Print v Print - digi v traditional

How does Fuji crystal archive compare life expectancy wise with the best inkjet. And does it have a "look" that the inkjets don't have? I was just wondering about dusting off my darkroom, mainly for fun. My inkjet printer is broken and I have two Durst 138 colour enlargers sitanding around, cost wise it will probably be cheaper to use the old analogue, rather than another printer drinking ink, I will also be able to print to bigger sizes if I need without buying a bigger printer.

My initial thought was just hand B&W, then I thought why not colour as well. I am not shure where we have got to with Ra4 printing, as it's some years since I did any. I shoot film for fun, 5x4 and 5x7 mostly. Any one with recent experience of the products around now?

Kevin.

If its just for fun, then quite honestly practically any inkjet is OK.

Printing professionally for paying clients is another matter altogether....

riddell said:

If its just for fun, then quite honestly practically any inkjet is OK.

Printing professionally for paying clients is another matter altogether....

Click to expand...

As I am printing these for fun (I can't remember the last time a client wanted a print) I intend to take my time and get as good as I can.

Kevin.

KAllen said:

riddell said:

If its just for fun, then quite honestly practically any inkjet is OK.

Printing professionally for paying clients is another matter altogether....

Click to expand...

As I am printing these for fun (I can't remember the last time a client wanted a print) I intend to take my time and get as good as I can.

Kevin.

Click to expand...

Whether for yourself or professionally, both inkjet and conventional to Crystal Archive are completely saleable to clients, galleries, etc.

The best you can expect from Crystal Archive is 60-70 years. With the latest K3 inks, you can achieve well over 100 years for color, and 200 years for B&W.

Inkjet is capable of greater sharpness, while the perception of depth may be a bit greater on a lightjet and Crystal Archive for example.

KAllen said:

As I am printing these for fun (I can't remember the last time a client wanted a print) I intend to take my time and get as good as I can.

Click to expand...

So if you was printing for a client, you wouldn't take your time to get it good?

riddell said:

riddell said:

As I am printing these for fun (I can't remember the last time a client wanted a print) I intend to take my time and get as good as I can.

Click to expand...

So if you was printing for a client, you wouldn't take your time to get it good?

Click to expand...

Na I just give them something that looks a bit like it should.

When I printed commercially I was using a maxiprinter, a miniprinter and a enlarger with a roll box. There was no time mostly to spend ages on each print, with the maxi and miniprinter there was no option to dodge burn or colour correct areas. You tested once, printed then any re-do's done at the end. Batch printing B&W although done on an enlarger did not give you time to treat every image as a fine art print either. You would get it down to a 2-3 second exposure and wave your hand about, you would have a set in the wash, in the fix, in the dev and neg exposing. I've even had to print from wet negs before to hit a deadline. That's how it was done and you would fit in a portrait session a commercial job and anything else that came along.

Printing for fun with no post to catch or deadline to hit is a different ball game.
Kevin.
Kevin.

If for your own enjoyment, use whichever system you want. Longevity-wise, all modern printing materials, either chemical or pigment are satisfactorily stable to be a non-issue.

Image-quality wise, digital has an edge because you can do more editing with it, but if are coming from a high-quality 5x7 or 4x5 neg or tranny, it's very hard to beat an optical print from that. High-end color printing from trannies really needs masks to control the contrasts, but if you are using Fujifilm 160s, you can rejoice in the freedoms that particular film gives you.

I'd definitely recommend hanging out over at APUG. Around this place, even the mention of non-digital technology will give some people the hives.
--

You ask > . And does it have a "look" that the inkjets don't have?

Most of my printed photos are done on crystal archive, on a Nortisu RA4 printer, most often at Costco stores.

To me the big reason to go to inkjet printing is to get the much wider variety of "looks" from it, compared to my limited choice of glossy or matte on Crystal Archive.

Canva, rag, thick paper, thin paper, etc., etc. ivory, pure white, blusish, ... there's a huge variety of great papers for inkjet printers.

Starting from a 4x5 neg or transparency -- if you want to have fun, seems like enlarger time to me.

But a good scanner, a 24 inch inket printer, some wonderful paper and ten or so inks... wonderful.

BAK

I have been experimenting with inverting some of my pictures in photoshop and then printing them and making contact prints. I was amazed that they come out pretty good. My next goal is to print a medium format negative on transparency paper and try to enlarge it to see how it comes out. As well as obtain a hi res projector that I can project an inverted image to photographic paper in a darkroom to make larger prints that I cannot contact print.

Well unless you print color in some volume, otherwise Ra4 processing cost can be pretty high. Yes, I would agree that the analog print and the digital print is different, but that's just that, different. I wouldn't think one can be the others or vice versa.

As for B&W , I stop using enlarger years ago .. when I finally switch over to digital and analog Contact Print ( its even better than the Durst, and you only need the Contact Print frame and a light bank to do that or even old beat up enlarger. A decent scanner for film neg and slide and an inkjet to do my digital neg

--

• Franka -

Franka T.L. said:

Well unless you print color in some volume, otherwise Ra4 processing cost can be pretty high. Yes, I would agree that the analog print and the digital print is different, but that's just that, different. I wouldn't think one can be the others or vice versa.

As for B&W , I stop using enlarger years ago .. when I finally switch over to digital and analog Contact Print ( its even better than the Durst, and you only need the Contact Print frame and a light bank to do that or even old beat up enlarger. A decent scanner for film neg and slide and an inkjet to do my digital neg

--

• Franka -

Click to expand...

Hi Franka,

Which format do you use for contact printing. I am only shooting 5x7 biggest, I think it's a bit small for only contact printing.

Scanner wise I have a Nikon, a Heidelberg and Dainippon Screen drum scanner (I also shoot all commercial work on a 1DsmkIII), to be honest the digital side either capture/processing or scanning, I find a bit soulless, that's why I was contemplating a step back to analogue, but not if the process is inherently out classed.

Kevin.

snay1345 said:

I have been experimenting with inverting some of my pictures in photoshop and then printing them and making contact prints. I was amazed that they come out pretty good. My next goal is to print a medium format negative on transparency paper and try to enlarge it to see how it comes out. As well as obtain a hi res projector that I can project an inverted image to photographic paper in a darkroom to make larger prints that I cannot contact print.

Click to expand...

I've been looking at somewhat the same idea as well. Taking a digital or film capture, outputting it to a inkjet transparency, and making Gum Dichromate prints from them. I think some clients may be interested in having portraiture done, whether capture digitally or on film....but having the output stage using this hybrid process to create prints using this 19th century process.

KAllen said:

Hi Franka,

Which format do you use for contact printing. I am only shooting 5x7 biggest, I think it's a bit small for only contact printing.

Scanner wise I have a Nikon, a Heidelberg and Dainippon Screen drum scanner (I also shoot all commercial work on a 1DsmkIII), to be honest the digital side either capture/processing or scanning, I find a bit soulless, that's why I was contemplating a step back to analogue, but not if the process is inherently out classed.

Click to expand...

Well a 4X5 or 5X7 neg of course give you contact print of that size ( fit nicely on an 8x10 paper with broad boarder ( for marking, matting and generally framing etc .. leave enough to create key-line or black surround )

But my motto is the word - Hybrid - with a proper scan of film, decent inkjet printer with True Quadtone ( or simply Epson K3 or even Phat black or single black ) and clear film. Once can use the digital date to create a Digital Negative and simply contact print them. The contact print part is pretty easy and after that, the Developing, fixing , washing etc is the same ... of course it can be more difficult for Color, but then if its Color, I would just suggest inkjet print instead for its wide gamut support. So if I need a 1Ds captured image or a 6X6 slide to be printed to say a 16X20 paper. I can simply do a Digital Neg exactly that size and than applied the contact printing.

With digital, or the digital side of such, its all about workflow. One must develop one's own routine and specifics. its no more different than wet darkroom.

--

• Franka -

Re> I find a bit soulless,

Maybe spending some times looking at the wide variety of inkjet papers might turn out to be a soul-enhancing experience.

And someone in DPR recently tried metal prints for the first time, and was very impressed.

BAK

Dave Luttmann said:

The best you can expect from Crystal Archive is 60-70 years. With the latest K3 inks, you can achieve well over 100 years for color, and 200 years for B&W.

Click to expand...

That's what testing says. But I'll sell you something today and guarantee it for 150 years because I'll be dead in 60 years and my company might close in 10 years.

Remember how burned CDs were initially given a 75 year life expectancy when they first came on the scene? In reality CDs can go bad in as little as a couple of years.

Fuji must be seriously fudging their specs. I 'visited' several Fujiflex prints that I sold to friends about 12yrs ago, and even under dim room light and behind glass I noticed a fairly obvious loss of D-max. At least with Fuji though the density loss was fairly linear, unlike old Kodak EP-2 where cyan was first to die resulting in red shifted prints.

Both Fuji and Kodak have toughened up their RA-4 technology considerably to make it 'Walmart' proof, but I'm still skeptical of long-term claims. There are simply too many variables at play, and I still insist you need a stabilizer stage if you are using any type of organic dye coupled paper, which RA-4 is. Good luck finding a lab that does that now. No one wants to mess with this in a home darkroom either, although I did with the aid of a respirator when I did commercial printing.

You're nutz for even wanting to waste an afternoon wanting to work with conventional color printing, even with good dichroics. There are simply too many better ink-jet options with superior paper surfaces. The matte based papers simply give a dimension that color chromogenic papers never had, and if you want vivid color opt for one of the print on metal options.

B&W has always been a bit subjective, but there has been a serious closure in the ink-jet / classic silver gelatin gap with several fine art ink-jet papers released the past several years. This however places the burden on the quality of your scan and printer, which you may/may not want to indulge.

Optical printing large format B&W is always tried and true, provided you are working with decent papers (and good negs). I hand processed several rolls of MF 120 6x7 for a friend last month, and even those prints were pretty good by my standards. If your film made good prints back when you initially printed them there's no reason they won't now.

I'm also noting several people in this thread offering advice that have never printed conventionally in their life, but that's the BS you deal with in a non-moderated forum.

ekn said:

but if are coming from a high-quality 5x7 or 4x5 neg or tranny, it's very hard to beat an optical print from that

Click to expand...

Which is the dilema. Large format chromes make sucky prints with blown out contrast and require masks to fix via R-type. Even then it's like shaving with a dull razor trying to avoid nicks. With print film you sacrifice density range for milky highlights and easier dodging and burning, but get muddy colors.

Chromes, regardless of format, are best scanned and printed digitally. Medium / LF format print film on the other hand is an oxymoron.

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

but if are coming from a high-quality 5x7 or 4x5 neg or tranny, it's very hard to beat an optical print from that

Click to expand...

Which is the dilema. Large format chromes make sucky prints with blown out contrast and require masks to fix via R-type. Even then it's like shaving with a dull razor trying to avoid nicks. With print film you sacrifice density range for milky highlights and easier dodging and burning, but get muddy colors.

Chromes, regardless of format, are best scanned and printed digitally. Medium / LF format print film on the other hand is an oxymoron.

Click to expand...

Don't ever say that around Burkett.

They could make unsubstantiated claims, but HP, Canon, Lexmark, Kodak and others would like nothing better than to hammer Epson for false advertising and claims in the US. The fines are amazingly high and the negative publicity can kill a product line.

As to the lifespan, from my understanding it is the ink itself that is tested for fade, separate from the paper - as I can buy archival quality paper with K3 ink and get one result, while getting a lesser result with standard paper. So the 200 year claim for the ink, if you read the fine print is for storage in no light to low light, low humidity and average temperature (approx 60-72 degrees F). Archival paper has a different life rating but same storage conditions.

CD's have a lifespan of 125 years on the media, and less so on the recording layer - depending on what is used. Add certain types of fungus and the lifespan goes down to matter of weeks/months.

RedFox88 said:

Dave Luttmann said:

The best you can expect from Crystal Archive is 60-70 years. With the latest K3 inks, you can achieve well over 100 years for color, and 200 years for B&W.

Click to expand...

That's what testing says. But I'll sell you something today and guarantee it for 150 years because I'll be dead in 60 years and my company might close in 10 years.

Remember how burned CDs were initially given a 75 year life expectancy when they first came on the scene? In reality CDs can go bad in as little as a couple of years.

Click to expand...

Genix said:

They could make unsubstantiated claims, but HP, Canon, Lexmark, Kodak and others would like nothing better than to hammer Epson for false advertising and claims in the US.

Click to expand...

It is not Epson's testing or claim. They are just reporting another company's test results and they always list the source as to not take liability themselves.