Comments interspersed: Hi Bruce,
> Interesting observations. Certainly one aspect of this issue is the > person doing the printing. I'd venture to say (and I include myself), > that few people who are making prints were darkroom wizards and > may not be able to tell a decent print from a great one until they are > shown and also taught how to produce a great one. Exactly ... what we have are people who find it very easy to use a digital camera and to fiddle about in Photoshop, etc., and run a few prints off on their Epsons or send the files to Billy Bob's Photo Lab and Storm Door Company. Since they don't know what a good print should be like, the results are all over the place. One print I saw recently was made on the wrong side of the inkjet paper, but the fellow who made it thought it was "pretty good." However, I'd have expected a bit more quality from some of the more experienced photogs who sent prints, and while almost every print did have a degree of quality about it, there was no consistency from one to the other. For example, I recognize that if one were to have a conventional print made from film, be it color or B&W, there's going to be some differences between them based on a number of variables: who did the printing, paper used, color sense, individual interpretation, and so on. However, based on my own experiences printing and using various labs, the differences between the prints made from a given negative have been a lot more subtle than for example, the differences I've seen between one image that was printed by two different printers and as seen on my monitor. I think what the problem is, at least in part, is that there's too great a reliance on the technical end (i.e., the machine has calibrated the color to be a certain way) and not enough reliance on the eye and sensibility and skill of the printer. There are, perhaps, too many variables to consider. For example, one local consumer lab that I used (past tense) processed and printed a roll of Reala for me. There were two frames, one right next to the other, of the same image, made with the identical camera settings. The only difference was that I moved the camera very slightly to shoe a different amount of sky. The color rendition of the two prints were miles apart when they should have been identical. OTOH, another lab that I sometimes use, made a batch of prints and the printer intentionally made some very subtle differences to the prints from the same negative in order to give me a choice of how I wanted the final print to look. I could not see the differences between a couple of the prints until he pointed them out to me. His kill was in his eyes and his ability to get the printing machine to follow his directions rather than just being a machine operator. So, the bottom line is that the skills of the printer, whether the photographer at home or the guy at the lab, are all over the place. > I did find a couple of places that would do very > good scanning on high end equipment to the tune of about $75.00 per > image scanned. That would work for one or two fine art images, but > would be a recipe for financial disaster with a wedding. This issue, > among others moved me over to the digital side. Yes, good scans cost good money. There's a lot involved in getting great results, very much the same as when workiong in a darkroom. Not only is high quality equipment important, but setting it up properly is critical, as is knowing how to use it well. Comments here and in other venues tout the quality that is spit out from Nikon and Minolta and canon scanners (add your favorite to the list), but the results, even from these high end consumer scanners, pales in comparison to the high quality Imacon and Tango drum scanners I've seen. Add a competent operator, a good monitor (Sony Artisan, Apple Cinema, certain LaCie units), proper calibration (even for B&W work), and all of a sudden the results get better by a readily observable degree. Unfortunately, the average Joe hasn't a clue as to what to look for, and I know I'm going to get pummeled for this, a lot of good photographers don't have a clue either. Why? because they've never made their own prints, never been taught what quality is, never understood the essentials of exposure, and so on. Now they can do it all digitally, but have little or no experince behind them upon which to base their work. In the past it's all been done for them through labs and service bureaus. That's not to say that every photographer has to be a master at his or her craft. A lot of photogs, such as those found on this list, are happy with what they do, and their work reflects their aspirations, finances, skill levels, and intent. Not every photo has to be a mastrerpiece - most just have to satisfy the photographer, or his or her spiuse, or kids, or gandma in Peoria. > > Currently, my printing needs are mostly served by sending out to > mpix.com or my local lab that is using Agfa DLabs and Epson big > printers. I print at home for a quick and dirty or a one off for some > reason. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce
