Film Photography: How any could masrer film and darkroom work?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,968Gear list
Like?
Re: my teaching frustration
In reply to bford, 3 months ago

bford wrote:

MisterBG wrote:

bford wrote:

No, I'm not mistaken. My eyes can clearly see the difference. Inkjet is not continuos tone. Dye sub is, and so is traditional photo paper. If you only view your images from a distance then inkjet would work for you.

With dye sub you also never had to worry about banding, clogged ink heads and color shifts under different lighting conditions. Inkjet is also a money pit for the average consumer.

I have a small Canon Selphy dye-sub printer and I tend to agree.

yep, under close scrutiny it is not even close. In fact, my little $100 Kodak dye sub was producing noticeably better detail than traditional chemical photo paper.

Dye sub is much easier to handle than inkjet, no cartridges to change, no clogging, dry instantly and the prints look stunning and sharp.
The downside is that you have to make sure the paper is perfectly clean, otherwise you finish up with white spots from any dust that is on the surface before printing.

never had such an issue on the mini Kodak dye sub I owned, but then I have always been very careful about handling paper going back to my darkroom days.

However, the prints from the Selphy look stunning and sharp because it only prints 100mm x 150mm (4x6 in)
I don't know how good the same images would look at A4 or larger.

the inherent sharpness of dye sub is not dependent on how large the print is. That would be a camera, lens, file resolution function. Two different things.

Also the print materials are not particularly cheap, so running costs can be quite high, even at that small size. One problem with the Canon dye-subs is that there is no alternative source of print materials, so you have to pay what Canon asks for them.

Larger format dye-subs get expensive really quickly, for example the Fuji Film ASK-400 is $2500 at B&H and it only prints up to 10 x 8 inches, which is not even A4.
To get really large dye-sub prints (A3 up) you are looking at large machines that cost $1,000's, and I shudder to think what the running costs might be.
I would think that a large format dye sub would be outside the scope (and wallet) of the average amateur user.

they are not cheap because the industry chose inkjet over dye sub. They chose the wrong technology. Really sad.

I print PiezographicK7 inksets on to HM Photorag 308 and HM Bamboo.  Under a magnifying glass the tonal range is smooth with no dots.  It appears you have much to learn about printing.  I print for exhibition purposes...where you won't see a dye sub in sight.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow