Digital
Dilemmas
Hugh McLean-bsme, thb.
To Lab or Not to Lab
Admittedly, my life is much simpler since I discovered Print Wizard and learned how to fine tune the Epson 2200 to make a print the way I want. In addition, now that inkjet prints can be made that have a life expectancy of 75 years, the ‘don’t last’ argument has vanished like vaporware.
I recently sent digital images for a 40 page wedding album (over 100 images) to the photo lab that has been doing our printing. Most of the prints came back fine, but about a dozen were not acceptable. Now what? Fiddle around with the images in photoshop and send them back to the lab? I decided that, instead of sending them back to the lab and waiting for another 2 weeks to see if they would be ok or not, that I would print them myself on the inkjet printer and see if I could improve the quality. My images were far better than the lab prints, so some of the images that were used in the album were from my own inkjet printer, and some were from the lab. I don’t have any problem using labs - in fact, I like the skin tones of ‘C’ prints from the lab a little better than from the inkjet - not sure why though. The fact is, if I can make better or equal quality prints with my inkjet printer than I can get from the lab, then the question comes up - “should use the lab or not?”
The situation of producing 1 or 2 prints from film to fix an album problem really did not occur very often - with me at least. Mixing fresh Ra4 chemistry and holding the process temperature to +/- one degree F and re-calibrating the paper simply took too much time and effort. There are so many variables with film processing that it is extremely difficult to duplicate what the lab can do - but with digital images and ink jet printers - the game changes dramatically. As far as I am concerned, the ability to produce a few prints right away makes a very strong case for digital all by itself.
Sometimes people get the idea that making their own prints is ‘cheaper’ than having the lab produce them. Hah! How do you evaluate what is ‘cheap’? Inkjet printer companies seem to me to have adopted the ‘Gillette’ philosophy - “Give away the razor and kill them with the blades”. The cost of the ink, and paper are about a trade off for lab prints - not with standing the cost of equipment. The big thing for me is time. If your time is not worth much and you are willing to spend hours fiddling with a printer to make your own ‘cheap’ prints, then knock yourself out. I have a neighbor who has a digital camera and a color printer, who showed me the images of his grandson that he had taken with his ‘cheap’ digital camera and printed on ‘cheap’ plain copy paper with his ‘cheap’ printer. I didn’t have the heart to tell him what I thought. Technology is moving so quickly, that even some of the very inexpensive printers intended for home use, can produce some nice images. This neighbor with the crummy prints, may discover relatively inexpensive newer equipment that blows the doors of his ‘cheap’ printer, or heck - for a measly $3,000 he could even buy an Epson 7600 and print his own 20 x 24 prints. 10 years from now, this neighbor may sadly reflect on the wisdom of making these ‘cheap’ prints from the never to be recreated and priceless images of his only grandson. What is ‘cheap’?
It is quite apparent that very soon, the tide will turn as digital imaging will be considered less and less a ‘second class citizen’ by the color labs. It’s a matter of control. With film, the photographers images are directly related to the quality of the lab he uses. He relies on the lab to process the film correctly, to correct the density and color in the printing, to NOT scratch the negatives, and to not loose his order, etc. In short, your very reputation as a photographer hinges on who tweeks the horizontal and vertical and who handles your images. That little piece of celluloid is the bottom line ‘original’ and the lab is in control with the last word. Digital imaging changes all that for a litney of reasons, one being that now the photographer has the last word, and the lab only handles the ‘copy’ of the original, and not the original itself. Another is that you no longer have to set your exposure and establish your own ISO based on the results from the particular lab you use. Your monitor can now be set for the optimum viewing of the capture device, not the way the color lab processes prints. Yes, I have an ICC for the lab I use, but my images are still pristine from the capture mode. /*hm6/*
Comments and kvetches to:
misterdigital@comcast.net