Good news for photographers who yearn for film like images

[lsisaxon]

Seems a little different from Isisaxon's description. From your description it appears to me that silver prints as we understand it is not an output from the Frontier?

The only difference of the Frontier machines from the traditional ooptical minilabs is just the frontend and how the photochemical paper is exposed. The old machines uses a series of lenses to project the negative directly onto the paper. The Frontier machines scans the negative and sends the digital data to these laser scanners which writes light onto the paper, thereby exposing it.

The rest is the same.. Although the paper may be slightly different, they essentially go through the same colour developer/replenisher, bleach-fix/replenisher and several wash stages before the strip is blow dried and cut to size. It is still the very same silver-halide based photochemical process.

 

[Pablo]

Yeah.. At this point in time, there is no B&W paper, but it doesn't mean that you cannot feed B&W paper in if you're able to find B&W in 8" rolls!

There are people feeding Kodak Metallic paper in the Fuji frontier machines and the result is still beautiful!

Hi Isisaxon,

I have actually spoken to (non Fuji) reps regards paper.

I believe that there are some better papers available than the Fuji (even though essentialy it is their machine).

With the Frontier 570 it would not be so much of a hassle to have a canister of B&W (tuned) paper. If you understand the flow of work.

But the main drawback is cost and just how many customers would notice the difference.

In my world (and posasibly yours if you deal with the general public) the average Joe (god bless them) would not know of or care about the difference.

I am looking for the day when I DO deal with customers that ask for more than I can do.

 

[lsisaxon]

It is a silver halide paper, but the developed picture is free from silver. Which is one cost saving factor: the silver can be recycled, whereas silver-based b/w prints can contain substantial amounts of metallic silver (I think several grammes per square metre). This is exactly the same as "traditional" colour printing in the darkroom.

Darn.. if 10 years ago I knew that the silver were in the chemical after the bleach-fix, I wouldn't have discarded so much down the toilet bowl.. No wonder a black film forms in the bottle when I kept used bleach-fix for too long.

 

[lsisaxon]

Hi Isisaxon,

I have actually spoken to (non Fuji) reps regards paper.

I believe that there are some better papers available than the Fuji (even though essentialy it is their machine).

With the Frontier 570 it would not be so much of a hassle to have a canister of B&W (tuned) paper. If you understand the flow of work.

But the main drawback is cost and just how many customers would notice the difference.

In my world (and posasibly yours if you deal with the general public) the average Joe (god bless them) would not know of or care about the difference.

I am looking for the day when I DO deal with customers that ask for more than I can do.

Yeah.. I only say it is possible but I highly doubt it is feasible (cost and demand), think about having to wash clean all the chemical paths free from the B&W chemicals before you embark on colour again. Using drums was enough washing for me then..

Maybe if they come up with a cheap enough enlarger head which uses the three colour laser like in the Frontier machines to expose loose paper and we can do the development by hand ourself, then it might be cheaper. Then again, if they could replace the laser with semiconductor ones... Hmm.. That might bring down the cost by leaps and bounds!

 

[Pablo]

Yeah.. I only say it is possible but I highly doubt it is feasible (cost and demand), think about having to wash clean all the chemical paths free from the B&W chemicals before you embark on colour again. Using drums was enough washing for me then..

Maybe if they come up with a cheap enough enlarger head which uses the three colour laser like in the Frontier machines to expose loose paper and we can do the development by hand ourself, then it might be cheaper. Then again, if they could replace the laser with semiconductor ones... Hmm.. That might bring down the cost by leaps and bounds!

Hi lsisaxon,

I dont know if it would be needed to replace the chemicals if a different paper was used.
My guess is that it wouldn't be required as the development stage should be the same.

I don't know truely as I have not done the tests nor asked about it.

It actually takes more than what you are trained to do to give give acurate results when switching paper sises

I/we (I say we because there are 2 of us that look after the Frontier) spend a lot of time testing for colour differences between paper sizes.

I do a calibration test each time a roll of paper is replaced (that is standard proceedure)

I do a calibration test on a roll of paperi if it has not been used for a few days.

(there are at least 6 different roll sizes and each in a canister of their own, then you have one each for gloss and one for lustre).

Actually, I feed the machine a 18% grey file for each roll size and re-calibrate it's profile for each roll. using a calibrated scanner.

Bottom line..........................

Do I print my photo's out using the Frontier ?

No, I don't like my photo's

 

[Pablo]

Hello to all,

By this time (although I have tried my best to wright in a straight line), I must admit that I have had a few wines.

Be that as it may, I would like to impart to you my view on what you are paying for your prints.

You are paying TOO MUCH!

To give you an example ( this is where I go to work tomorrow and they say, "Pablo who".
Lets take the cost of a 12x18 inch photo.

How much do you pay ?

Put in running costs, chemicals, paper, etc.etc..... $5.00 and they are making a profit !

You say." yes but that is in volume", Ahhhh rubbish, you pick that up on 6x4's

Should be:

8x10" $1 max
10X12 $1 max

Why would 8x10 and 10x2 be the same ? because the cost to do so is the same.

It is about time we stopped getting ripped off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[StreetShooter]

Interesting and very informative bits about the Frontier machines. Thanks!

Let me tell you why I do what I do (ie convert digital to the B&W look). I like the B&W look. Yes, I could use film and print my own, but I find it a PAIN. Developing the film is a pain, and printing it is a pain. The thought of doing my own burning and dodging in the darkroom until I get the look I want sends shivers down my spine.

Time is the most expensive commodity, and being able to shoot as freely as I like with digital, picking the best shots and doing a quick Photoshop job and adjusting it to my exact liking - that's something I appreciate. And believe me it takes a LOT less time. Ever heard of Photoshop actions? My photo processing goes something like press F2, press F9, press F10. About 3 seconds. Or, I could spend another 30 seconds doing some burning and dodging. Then send to the Frontier machine to print. That's a LOT faster than unrolling film, mixing chemicals, waiting for it to dry and repeat ad nauseum for the prints.

I think my "imitations" please me a lot more than any "real" B&W I could possibly produce, given my limited skills and commitment to B&W processing and printing. The only advantage B&W film had for me was high ISO, but that has long disappeared with the Canon DSLR's and now the Fujifilm F11 P&S. I've gone the B&W film route, and it was interesting while it lasted, but what I produced took too much labour and the end result was never as good as what I could achieve with digital (maybe simply because 36 exposures are much less likely to produce more good shots than 200+ exposures at a single sitting). Fortunately the type of photography I appreciate is that of "the moment", rather than the technical quality of the prints. In fact, many of my images are deliberately degraded in order to focus attention where I want it, and remove distracting elements (such as colour).

Someone once told me that there are 3 levels of music appreciation: stereo, hi-fi and audiophile. I've always been stereo, because I never could tell the difference from the other two. I suppose there is a difference, but it does not matter to me if I can't see or hear it.

 

[lsisaxon]

Hi lsisaxon,

I dont know if it would be needed to replace the chemicals if a different paper was used.
My guess is that it wouldn't be required as the development stage should be the same.

I don't know truely as I have not done the tests nor asked about it.

It actually takes more than what you are trained to do to give give acurate results when switching paper sises

I/we (I say we because there are 2 of us that look after the Frontier) spend a lot of time testing for colour differences between paper sizes.

I do a calibration test each time a roll of paper is replaced (that is standard proceedure)

I do a calibration test on a roll of paperi if it has not been used for a few days.

(there are at least 6 different roll sizes and each in a canister of their own, then you have one each for gloss and one for lustre).

Actually, I feed the machine a 18% grey file for each roll size and re-calibrate it's profile for each roll. using a calibrated scanner.

Bottom line..........................

Do I print my photo's out using the Frontier ?

No, I don't like my photo's

Hi Pablo,

Oh yes, I do not deny the fact that you will definitely need to recalibrate when you put in even a different batch of paper. I have done quite a bit of colour printing myself so I'm not surprised. As for chemicals, as long as they are colour papers compatible with the RA process, it should be fine.

However, if you put in B&W paper, they work a little differently from colour paper, tsdh and LittleWolf has mentioned in earlier posts.

In B&W, the exposed silver-halides are developed to become silver and then fixed, to remove the excess unexposed silver-halides. What you see as black or grey in a B&W print are actually silver particles.

In colour, the same silver-halides are on 3 different layers each sensitive to R, G and B. During development, the exposed silver-halide will be converted to silver (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) which will activate the respective colour coupler to give C, M and Y dyes. During the bleach-fix process (B&W is just fix), the silver
will be 'bleached' away and at the same time, fixed by washing away all the unexposed halides (I don't know if the inactivated dyes still remain in the print). There are no silver remaining in the print for colour process because it will mask out the other layers since silver is not transparent.

So to do B&W using a Frontier machine is actually an overkill. It will probably only need the green laser since B&W paper is only sensitive to the intensity and not the colour, there shouldn't be much calibration except for the density of the print.

 

[lsisaxon]

Hello to all,

By this time (although I have tried my best to wright in a straight line), I must admit that I have had a few wines.

Be that as it may, I would like to impart to you my view on what you are paying for your prints.

You are paying TOO MUCH!

To give you an example ( this is where I go to work tomorrow and they say, "Pablo who".
Lets take the cost of a 12x18 inch photo.

How much do you pay ?

Put in running costs, chemicals, paper, etc.etc..... $5.00 and they are making a profit !

You say." yes but that is in volume", Ahhhh rubbish, you pick that up on 6x4's

Should be:

8x10" $1 max
10X12 $1 max

Why would 8x10 and 10x2 be the same ? because the cost to do so is the same.

It is about time we stopped getting ripped off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hahaha.. Yeah true.. One pack of 10 sheets of 11"x14" paper was only $17. And a pack of 100 sheets of 8"x10" is only $80. But the problem with hand print is that we do not have a calibrated output like Frontier where you can colour correct from the screen and you know the output is screen matched. I used to need to do at least 4 test prints (after I started to used the drum system otherwise more than 5 test prints) before printing the actual print. One mistake and it's one sheet gone. That's why hand prints will cost more than machine prints.

My dad and I were then yearning for one day we could make prints by just doing colour correction by viewing it directly on a screen. Well, the technology is here.. but it's still out of reach to hobbyist. Frontier prints are the real thing for colour, just that I do not get to do the processing myself.

 

[lsisaxon]

Interesting and very informative bits about the Frontier machines. Thanks!

Let me tell you why I do what I do (ie convert digital to the B&W look). I like the B&W look. Yes, I could use film and print my own, but I find it a PAIN. Developing the film is a pain, and printing it is a pain. The thought of doing my own burning and dodging in the darkroom until I get the look I want sends shivers down my spine.

Time is the most expensive commodity, and being able to shoot as freely as I like with digital, picking the best shots and doing a quick Photoshop job and adjusting it to my exact liking - that's something I appreciate. And believe me it takes a LOT less time. Ever heard of Photoshop actions? My photo processing goes something like press F2, press F9, press F10. About 3 seconds. Or, I could spend another 30 seconds doing some burning and dodging. Then send to the Frontier machine to print. That's a LOT faster than unrolling film, mixing chemicals, waiting for it to dry and repeat ad nauseum for the prints.

I think my "imitations" please me a lot more than any "real" B&W I could possibly produce, given my limited skills and commitment to B&W processing and printing. The only advantage B&W film had for me was high ISO, but that has long disappeared with the Canon DSLR's and now the Fujifilm F11 P&S. I've gone the B&W film route, and it was interesting while it lasted, but what I produced took too much labour and the end result was never as good as what I could achieve with digital (maybe simply because 36 exposures are much less likely to produce more good shots than 200+ exposures at a single sitting). Fortunately the type of photography I appreciate is that of "the moment", rather than the technical quality of the prints. In fact, many of my images are deliberately degraded in order to focus attention where I want it, and remove distracting elements (such as colour).

Someone once told me that there are 3 levels of music appreciation: stereo, hi-fi and audiophile. I've always been stereo, because I never could tell the difference from the other two. I suppose there is a difference, but it does not matter to me if I can't see or hear it.

Have you tried B&W printed on metallic print? I think the effect is going to be different.. Metallic prints looks more like Cibachrome prints if you're familiar with it.. Beautiful Memories at #01-02 Stamford House do Kodak Metallic prints using Frontier machines. They are a bit expensive but I think they should be quite good. I haven't tried them yet.

 

[student]

Let me tell you why I do what I do (ie convert digital to the B&W look). I like the B&W look. Yes, I could use film and print my own, but I find it a PAIN. Developing the film is a pain, and printing it is a pain. The thought of doing my own burning and dodging in the darkroom until I get the look I want sends shivers down my spine.

It is an issue of attitude, isn't it? On the other hand, I find darkroom work a joy. The solitude. Music at the background. Darkness. The waiting. Calming. Soothing for my soul. Well, people are made differently.

Time is the most expensive commodity, and being able to shoot as freely as I like with digital, picking the best shots and doing a quick Photoshop job and adjusting it to my exact liking - that's something I appreciate. And believe me it takes a LOT less time. Ever heard of Photoshop actions? My photo processing goes something like press F2, press F9, press F10. About 3 seconds. Or, I could spend another 30 seconds doing some burning and dodging. Then send to the Frontier machine to print. That's a LOT faster than unrolling film, mixing chemicals, waiting for it to dry and repeat ad nauseum for the prints.

Absolutely! And that is why a person must make the best use of the time. But "What best use of time?" For me, not churning out the most number of prints in that time. But time spent on contemplation. On reflection, free from the ever constant omnipresence of information overload, of images in the LCD in front of me, of SMs, of phone calls.

Do I care how fast I churn out images? Arno Rafael Mikkinen brought me back to my senses.

Arno advised: Build your portfolio one image at a time. IF I can make ONE good image a month, that means 12 good images a year. 60 good images in 5 years. How many great images did Ansel Adams have in his life of 40 years of photography? Approximately 200. That is, 5 images a year. For a full time professional.

Yes you can say that you are not AA, and you only make images for yourself. But at the end, it is still the good images (your own standard) that counts.

I think my "imitations" please me a lot more than any "real" B&W I could possibly produce, given my limited skills and commitment to B&W processing and printing.

As vince123123 alluded to, people have different standards. In photography, in how we practise our profession etc

I've gone the B&W film route, and it was interesting while it lasted, but what I produced took too much labour and the end result was never as good as what I could achieve with digital (maybe simply because 36 exposures are much less likely to produce more good shots than 200+ exposures at a single sitting).

I do not think you had "gone the film route'. In my opinion, You had merely dabbled the film route.

Yes it is true that if you give an idiot a camera and let him click a thousand times, there is a real possibility that an image or two might turn out to be masterpiece.

Sure that is one way of making images.

Fortunately the type of photography I appreciate is that of "the moment", rather than the technical quality of the prints. In fact, many of my images are deliberately degraded in order to focus attention where I want it, and remove distracting elements (such as colour).

So, a "moment" type of imagery equates to sloppy techniques and craft?

Tell that to Ansel Adams (He had to wait for the "right moment" to take the image of Moon over Hernandez].

Tell that to Cartier Bresson. Have you seen his prints?

Tell that to Marc Riboud.

Tell that to Salgado.

Tell that to Eugene Smith.

No, these people are not sloppy. These people take/took great pride in the final image.

And sometimes people make up esoteric excuses for a mental sloppiness.

Someone once told me that there are 3 levels of music appreciation: stereo, hi-fi and audiophile. I've always been stereo, because I never could tell the difference from the other two. I suppose there is a difference, but it does not matter to me if I can't see or hear it.

Unless you are deaf, or tone deaf, I submit you can tell the difference. (I maybe wrong here. "Everything" is possible, right?")

The issue is not whether you can or cannot tell the difference.

The issue is that you are not bothered with it. Which is perfectly reasonable. Your choice.

 

[LittleWolf]

Put in running costs, chemicals, paper, etc.etc..... $5.00 and they are making a profit !

You say." yes but that is in volume", Ahhhh rubbish, you pick that up on 6x4's

Should be:

8x10" $1 max
10X12 $1 max

Why would 8x10 and 10x2 be the same ? because the cost to do so is the same.

It is about time we stopped getting ripped off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know the cost calculation of shop owser, but in all fairness you should also take into account some other cost factors for the service provider:

- They have to pay the rent/utilities for the shop.
- They have to pay the rent/lease for the machine.
- They have to stock (and properly dispose of, which can be expensive - think toxic chemical waste) a range of consumables.
- They usually do some manual work (mounting film/downloading data; as different customers might organize their files in different ways, the latter can be a hassle).
- They may deliver to your doorstep or do other special service (e.g. changing paper format for only two or three prints so that you can take the prints with you after just a few minutes).
- Customers expect them to deliver quickly, even if it's a slow business day and the machine would be idling most of the time.
- They have to save some money for repairs/maintenance/upgrades.
- Like everyone else, they want to have a job that provides them/their families with some decent income. They HAVE to make a profit.

I think the present prices, at least in Singapore, are quite fair.

 

[tsdh]

Interesting and very informative bits about the Frontier machines. Thanks!

Let me tell you why I do what I do (ie convert digital to the B&W look). I like the B&W look. Yes, I could use film and print my own, but I find it a PAIN. Developing the film is a pain, and printing it is a pain. The thought of doing my own burning and dodging in the darkroom until I get the look I want sends shivers down my spine.

Time is the most expensive commodity, and being able to shoot as freely as I like with digital, picking the best shots and doing a quick Photoshop job and adjusting it to my exact liking - that's something I appreciate. And believe me it takes a LOT less time. Ever heard of Photoshop actions? My photo processing goes something like press F2, press F9, press F10. About 3 seconds. Or, I could spend another 30 seconds doing some burning and dodging. Then send to the Frontier machine to print. That's a LOT faster than unrolling film, mixing chemicals, waiting for it to dry and repeat ad nauseum for the prints.

I think my "imitations" please me a lot more than any "real" B&W I could possibly produce, given my limited skills and commitment to B&W processing and printing. The only advantage B&W film had for me was high ISO, but that has long disappeared with the Canon DSLR's and now the Fujifilm F11 P&S. I've gone the B&W film route, and it was interesting while it lasted, but what I produced took too much labour and the end result was never as good as what I could achieve with digital (maybe simply because 36 exposures are much less likely to produce more good shots than 200+ exposures at a single sitting). Fortunately the type of photography I appreciate is that of "the moment", rather than the technical quality of the prints. In fact, many of my images are deliberately degraded in order to focus attention where I want it, and remove distracting elements (such as colour).

Someone once told me that there are 3 levels of music appreciation: stereo, hi-fi and audiophile. I've always been stereo, because I never could tell the difference from the other two. I suppose there is a difference, but it does not matter to me if I can't see or hear it.

StreetShooter, for your type of shots, you don't need to be concerned of technical quality, nor the aesthetic looks of the prints. Because you're concentrating mostly on the journalism-photography, you're capturing the moments. Moment and composition is the key for your photos. Therefore if you still knick-knack experimenting with digital-grains, I think you're heading to the wrong direction.
Those delicate properties of film, only useful mostly on the art-photograph, a photo which was created purposely to deploy that properties into art form. Therefore, adding grain to your journalistic-photo, is just a joke. It does not increase its appeal anyway.

The following pictures I took at recent Asian Aerospace, were also capturing moments, do you think it will be better if I add grains on it? I don't think so.

 

[lsisaxon]

Unless you are deaf, or tone deaf, I submit you can tell the difference. (I maybe wrong here. "Everything" is possible, right?")

The issue is not whether you can or cannot tell the difference.

The issue is that you are not bothered with it. Which is perfectly reasonable. Your choice.

I think it's more likely that he hasn't heard really good systems, good sound systems doesn't need to be expensive systems.

 

[student]

I think it's more likely that he hasn't heard really good systems, good sound systems doesn't need to be expensive systems.

There are three possibilities

1 Deafness (loss of hearing or tone deaf)
2 Indifference (don't really care)
3 Ignorance (not really "exposed" to the possibilities)

 

[lsisaxon]

There are three possibilities

1 Deafness (loss of hearing or tone deaf)
2 Indifference (don't really care)
3 Ignorance (not really "exposed" to the possibilities)

So my remark probably falls under the "Ignorance" category.. I know some people rather not know than know because they don't want to get hooked into another expensive hobby..

 

[student]

So my remark probably falls under the "Ignorance" category.. I know some people rather not know than know because they don't want to get hooked into another expensive hobby..

We are going OT, but what the heck!

I have a 20 year-old Musical Fidelity and Splendor set up.

I know what Krell and Sonus Faber Extrema is capable of. But this does not mean that I need to get hooked on ever "upgrading". My system serves my purpose, and gives me joy.

I will not get the Krell/Sonus Faber. But I know the difference out there.

 

[StreetShooter]

StreetShooter, for your type of shots, you don't need to be concerned of technical quality, nor the aesthetic looks of the prints. Because you're concentrating mostly on the journalism-photography, you're capturing the moments. Moment and composition is the key for your photos. Therefore if you still knick-knack experimenting with digital-grains, I think you're heading to the wrong direction.
Those delicate properties of film, only useful mostly on the art-photograph, a photo which was created purposely to deploy that properties into art form. Therefore, adding grain to your journalistic-photo, is just a joke. It does not increase its appeal anyway.

The following pictures I took at recent Asian Aerospace, were also capturing moments, do you think it will be better if I add grains on it? I don't think so.

As I explained, I like the look of B&W grain, which is why I add it. I also like punchier contrast, which is why I increase it, and dodge and burn selectively.

To answer your question specifically, yes I think it will look better if you increase the contrast and add grain. It will look better to me.

I took the liberty of modifying your first picture to demonstrate what I mean. It's more aesthetically pleasing to me. As student will tell you, there's no accounting for taste. Technical excellence is not the same as aesthetic quality, although having the former may help you better achieve the latter, to your own satisfaction.

 

[tsdh]

As I explained, I like the look of B&W grain, which is why I add it. I also like punchier contrast, which is why I increase it, and dodge and burn selectively.

So it is your personal preference, that's ok.
Actually you still prefer the look of film, but why don't you use film instead of digital? well, probably you want the convenience of digital; the convenience of instant preview, the convenience of simpler and faster workflow, the convenience of shooting more pictures and delete the unwanted.
Ok, I understand now why you use digital, yet still trying hard to mimic film.
I believe there are many people who still prefer the output of film, but bow to digital due to its convenience. .... and then trying hard to make digital looks like film ...
:think: I think I will follow your path too.... let me know if you find a successful method to create film grain.

 

[lsisaxon]

So it is your personal preference, that's ok.
Actually you still prefer the look of film, but why don't you use film instead of digital? well, probably you want the convenience of digital; the convenience of instant preview, the convenience of simpler and faster workflow, the convenience of shooting more pictures and delete the unwanted.
Ok, I understand now why you use digital, yet still trying hard to mimic film.
I believe there are many people who still prefer the output of film, but bow to digital due to its convenience. .... and then trying hard to make digital looks like film ...
:think: I think I will follow your path too.... let me know if you find a successful method to create film grain.

For me, I am using digital because of the convenience as well as the clean look. IMO colour pictures should not have too much grain because unlike silver grains in B&W which has it's own character, the dye clouds can be quite unsightly.