upstart Web sites to capture consumers while their habits for printing digital pictures are still in flux.

The stakes are high for retailers, who have long benefited from the foot traffic and profits generated by the $5.3 billion U.S. film-processing business. Wal-Mart stores brought in a hefty $3.5 billion in revenue from photo processing in the last fiscal year, or 2 percent of store revenue.

While printing accounts for 30 percent of HP’s revenue, it generates 75 percent of the company’s profit. HP has been counting on printing color photos at home to keep the ink flowing for years to come.

For a while, HP dominated the market. As recently as 2002, 91 percent of digital photos printed in the U.S. were produced on a home or office printer, according to research firm IDC. With more than 40 percent of the consumer inkjet-printer market, HP was sitting pretty.

Now, the big retailers are rapidly pushing into digital-photo printing, with do-it-yourself kiosks and drop-off centers. They are challenging HP with TV ads and promotional campaigns attacking the cost and complexity of home printing. A new crop of online photo sites promises consumers professional digital images without leaving home.

While printing at home still typically costs 60 cents for a 4-by-6 image, including the costs of ink and paper, retailers generally charge below 30 cents and some online sites charge less than 20 cents.

The result: This year, IDC predicts only about 69 percent of printed digital photos will emerge from home printers like HP’s. By 2007, it projects that figure will fall to 42 percent — albeit in a much bigger digital photo market.

CHANGING PLANS

HP is urgently shifting its strategy to recapture Berry and others like her. When HP entered the digital-photo business nearly a decade ago, it worried most about matching the quality of film snapshots — developing machines that could create high-quality images, but only slowly and at fairly hefty prices.

Since taking over five years ago, HP chief executive Carly Fiorina has invested more than $1 billion in new digital-photography products, including cameras and portable photo-printers.

Today the company is betting that the convenience and instant gratification of home printing will triumph over the hassle of traveling to a store. HP is aiming to cut in half, to 30 seconds, the time to print a 4-by-6 image. It’s testing cheaper paper and ink. And it’s trying to simplify the task of printing images directly from camera cell phones by developing software that easily sends an image to a printer.

“This is absolutely a big bet for us,” said Vyomesh “VJ” Joshi, HP’s executive vice president for printing and imaging. “Retailers are usually one of the slower groups to respond, but they suddenly woke up. So we have to get more aggressive.”

Protecting its printing cash cow is critical. Analysts estimate that ink cartridges carry a gross profit margin — sales price minus the cost to make the cartridge — of more than 60 percent. That’s far higher than the margins on HP’s personal computers, standardized server-computers and other products. HP sells most of its printers at a loss, planning to make up the difference on ink sales. Photo printing is especially lucrative, because pictures consume 20 times as much ink as printing a page of text. HP’s color inkjet cartridges generally cost between $19 and $35.

Printing those pictures is a big growth opportunity for HP, as digital cameras move from high-end gadget to mass phenomenon. Sales of film in the U.S. peaked at $6.2 billion in 2000. Last year, film sales totaled $5.3 billion, down 13 percent. Meanwhile, 66 million digital cameras will be sold this year, up from 12 million in 2000, predicts InfoTrends Research Group Inc.

Others covet those images as well. Online photography sites like Snapfish, the online arm of District Photo Inc., and closely held Shutterfly Inc. will print digital photos for 29 cents or less — under 20 cents for those who prepay — and mail them to customers in a day or two. Yahoo Inc., which started a similar site in 2000, sells prints for 19 cents.

The biggest challenge comes from large retailers that are offering to usher consumers into this unfamiliar world with a familiar routine: Bring us your digital images, and we’ll give you professional-looking finished prints. Even retailers that sell HP printers, such as Best Buy, are beginning to compete with HP by offering digital-photo services in their stores.

For retailers, digital printing is a rich new vein. Traditional prints require the extra step of exposing a negative through a chemical process, and retailers can charge about 15 cents a print because of competition in the field.

Digital prints, which essentially involve only the cost of ink and paper, are currently commanding about 29 cents, meaning gross margins are higher.

In pitching their services, retailers focus on price and simplicity. Walgreen Co. proclaims on posters in its stores that its 29-cent prints are cheaper than home printing. CVS runs TV and print ads showing digital photos being printed while consumers shop for other items. Wal-Mart sells HP printers but increasingly emphasizes its own digital-photo service, at 24 cents a print.

By the end of the year, Wal-Mart expects to offer digital-photo processing in 3,000 of its 3,600 stores and wholesale clubs.

DECADE-OLD BATTLE

The roots of this clash stretch back to the mid-1990s, when film still ruled the day. In 1995, 640 million rolls of film were sold in the U.S., for $4.9 billion. Digital cameras were still expensive — $650 and up — and couldn’t produce detailed images.

But HP looked ahead and saw that affordable digital cameras would soon produce high-quality images. Hoping to expand the use of its consumer printers and to sell more ink, HP in 1995 began building specialized photo printers. The company concentrated on making these printers work well with high-quality inks and paper so that home-printed digital images would retain the gloss of traditional film prints.

HP’s future competitors also calculated ahead. Makers of film-processing equipment for big retailers like Wal-Mart and Costco Wholesale Corp. began to go digital. In 1996, Fuji Photo Film Co. released a digital lab for retailers.

Kodak, meanwhile, is trying to play it all ways in the digital photography world. As it shifts away from its traditional film business, the company is developing photo printers and digital cameras of its own. It also has put a stake in the online digital image market with its popular Ofoto Web site, which charges 29 cents a print. Kodak also sells do-it-yourself digital printing kiosks and other photofinishing equipment to retailers.

In 2000, Wal-Mart executives studying camera sales realized consumers were switching to digital cameras more quickly than they had projected. So in 2001, Wal-Mart began converting its photo services to digital-photo equipment. It also has created an online service that mails prints to users, or allows them to come to the store to pick the photos up.

“We want to make digital-photo printing as easy as going to an ATM,” said Dave Rogers, Wal-Mart’s vice president of photo centers.

The traditional film developers also attacked home printing on price. In 2001, Costco started offering digital prints for 19 cents each. The next year, Wal-Mart cut its standard price to 24 cents, from 29 cents.

“If you really understand what it costs to print photos at home, plus all the extra time involved, then people will see it’s a good deal to print in stores instead,” Rogers said.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2004   #2
nwcanonman
 
Posts: n/a
I guess those of us who've been using the home computer/printer/digital-darkroom for years assumed everyone else would be able to do the same. Appearantly not.
Of course I don't print 4"x6"s either, only 5x7 or 8x10.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2004   #3
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
I think a lot of people want 4x6, but have been put off by the prices - of printers, ink or cartridges, and paper. Fairly high initial investment, much confusion in the marketplace, new models coming out every other week - no one wants to buy obsolete if they can help it.

In my case, I used to travel for a living. Gone a week at a time, only home one day a week. The ink nozzles always dried out and died on mine. Try replacing those at sixty bucks a pop whenever you want to print. I put my new Epson ink-jet printer out for the trash - worthless, despite excellent print quality.

People who are family snap-shotters (happy snappers in Britain) are not looking to change their ways - they take picture, take film (now digital card) to high street shop, get prints. Simple. No need to change that for them.

We're the cognoscenti - the snobs. Not them. This is for them, mostly.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2004   #4
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
 
SolaresLarrave's Avatar
 
SolaresLarrave is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: DeKalb, IL, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 7,496
Bill, you really is da man!

I'm going to follow your advice whenever I shoot print (which is pretty rare these days, as I do most of my shooting in slide film; my lab is really good and reasonably price). I like the method of batch scanning, and then deciding what to print, what to keep, without bothering with prints.

Now, you can also have your stuff NOT printed, but transferred directly into a CD. I believe Wal-Mart does this. I don't know if Walgreen's does it, but that's where I'd go if they did, because I don't want to set foot on a Walmart store.
__________________
-Francisco
Check out
My Leica M4-2 Blog and/or
My Nikon D700 Neophyte's Guide
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2004   #5
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally posted by SolaresLarrave
Bill, you really is da man!

I'm going to follow your advice whenever I shoot print (which is pretty rare these days, as I do most of my shooting in slide film; my lab is really good and reasonably price). I like the method of batch scanning, and then deciding what to print, what to keep, without bothering with prints.

Now, you can also have your stuff NOT printed, but transferred directly into a CD. I believe Wal-Mart does this. I don't know if Walgreen's does it, but that's where I'd go if they did, because I don't want to set foot on a Walmart store.
Well, thank you, I was really just showing off, ya know...[blush]

Anyway, I know that you can have your negs transferred directly to CD at Walmart and a lot of other places - mostly the one-hour places. It is becoming a popular service. But I have a problem with it...

1) It is still essentially the same system as printing - that is, they drag the uncut negative over tables, chairs and maybe the floor and feed it into a machine that scans it. In many cases, this scanner is built into what passes for an enlarger these days - so the negs are treated the same as if you were having printing done - and come back JUST as scratched up!

2) The scans are generally suitable only for printing 4x6 without any kind of cropping, or emailing perhaps. Not even good enough for a web page, in my humble opinion.

3) There are various kinds of scans available - Kodak offers several levels of scan quality, for example. But they don't tell you (the consumer) what the scan rate actually is - and the clerks have no idea either - they are generally computer illiterate or worse, they think they actually know something when they don't. You can ask for 'hi rez' scans, and God knows what you will get - could be semi-hi rez, could be junk.

4) Consider what you spend having the scans done over time. Then factor in the cost of a dedicated film scanner and a cd-rom burner, supposing you don't already have one of each. You can see that if you don't consider your own time involved (and I can be doing other things while my film scans, I just change out the negs every few minutes), you will pay yourself back fairly quickly - and you have better scans and a great scanner/cd burner essentially for free (considering what you would have paid, that is).

So in conclusion - I don' t have my negs scanned at local services. That I can do MUCH better for myself. I let them process ONLY!

By the way, my local Walgreens has gotten so used to me burning a roll of film every couple of days that they know me by sight now - and they always remember to process the film the way I like it - and they have given me their 'professional' discount as if I were a business. Costs me all of $1.90 per roll for processing now.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2004   #6
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is online now
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Washington, USA
Posts: 13,271
I have been choosing film processing with no prints, no cutting of negs, and scans on CD for a couple years now. The scans are in the neighborhood of 6Mp depending on film format, adequate for good 5x7 or maybe larger.

I fiddle the scans to my satisfaction and choose those I want printed, copy them to a CF card and bring them to the local lab outfit's kiosk. This uploads the jpegs to the actual lab and spits out an invoice.

The prints are regular C-prints, not ink-jets, and run about $0.50 each when ordered in quantities of 10 or more (total, not each).
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2004   #7
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Doug
I have been choosing film processing with no prints, no cutting of negs, and scans on CD for a couple years now. The scans are in the neighborhood of 6Mp depending on film format, adequate for good 5x7 or maybe larger.

I fiddle the scans to my satisfaction and choose those I want printed, copy them to a CF card and bring them to the local lab outfit's kiosk. This uploads the jpegs to the actual lab and spits out an invoice.

The prints are regular C-prints, not ink-jets, and run about $0.50 each when ordered in quantities of 10 or more (total, not each).
If you're happy with the 6meg scans you're getting, then I say more power to you! However, I don't find them even close to adequate - different strokes, I guess. Besides, most of the scans I ever had done in the one-hour places were more on the lines of 950k to 1.1 meg COMPRESSED JPEG and when you opened them, then yes, 6 megs or so.

When I scan on my Minolta Dimage IV, I end up with 22 to 35 megs or so per file in a TIFF file. You can see an example of the quality of scan I get easily at my recent webpage about third-party Leica lenses:

http://www.growlery.com/photography/...ns_comparison/

Choose any of the photos of the fake flowers, click on the image, and then change the .jpg extension to .tif. You'll get the huge file downloaded to you and you can see what that kind of scan quality is really all about. Takes awhile, but you're welcome to do it if you want to!

Yes, the quality of the 4x6 prints is very nice - as you describe! However, Walgreens in my area charges something like 27 cents each, and Walmart has an upload area where you can upload the pics and then pick them up later - even cheaper. There are also some online services even cheaper yet.

Again, whatever works for you is fine by me! I don't want to get into an argument here. But I have discovered that having your negs scanned commercially invites damage to the negs - and I am not happy with the usual resulting files - but maybe that's just me.

Your mileage may vary!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #8
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
 
RJBender is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock
Scuze me, I'm doing a little "superior" dance over here. I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago on RFF...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ighlight=kiosk

And now...hehehehe....here's the news story.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...printstory.jsp

OK, so anybody could have seen this coming. But I actually wrote about here - gratifying to see it reflected in a newspaper story. Maybe I missed my calling...

Anyway, sorry to bug you all with this, but I find it a fascinating time to be alive and involved in photography!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks - wannabe photography writer

This was brought up several years ago by Bob Shell on the Rollei List. Scan your negatives, retouch them and either print them yourself or send them to a lab.

I only use a local lab for 4x6 or 8x10 prints. I print 11x14 prints on my inkjet.
At one of our camera club meetings, someone brought in some 20x30 prints from White House Custom Colour that looked terrific.

R.J.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #9
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
My lab offers (true) high res scans to TIFF, which are quite large. They're on another PC and I don't recall, but I think they are about 19MB. The lab also offers optical prints, fibre paper for b&w, etc., so I don't even bother with the one-hour joints. They're not quite as conveniently located, but that's not a huge issue for me.

I recently had one of the scan of one of the Reala shots in my gallery here printed full bleed on 8x10 via the Kodak Gallery website. Next I'll take the neg to my lab and have an optical print made and compare. The final step will be to have K64 shots of same scene printed made by the same methods.

The only method I would consider for personal darkroom work would be optical Cibachrome prints, though not 4x6s.

Earl
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com

Last edited by Trius : 12-04-2005 at 19:04.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #10
ray_g
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock

When I scan on my Minolta Dimage IV, I end up with 22 to 35 megs or so per file in a TIFF file.
Bill,

I have been wanting to try this. I brought a CD with a 19 (or so) MB TIFF file to Walgreen's and asked them to make an 8x10 print. I asked if it would be a problem if the file was that large, and in a TIFF file, and not jpeg. The kid just stared at me and did not know what to do.

How exactly do you do it -- just give them your disc or does it go in the kiosk, etc? I want to give this another try, as the prolab is good but charges an arm and a leg.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #11
aad
Not so new now.
 
aad is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,231
Indeed-I've been considering this route, and have some TIFF scans that are large-enormous. I wonder what will happen if I take them to the local kiosk.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #12
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray_g
Bill,

I have been wanting to try this. I brought a CD with a 19 (or so) MB TIFF file to Walgreen's and asked them to make an 8x10 print. I asked if it would be a problem if the file was that large, and in a TIFF file, and not jpeg. The kid just stared at me and did not know what to do.

How exactly do you do it -- just give them your disc or does it go in the kiosk, etc? I want to give this another try, as the prolab is good but charges an arm and a leg.
Go to http://www.walmart.com/ and click on Photo. Set yourself up an account and upload your photo or photos (hint: high-speed connection, dialup would suck). Then choose which size you want to print and which prints. You can crop, rotate, whatever, all online. Then decide if you want to pick them up at the nearest Wally World or have them mailed to your house.

You can do the same with Walgreens, CVS, Target (I think), and many, many, photo places now. For big prints, I go to www.mpix.com and I'm about to start experimenting with www.americanframe.com (haven't tried them yet, so no recommendation as of yet).

I seldom take a disk in anymore. If I did, in my local Walgreens, the kiosks are customer-facing. You just shove the disk in and wait for a menu to pop up and guide you through everything. I found that it takes awhile with a really big file, but it will eventually read it.

If you have high-speed internet, I find it much easier to just upload it. You can then pick it up at the store next day or in some places, in an hour. That's cool.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #13
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius
My lab offers (true) high res scans to TIFF, which are quite large. They're on another PC and I don't recall, but I think they are about 19MB. The lab also offers optical prints, fibre paper for b&w, etc., so I don't even bother with the one-hour joints. They're not quite as conveniently located, but that's not a huge issue for me.

I recently had one of the scan of one of the Reala shots in my gallery here printed full bleed on 8x10 via the Kodak Gallery website. Next I'll take the neg to my lab and have an optical print made and compare. The final step will be to have K64 shots of same scene printed made by the same methods.

The only method I would consider for personal darkroom work would be optical Cibachrome prints, though not 4x6s.

Earl

I entered a competition this last week with a 12 x 16 B&W print that came from a 35mm frame of Tri-X that I scanned with my SD IV / Vuescan / Gimp / Linux. Cleaned it up a bit, uploaded it to www.mpix.com, and got a fantastic print back in a couple of days. Cheap, and VERY sharp.

I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference between the prints you mentioned at 8x10. Maybe blown up to 20x30 to really get into the detail.

I'll most likely never buy a printer again. Why should I? Capital investment in second-rate technology that ages as I use it. Let someone else make the investment, I'll pay them to stay on top of the tech curve and keep the damned thing running.

I have no darkroom, and I couldn't do color if I wanted to - I'm colorblind. Fortunately, technology wins again.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #14
wlewisiii
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaresLarrave
I don't know if Walgreen's does it, but that's where I'd go if they did, because I don't want to set foot on a Walmart store.
Walgreens does - I do it there regularly. Which is good, because it's a cold day you know where before I give a penny to Sam's Spawn... Walgreen's is hardly innocent. But the reality is you have to look at the various megacorporations and decide which of them least rape your morals and then give them you money, however hesitantly. In the end, without a real revolution, that is the best that can be hoped for.

So I get my "Dev Only with CD" for $5 (the scans are essentially a modern proof sheet.) and count myself reasonably happy.

William
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #15
SteveM(PA)
Poser
 
SteveM(PA)'s Avatar
 
SteveM(PA) is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Coventry, Pa.
Age: 50
Posts: 1,034
I don't have a Walgreens anywhere near me and can't seem to find a place that will give me a cd only, much less a high-res cd. It's always just an "add on" or part of the "premium package." So, I'm intrigued by this idea of negative scanning, I never entertained the idea. I've only ever done post processing and sent jpegs to Apple (Kodak). I've never even "unrolled" a roll of film. So, I could just feed my developed roll into a specialized negative scanner? I've found an Epson "Perfection" online for pretty cheap, it's a flatbed but has a feeder on the top. I think I need to do a lot more research.
__________________
-Steve
my gallery
my flickr
Olympus XA, Fed 3B, Zorki 4K
"The cup of tea on arrival at a country house is a thing which, as a rule, I particularly enjoy. I like the crackling logs, the shaded lights, the scent of buttered toast, the general atmosphere of leisured cosiness."
-P. G. Wodehouse

Last edited by SteveM(PA) : 12-04-2005 at 21:38.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #16
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
 
Bryan Lee is offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southeast Asia
Age: 52
Posts: 352

I see printing is the topic of the day. What appears to be populer lately and I will be checking up on at the Thailand Photo Fair is small companys creating better nozzles and programing, then adding external high qaulity inks on existing printer carriages.

The other method as mentioned seems to be outsourcing. As cameras get better files will get bigger and with the current and progressing computer and internet speeds your pictures done this way will only have the speed limeted by the mail or how fast you can go over and pick them up. The whole outsourcing prints method is just another reason digital printing will hold little if any long term monetary value but will look great on big screens at the Smithsonian Institute from a historians point of view.

Ive seen some pretty good pictures being printed by the digital method but when Im done with them I dont think twice about tossing them in the bin. I never feel comfortable about tossing out any hand printed stuff even if its just awful.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2005   #17
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
 
ClaremontPhoto's Avatar
 
ClaremontPhoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Alentejo
Posts: 5,242
I don't think 'normal' people print at home.

Last week I needed some A4 inkjet photo paper at short notice.

I went to the local store and the guy there asked how many sheets I needed.

When I told him I'd have the whole box of 50, and another box too, he did a double-take and said that people generally purchase just a few sheets.
__________________
.

R.I.P. 2009

Jon


ClaremontPhoto


Box of Chocolates
A Gray Area
Panoramic
Friends & Neighbors



"I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." Noel Coward
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #18
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is online now
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Washington, USA
Posts: 13,271
I guess I'm lucky to have a local branch of a good pro lab within walking distance. But I'd never have any processing actually done in the local store, as the machinery is all out in the open behind the counter; dirt dust and lint all over the place, and as described, I've also see film dragged across the floor from the processing machine to the scan/print machine. They have a rag there that they run down the length of the film to wipe off the accumulated crud.

The lucky part comes in that they offer a "Pro" service which has the negs go to the main lab 40 miles away where the machinery is all in a controlled environment, and the scans are at a higher resolution. 6.1 Mp, as I earlier mentioned, and that's "megapixels" not "megabytes". So I just ask for develop, scan, don't cut, no prints.

They have a self-service kiosk there. I have edited my selected scans at home, and put them on a CF card. The kiosk reads the CF card (and various other media) and after I choose various options it uploads the scans to the main lab and spits out an invoice. The traditional C prints (not inkjet) arrive the next day. So far I have only gotten 5x7 prints at about 50 cents each, and have been pleased at the quality. The prints are for handing out to my environmental portrait "victims."

I've found this arrangement pretty satisfactory, but scans of some rolls have an over-all color cast or an exposure I think could be better. And they don't do at all well with half-frame, which mightily confuses their machine. Even when I begin doing my own scans at home, I think I'd still have the lab do the preliminary ones, and I'd concentrate on those few that deserve more attention.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook

Last edited by Doug : 12-05-2005 at 00:06.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #19
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
 
ClaremontPhoto's Avatar
 
ClaremontPhoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Alentejo
Posts: 5,242
That's pretty much my workflow too.

You have to scope the lab: I went to one place on the other side of town that had the scanner/printer right by the door (open) on a busy street. Negs hanging right there in the traffic dust. No way Jose.
__________________
.

R.I.P. 2009

Jon


ClaremontPhoto


Box of Chocolates
A Gray Area
Panoramic
Friends & Neighbors



"I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." Noel Coward
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #20
Poptart
Screw Loose & Fancy-Free
 
Poptart is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 639
I can't read all that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #21
Nikon Bob
 
Posts: n/a
All I know is that somebody is making good money at this printing kiosk thing as it costs as much to do that as have C41 film developed and printed. Funny thing is that now you do not need that big ugly costly to run and maintain machine for developing film. Anyway, good for you Bill.

Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #22
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by langdon auger
I don't have a Walgreens anywhere near me and can't seem to find a place that will give me a cd only, much less a high-res cd. It's always just an "add on" or part of the "premium package." So, I'm intrigued by this idea of negative scanning, I never entertained the idea. I've only ever done post processing and sent jpegs to Apple (Kodak). I've never even "unrolled" a roll of film. So, I could just feed my developed roll into a specialized negative scanner? I've found an Epson "Perfection" online for pretty cheap, it's a flatbed but has a feeder on the top. I think I need to do a lot more research.
If you are shooting 35mm, you'd probably be happier with the results from what is called a 'dedicated' film scanner rather than a flatbed - the results are much better. And yes, generally you put the film in a tray, and feed the tray into the roughly shoebox-sized box and run the scanning software from your PC. There are three basic brands of dedicated scanner, and the top two are pretty good - Konica Minolta and Nikon. Many agree that if you're on a budget, the KM ScanDual IV is a good bet at something around $200 US. If you shoot medium format, then yes, an Epson flat-bed scanner is usually a good deal.

This might seem like a lot of money (and it is), but if you regularly shoot film and have it processed and printed (or scanned) at a local one-hour place, you're probably paying $5 or $6 per roll of 24 exposures. If you have processing-only done, it costs about $2. So presuming you scan your own negatives and only have printed those photos you wish and not all of them, you can recoup the cost of the scanner pretty quickly and then you're saving money from then on.

It does require a desire to learn some computer photo editing skills, and it does take time, so you have to decide if you want to make that investment.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #23
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
 
ClaremontPhoto's Avatar
 
ClaremontPhoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Alentejo
Posts: 5,242
Of course they can do a dev, hires and lores scan to CD, index, uncut negs and no replacement film.

That what I have, you may differ a little in your requirements.

Talk to the main guy and don't let them supersize you with extra cheese into a package you don't want.

In another city nearby to me there are two minilab shops right next to each other on the street. The Fuji one has a sign for 30 minute dev and print. The Kodak one has a custom-made sign for 29 minute dev and print. But when I've been to either one (in the morning) thay have told me to come back tomorrow!
__________________
.

R.I.P. 2009

Jon


ClaremontPhoto


Box of Chocolates
A Gray Area
Panoramic
Friends & Neighbors



"I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." Noel Coward
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #24
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
 
pedro.m.reis is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Age: 47
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Claremont
Of course they can do a dev, hires and lores scan to CD, index, uncut negs and no replacement film.

That what I have, you may differ a little in your requirements.

Talk to the main guy and don't let them supersize you with extra cheese into a package you don't want.

In another city nearby to me there are two minilab shops right next to each other on the street. The Fuji one has a sign for 30 minute dev and print. The Kodak one has a custom-made sign for 29 minute dev and print. But when I've been to either one (in the morning) thay have told me to come back tomorrow!
Hey Jon, you are living in Alentejo, the portuguese region of "let it be... cool down ... if you can do it tomorrow, dont do it today" ))
Great food & wine also )
When i was in my parents home last summer, a litle town in tras-os-montes, it was the same... the minilab only worked 2 days a week .
__________________
Pedro Reis

Flickr

My Humble RRF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #25
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
 
ClaremontPhoto's Avatar
 
ClaremontPhoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Alentejo
Posts: 5,242
Amanha.

(A few extra words to get it over the ten character thing.)
__________________
.

R.I.P. 2009

Jon


ClaremontPhoto


Box of Chocolates
A Gray Area
Panoramic
Friends & Neighbors



"I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." Noel Coward
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #26
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Claremont
Of course they can do a dev, hires and lores scan to CD, index, uncut negs and no replacement film.
I don't like the in-store scans - first even the hirez is lowrez to me, second, it scratches the neg for my scan later. I always have the negs cut, I find that rolling the strip back up and stuffing it into the cannister puts scratches on it too. I never got for the replacement film.

Quote:
That what I have, you may differ a little in your requirements.

Talk to the main guy and don't let them supersize you with extra cheese into a package you don't want.

In another city nearby to me there are two minilab shops right next to each other on the street. The Fuji one has a sign for 30 minute dev and print. The Kodak one has a custom-made sign for 29 minute dev and print. But when I've been to either one (in the morning) thay have told me to come back tomorrow!
I live in a small town. We have Walmart and Walgreens. That's it. If I want to go to a camera store, I drive an hour. You can guess I don't do that much.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #27
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Bill: I suspect you're right about the differences I'll find. I'd say Ilfochrome (apologies to Ilford for the retro mistake earlier!) would be significantly different even at 8x10 due to the dye sets and different colour signatures. But I haven't made one in a LONG time, so I could be wrong. It's a moot point right now as I don't have a darkroom setup, so any comparison would have to be via lab/mailorder.

Earl
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #28
aad
Not so new now.
 
aad is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,231
How much difference is there in speed and quality between a dedicated film scanner and a flatbed? And would a film-only unit handle mounted slides?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #29
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aad
How much difference is there in speed and quality between a dedicated film scanner and a flatbed? And would a film-only unit handle mounted slides?
Yes to both parts of your first question, and yes to the second question as well.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #30
Kin Lau
 
Posts: n/a
Up here in the great white north .... I've been using a local grocery (www.photolab.net) chain which does online prints for CDN$.24 ... Walmart, Costco & Sam's Club will do it for CDN $.19 or $.20, but I don't belong to either Costco or Sam's and Walmart's lineups are ridiculous.

At CDN$.24, it's cheaper than what I can get good 4x6 paper for, and I send the files online, and pick them up on my way home from work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2005   #31
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Bill: I picked up the scans from the lab after work today. (BTW, the files are 25MB ea.) With a casual look, I'm not happy with the K64 scans; I also had some Elitechrome slides done and I don't think all of them are great, either. One of the Kodachrome scans is VERY unsharp, as in out of focus, not just digital lack of sharpness.

Harrumph. I'll go back Wednesday and see what the lab says. I paid a lot for these scans, so I'd better get some sort of satisfaction.

Earl
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No words: Your Pet Rich Silfver Rangefinder Photography Discussion 33 08-31-2004 06:46
A man walks into a camera repair shop... bmattock Off Topic 3 02-17-2004 07:06



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:59.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.