I've been asked to comment on 4x5 negatives. It's such a broad topic from both the technical and business standpoint that I'll just start with a few things and respond if there are questions.

We offer them as the "heart" of our business because it's my idea of a "best of the options" for a photo preservation system. This is not to start a controversy! As there is no specific place here for "traditional" work where everyone would agree with me - and I'm totally outnumbered by digital advocates - it's just the way I do things and here are just a few of my reasons;

FREEZING TIME - a good copy negative stops the clock on deterioration. You can give the customer several hundred years to get the rest of the work done. That time span is, of course, not etched in stone either, but I do use "silver lock", a system from RIT that in essence amounts to selenium toning. You can learn a lot more about that from RIT.

HUMAN READABLE - A true preservation system has to be able to be seen without the aid of a machine of any kind. Hugh Downs did a great radio talk on this. I've got the transcript and the OK to publish it so may do that someday. 4x5 negatives not only fit that criteria, by virtue of being in use for nearly all of the history of photography, they have become a de facto standard in the "size" compromises. In my opinion, that means there will be no problems at all for anyone who wants to get one printed in the year 2210.

FILM SELECTION - with roll film it's a "one size fits all" copy process - but all originals are not the same! You need a film that does the best job of isolating the image from the sub and that is different in every case. Good books are available from Kodak on this so I'm not going to write one here - the films I use on a daily basis are Plus X, TMax 100, Pro Copy and Tech Pan. It's also very fast and easy to retouch the negatives with graphite or dyes to correct minor flaws.

SIMPLICITY - An MP4 type copy camera (lots of them are available today for less than $300 on Ebay) can cover any size original from a looking down the barrel of a microscope to doing 30x40's with no trouble at all. As many of you know I did invest a lot in digital equipment in the past year and have found that scanners are just not suitable for the variety of work we get in our daily orders. Even with the sizes that do work well, they are very very slow compared to shooting and processing a batch of 4x5 film. I find that making the negative first and using that to scan if or when I want to use the computer for retouching gives me the simplicity I need to get the job done without a lot of experimenting or miscues.

DATA STORAGE - 4x5's can be printed to 20x30's without batting an eye. I personally have several thousand stock negatives in my files. They are stored on hanging files in a few file drawers in a fire safe. I don't want to estimate how many hard drives or CD's it might take to duplicate that if you (an important if) - want to house big enough data files to give the same results in the final printing size options..

Your turn Tom! :-)
Jim Conway
Timemark Photo Conservators

Jim - I'm in no way qualified to give an opinion on this, but I would agree with you that a 4x5 neg is still the best way to preserve an image but at some point soon, I think digital is going to replace it as the "heart" of the business. (that's not to say it's a good thing!)

The only reason I say this is because so much of the "workflow" is becoming digital, that it makes economic sense for a lab to switch over to an all digital system. I think the future "heart" of a business is going to be a digital back camera. The lab I used to work for made the switch to digital back cameras because so much of the rest of the business had gone digital. It made more sense to shoot with a digital camera and send it directly to the Lightjet...it saved time and money.

Storage capabilities are quickly improving (double density DVDs, etc..) but as you point out, who's to say anyone will be able to read a DVD in 100 years. That is one of the distinct advantages a 4x5 neg has over digital, but I think in the long run, these issues will get ironed out...digital is still in it's infant stages.

How about the Film Transfer devices such as the Lazargraphics units and a few others which have the 4x5 camera backs. It is my understanding that by scanning in a positive, retouching and then transfering to negative you can get somewhat better results as regards clairity etc., than using the standard copy camera.
However, what are the steps you take in making a copy negative from an original positive print? ASA rating of film, type, special lighting etc....and, have you tried scanning in the negatives on some of the newer flatbed scanners which have transparency adapters?
I just finished doing 10 prints, 8x10, from some 4x5 (nominal size) B/W negatives dating from the 1920's and the results were amazingly good...Whats been your experience?
I agree that at the present stage of things, the 4x5 negative provides the best way to archive Historical prints etc., while using digital storage provides for ready access to the information without risking damage to the negative. Digital and traditional really are a complement to each other, each has its strengths and weaknesses, but integrated into a comprehensive business plan can be very compatable. Thanks, Tom

I agree that a large negative is an excellent way to go.

My goal, at some future point, is to combine digital and traditional restoration methods. Restoring an image (for me anyway) is much easier to do digitally than traditionally. But I prefer a final print that is made on fiber paper. My ultimate hope is that I can restore images on the computer, make an RC print and then copy that print onto a negative. After the fiber print is made, then I could hand color as needed using Marshall's Oils and Prisma Color Pencils. If just straight preservation is needed, then the copy could be shot directly of the original instead of a restored print.

My thought was that I would purchase a 6x7 camera to shoot copy. I'd love to use 4x5, but processing options in my area for that format range from limited to non-existant. I can process 120/220 in a Patterson Tank in a home darkroom much more easily.

4x5 b/w negs are a breeze to hand process...I used to do several a day. The trick is short fingernails and touching only the edges. Use a small tray, agitate by moving bottom neg to top of pile, repeat. The negs get quite slick, so it's easy to keep them separate.

Thanks Doug!

I've only ever processed 4x5 in the lab in a big dip & dunk machine. I never realized you could tray process them!

And the Polaroid MP4 cameras are a joy to work with. I used one at a company I worked for, then had to settle for an MP3 when I set out on my own. They are the RollsRoyce battletank of copystands. Jim is right that they are easily available via Ebay, but they're heavy sons'o'guns, so try to find one locally (Ebay has that function). Points to check are condition of bellows and lenses (but both are replaceable).

I've processed 4X5's many times the way Doug posted. I've also used 4X5 film holders, and processed them in a small tank. Agitation, in this case, is accomplished by lifting the negs out of the tank, then re-inserting them. Either way is easy enough. If you tray process, make sure you don't have two stuck together when you move the negs from bottom to top. Otherwise, you could get poor processing.

Ed

{Quote} ...so much of the "workflow" is becoming digital, that it makes economic sense for a lab to switch over to an all digital system. I think the future "heart" of a business is going to be a digital back camera. The lab I used to work for made the switch to digital back cameras because so much of the rest of the business had gone digital. It made more sense to shoot with a digital camera and send it directly to the Lightjet...it saved time and money. {quote}

I'd agree with you if I could meet the rest of my standards - keep in mind that our first objective is preservation rather than saving time and money. I have another problem here as well. I had a very experienced young man come to work with me and leave a month later because we were experiencing some pretty disappointing results with what was coming out of our new digital work station compared with our traditional prints. He left me with this bit of advice; "You are NEVER going to get what you want using a desktop system!!" - If he is right, and the 10K I've invested into the digital system isn't going to cut it, even the idea that digital saves money is suspect. 30K scanners and 12K camera backs are being sold so I have to assume the savings are there or those products wouldn't be salable. It takes a lab that has the volume to afford them however and I don't intend to ever get to that point!

On to the "someday" - perhaps you are right but all new things do not work out well and most are supplanted by even newer and better things within a few decades - ask Polaroid. That hasn't happened to good old 4x5 negatives and it's been well over a century now since George started sell'n the dry ones.

Jim Conway

Tom my response might be confusing but here goes. In traditional photos you grab your camera and make a negative of some subject or another with zillions of shades and colors. In doing a copy you are taking a shot of a piece of paper or some other lousy print (by comparison to your natural subject) that is lucky to have 120 shades of anything other then the foxing, rust and other flaws that you wish wouldn't come out as strong as the subject matter.

I'm using a converted horizontal process camera along with several MP4's all with critically sharp process lenses. With the combination of that and the films mentioned, you get everything that is in the original like it or not! Steps? Cleaning the originals is more important then anything else I can improve on! In the line of resolution, I'm already exceeding any ability to print out detail by ten fold or more. They just don't make a papers, digital or traditional, that has the power to reproduce everything that is on film.

ASA's? The same type of thing - they really don't apply to copy work. In setting up a system to gets the image from one piece of paper (the original) to the second, film speed is not a material factor. I suppose that working backwards I could give you an ASA but, unlike traditional photography, the film selection is based on matching "contrast controls" to the original print quality. Example; Tintypes need contrast and lots of exposure - go for Tech Pan .. Stains, foxing and other sub flaws? You need low contrast - go for Plus X . Copying a near perfect original for a glossy reprint? - load up the Tmax 100. The uses for ProCopy have been written about so often I won't run that one past you but some don't know that it's just Plus X with no red sensitivity so that's worth a mention.

Your question on scanning in the negatives on some of the newer flatbed scanners which have transparency adapters? I have an add-on adapter on an Epson 1200 and also use an Epson 2450 that doesn't need the adapter. Both produce virtually identical results.

When you say "I just finished doing 10 prints, 8x10, from some 4x5 (nominal size) B/W negatives dating from the 1920's and the results were amazingly good...Whats been your experience? I'm not sure what you mean - I assume you scanned them and printed digital.???

In my case , I would have just printed them in the wet lab with no reason to scan. We use a Cannon VizCam in the showroom so the customers can see negs as positives to simplify the sales (and so I don't have to make up proofs - a task that I hate!!!). I don't mind printing old negatives at all - it's really fun to deliver a really high quality print from them. The customers think it's magic for what was considered entry level work when I started in the business!.

You said that "Digital and traditional really are a complement to each other, each has its strengths and weaknesses, but integrated into a comprehensive business plan can be very compatable." I sincerely hope that thought will get echoed here again and again!! If it does, when someone says a print is a piece of crap we will all get the idea that it's because it was a piece of crap rather than trying to figure out if they think that way because it was on RC, an inkject print or some other paper! Have a great holiday all of you :-)

Jim Conway

Re: Prints...I do all my in house work digital, as I have no room to set up a conventional darkroom plus, the results I get from my printer are very satisfactory to my clients. The value I see for digital print from a negative scan is that with the improvements in paper/ink/printer technology, it is quicker and less expensive for the client to run a digital print for casual display vs. a traditional print. The key to getting exceptional digital prints is really knowing your equipment, proper ink/paper selection and selecting a printer which is intended for that type of work. The "one size fits all" approach definately doesnot work in this instance.
What is your lighting set up like for doing the copy negatives? Do you use different lighting set ups for different types of photos, i.e., tintype vs albumin etc..? I had noticed that Kodak produces a special film for "archival" work...have you tried any of this type film and if so, what is your opinion? Tom

Wow great feedback here! First, Tom I think maybe you have enhanced my reasons for using 4x5 negs at the heart of my system. You can produce good digital prints, maybe even great ones, I wouldn't doubt that for a minute - I'd like to and someday maybe I will be able to, but for now mine suck and so do a lot of them that I've seen! Some being sold by my competition here would make you sick no lie!! So what about the clients? Now it's 20 or 30 years down the road and I'm long gone. How difficult would it be for my old client with their neg in hand to find someone that can make a high quality wet lab print or find someone like you that can scan and print from my negative? Piece of cake - and that's my point, it's the simplicity of it. Now, if we reverse that and I have your PhotoShop file, pity that poor client of yours! Have you no heart! :-)

ON PROCESSING - I may have processed as many negatives in bathrooms at kitchen sinks in my lifetime as I have in a lab! I still use those little 55 oz.Yankee tanks that take 12 sheets at a time and although I do line them up and generally do two batches (24 negatives) in a run, it's possible to process just a couple of negatives with no effort at all - it's just time and temperature. My control is in film selection and exposure so they can all be processed at the same time.

ON LIGHTING - I'll show a photo if anyone want to see my setup - the problem is that nothing like it can be purchased any longer as far as I know. They are ColorTran light banks that use four common old 7" 150W kitchen bulbs on each side . The controller is sensational and in my mind something akin to the eighth wonder of the world! It boosts the power of the standard light bulbs up to the same output that you would normally get from photofloods and it can be set for color temp at 2800, 3200 or 3600 K. with total accuracy. And yes, I do use different settings for different originals - very thin materials like albumen need very low light levels to keep from picking up the irregularities from the backing. I've seen copy setups that use strobes - wonder why those people don't just paint the inside of their cameras white, it would have the same result!

KODAK ARCHIVAL FILM - never heard of it nor have I seen any mention of it on the PhotoConservation Forum nor on COol (Conservation online) but will look into it. Interesting note on your comments of combining the best of all worlds, Kodak obviously agrees and is putting their millions behind their talk - spending as much of their R&D budget on films as they are on digital.

Jim Conway

I keep running across references to " 4x5 Duplication Film", if that helps any...I have no idea what qualities it has that set it apart from the ones you mentioned, except that the inference is that this type of film uses finer silver grains and something to do with ASA value, and produces higher quality negatives.
The problem of saving just digital copys is a thorny one. At present I donot believe that there is any hard proof of how long a CD will last and what the optimum storage conditions are...however, as digital continues to mature I suspect that those questions will be adequately addressed. Because of the overlap in storage technologies, such as, 5.25 to 3,5 floppy; CD to DVD and so forth, keeping a digital archive up to date and avaliable does require that the data be transfered from one storage medium to another on some sort of a regular basis...perhaps yet another avenue for Digital retouchers to look into.....a sort of digital "copy-transfer to new storage media" service....
Right now there are several other folks in this area doing digital prints and I know what you mean about quality..specifically lack there of...cheap, thin paper, run off on $99.00 inkjets with refilled cartridges do not produce lasting, high quality prints. Most begin fading after 6 mo. and by the end of 18 mo. are usually in pretty sad shape....Again, quality comes from using equipment and supplies which are designed only for photo printing. Plus, taking time, Lots of it, to really learn the strengths and weaknesses of the entire process.
Do you have any insights into film transfer? I still am curious about being able to correct/retouch in an Image Editor, then transfer the product to film, either 4x5, 220/120 or 35mm negative. Thanks, Tom

Look at it this way, the original scene had "gigs" of information - the negative or transparency of that scene had "megs" of information and the poor print that represents the negative has a very small percentage of that even if it was made by a master printer! Let the print deteriorate for decades and it has even less so information so you might say you are lucky to have bytes of information on most of the paper copies (originals) you come across..

The confusion is introduced by thinking in terms of the wrong point in this process. We all learn by saturation advertising that we need to select the "right" film for our scenic or portrait shoots. Kodak makes special films for everything and tells you theirs is better than Fuji. etc. so you can all go out and make really great transparencies of pretty girls flying through bigger than life posters on water skis!

When you want to "duplicate" that transparency or negative rather than print it, you are down to the "megs:" of information that was on the film (no pretty girls) and to KEEP what is left of that information, you are looking for duplicating materials to do the job. It's for making new slides, transparencies or negatives and has nothing to do with prints or printing.

So here is the important part of this - if I go from the "scene" to a "negative" and from the "negative" to a scanner, I can make a big enough file to preserve the detail (just like I can using a duplicating film in a wet lab) because the detail is there..

Continuing from that perspective, if I go from a "paper print" to a negative (or scan) (what we refer to as copy work), I never had the information that was on the original negative because it wasn't on the paper. I get 120 shades of gray at best. I can jazz up the image a little, print it, run it off with lots of lines on a film recorder or save it to a file big enough to fill a 20 gig hard drive, it STILL won't change the fact that the information wasn't there to start with.

So I'm back to square one here - a good copy negative on film is the one thing you can't go wrong with - it stops the clock on deterioration, it's easy to do and as good as you are going to get for any further work or reproduction and it preserves history as a factual representation of the original.

From that point on it really doesn't matter how you reproduce the image. That's just a case of satisfying your client. Let them decide how they use or view them. I say that my copy negative is the heart of my system because I can count on it being there even when Wilhelm or Epson gets it wrong again. History repeats - George didn't get it right the first time and had to pull his dry plates off the market and I'm sure that some of you are old enough to remember what happened when Polaroid introduced color! In preservation you work from a "base" with a proven product so that anything you add is reversible - but that does not have to extend beyond that negative! With that gem in place - have fun - you can't go wrong!

Jim Conway

I don't know if any of this helped anybody or not but I've been thinking about it all weekend and wondering if any of you that are basing your systems exclusively on digital are willing to offer some explainations on the hows and whys of your systems.

I'm curious about your starting points. Do you think about the clients need for preservation or feature that in your product mix in any way? Do any of you clean the originals? How do you sell big prints - 16x20 and up? Are you using CIS systems on desk top printers or sending your output to outside labs? What do you do about hand coloring or offering your clients any of the traditional prints styles that we have so much demand for with people trying to "match" other old photos. If you limit your offerings to simple desktop capabilities, how do you keep enough work in the place to pay for all this high price computer stuff that I'm supporting with a traditional wet lab????

I know you sell what you show and all that, but so far at least, I've never had a single person ask me for a "digital" print of any kind so I'd really like to know?

Jim Conway

I'll give this question a go.
First off, I think it's necessary to point out that the type of business I receive appears to be different from yours. The customers I encounter are more interested in replacement, repair, or enhancement, than preservation.
Keeping that in mind:
I am strictly digital, and have no desire or intention of doing this work by any other means. Regardless of all the excellent qualities of the traditional methods, I will never use them.

I have more to add, but I've run out of time.. more to follow.

I'm into this stuff strictly as a hobby. Although I have a few old negs, almost all of my images come from a print, therefore I rarely make a copy neg. Most of my family members can't even differentiate between a good print and one which lacks tones. A digital print is just fine for them. But I've been following this thread, and I find it *very* interesting. My darkroom days are a thing of the past, but if I ever came upon a historical negative, it would certainly be copied on medium or large format film. Jim has some excellent points, and Tom is trying to get the best of both worlds. Hats off to both of them.

Ed

Vikki - you said "The customers I encounter are more interested in replacement, repair, or enhancement, than preservation." and then said you didn't have time to finish!

Don't leave me hanging here! I'm not sure I know how that's any different than Tom's or my objectives - so please pick up on it again, OK. I'd really like to know what your thinking is on this!

Jim C

Jim,
Sorry to leave things in mid air, but I had a lot to say, and not enough time to write. Now, a few days later, I've lost that train of thought!!! I was replying to your question about using digital methods, exclusively.

To be honest, I'm not sure if you're against the whole idea of "digital", or just trying to find a way to get it to work for you - that matches what you're doing now.

I guess my point is, the traditional methods may very well offer a better result - but to the average person, it may just be overkill, that they can't see, and are not inclined to pay for. In other words, some may view it as the "extended warranty" pitch.

And that is where the differences are. My customers want another photo, like the one they had, only fixed. The question of preservation never comes up. Perhaps it's me, but I don't think I can "sell" traditional over digital, in that area. I beleive that they assume it will last as long as the first one did. And I it can, if archival methods are used in the printing process, and maintained throughout it's life. (I don't recommend inkjets, nor do I sell them).

I'm actually very curious about those terrible "digital" prints you've seen. When you say "digital" what do you mean? How large of a sampling have you seen? Do you think you've seen the ultimate capablilities?

As far as other services. I can't imagine what can't be done digitally. Of the items you mentioned, I see no barriers.

Also, I don't do this for a living, but if I did set up a shop (not my goal though), I know I would pursue strictly digital avenues.

I have to go (and I still haven't finished writing!)
Vikki

One more thing. I don't think I would be able to do what I do, traditionally, so if I want to keep working, I have to go digital!

Don't mean to upset you girl!! Digital is anything I can do with the "electronic equipment I bought ...and yes, I'd like to make it pay. In an inventory of our work, in the sizes, styles and to meet the needs of the clients very little of it can be done on, by or even in the same room with a computer. Most of it can't even be scanned on any ordinary scanner, and right now we have over $3 K in hand oils to do mostly duplicates of old 13 1/2x 18-1/2 "Crayon" prints (I have several freelance artists who do most of it) so I was asking for the same type of information I was giving on my business. I'm not at war against computers, I have a very heavy investment in them!

I think it was Doug that said in another thread that he wouldn't want to get stuck with more business than he could handle. So, I'll second that . I'm stuck in a darkroom seven days a week - so help me get out of there! (complete with the income I need of course!:-))

The work that a lot of you do (like Tom) is NOT duplicating old photos but creative things that fit the media. I have seen LOTS of that type of thing that are beautiful works that could never be done in a traditional way, but I've also seen lots of attempts at duplicating old photos that are just that - attempts that missed the mark and nothing more.

So my inquiry as to the "heart" of YOUR systems was indeed an inquiry not an attempt to suggest that one way is "better" than
any other way. Every business has to have a basic plan and operation system to function and it has to make a profit or fold. My systems work and the business is highly profitable but sharing those methods with all of you does not mean that I think for a second that it's the only way things can be done.

Jim Conway

Originally posted by Jim Conway
...In an inventory of our work, in the sizes, styles and to meet the needs of the clients very little of it can be done on, by or even in the same room with a computer. Most of it can't even be scanned on any ordinary scanner, and right now we have over $3 K in hand oils to do mostly duplicates of old 13 1/2x 18-1/2 "Crayon" prints (I have several freelance artists who do most of it) so I was asking for the same type of information I was giving on my business. I'm not at war against computers, I have a very heavy investment in them!


This is why I mentioned digital back cameras. It sounds like when you got into digital, you invested in a flatbed scanner...which is great if you have lots of work that is of the proper size! For the type of work you seem to have, you probably should have gone for a digital back...if you really want good results.

You say of your work that, "very little of it can be done on, by or even in the same room with a computer". That's true if all you have is a flatbed scanner, but I think you would be surprised at the quality a good digital back can give you. You sound like you are doing just fine though...without any digital! :)

I think perhaps we are losing something here in the anxiety to "go digital" ...when a client comes in, I say: "The first thing we are going to do for you is to make you a 4x5 negative" .... then I go on to expain THEIR options with my services. (Solid benefits)

I believe what you are talking about is equipment and MY options ...or to put this another way, if the "digital back" is at the heart of YOUR business, how does this benefit your clients and how do you present it?.

Jim C

I'm OK Jim, just maybe having a difficult time following what you mean.
Let's see if I have this right:
You have digital equipment that you can't use for restorations, so you would like to know what else you can do with the equipment - what other services you could offer.

And, or, what aspect of the digital process can be successfully integrated into the tradional business.

How'd I do?

Originally posted by Jim Conway
when a client comes in, I say: "The first thing we are going to do for you is to make you a 4x5 negative" .... then I go on to expain THEIR options with my services. (Solid benefits)Jim C

If I had the equipment now that I'm hoping to have in the future, I'd alter that first statement. I'd tell them that "the first thing we are going to do is copy the image." I like Greg's idea on this to get a digital back camera to do the initial copy work with, and that's the first copy I'd make.

I'd give them the option of final prints - either RC or Fiber.

For those that choose RC, the digital copy would be repaired, restored, colored, and whatever else needed to be done and burned onto a CD. Then I'd have an RC print made and give both the CD and the print to the client.

If the client had chosen to have a Fiber print, I'd go through all of the above except for any coloring, and I'd shoot a 4x5 neg of the RC print. I'd make a Fibre print from the neg and do any necessary coloring by hand.

I'm hoping eventually to be able to offer that kind of service, with both methods available.

I have to agree with Vikki on a lot of points. I have found that the average "Joe on the street" who comes to me just wants a new print at a reasonable price. My minimum charge for a basic repair starts at $40.00. My max, for a completely disasterous repair, is $150.00. For that amount, my clients get the necessary digital work, a CD of the final work, and an 8x10 RC print. For the amount of work I put into a repair, I think that's fairly reasonable. But, I've had a lot of clients get that "you gotta be kidding" look on their faces when I tell them what the cost is. I've asked a few of them what they had in mind as a budget for the work, and have been told more than once that they thought it was only going to be something like $5-$10.

I think if a client is knowledgable about photography and old prints, they can really appreciate the benefit of a good, archival, fiber print that has been made using traditional methods. I don't think most average people have the kind of background that will let them appreciate that, and consider nothing more than the final cost to them and whether it will last for THEIR lifetime... For those people, offering an RC print makes sense to me.

I wouldn't offer digital prints at this point though, since I still prefer the quality of chemically processed RC prints over digital prints.

Right on Vikki - I'm in a forum that nearly everyone but me does nothing but digital - I'm sitting here with 10K investment in a work station that we put in last fall and early this year (including that Cintiq) - I've had one "associate" that came and went so it's being used a few minutes a week for a game of FreeCell.

Changing our product standards just to be able to say we use it is not my idea of a good idea. (making a digital copy and color inkjet print of a hand oil and calling it an oil is a change in standards) so it has to be integrated into the business in some reasonable manner.

Jim Conway

Jak ...the first question we ask when someone calls or comes in to our showroom is; "Are you looking for museum quality work?" Then we go on to "show and tell" explain our cleaning the originals, the 4x5 negs and the reason we use that as a starting point ...etc. The guy with a $5.00 budget will listen, look at the exhibits, learn - and tell others what they learned. Many years ago I learned that people with money and good taste have to have some place to buy and they generally don't head for WalMart. If your business stands up to that "taste test" you'll enjoy a good life based on referrals from both the haves and the have nots and the hours in a day will still be the same!

Jim Conway

OK, now I see where you're coming from.
To answer the question regarding my process:
(whole process can take as little as 3 days).

Scan or digitally photograph the image.
In Photoshop, perform repairs, restorations, coloring, whatever.
Upload, or mail out CD image file to online printing.
Once the prints return, and are the quality I expect, the images always look better than the original.
So basically, that's what I offer/provide to my customers.

In comparison to what you offer, I guess I'm the "fast food" version of what you do.

Back to you.
Many of us here are digital geeks, and may see some potential uses for what you have.....exactly what equipment do you have?

Originally posted by Jim Conway
I'm sitting here with 10K investment in a work station that we put in last fall and early this year (including that Cintiq) - I've had one "associate" that came and went so it's being used a few minutes a week for a game of FreeCell.



Jim, my earlier point was that you probably have the wrong digital equipment for the job you need to do. A 10k investment in a computer and flatbed scanner is not going to do you any good if most of your work is larger than 8"x10".

Both the digital and traditional processes have their strengths and weaknesses. Trying to transition into one from the other is quite an exercise...much like I would imagine the photographers from days gone by experienced when transitioning from Ambrotypes, tintypes etc., to Albumin...
As in any new undertaking there is a steep learning curve and the temptation to just go back to the old established way of doing things is real strong, but, what it takes to master any new thing is practice and time...judging a new technology by the first attempts to use it, is a bit like deciding you dont want to learn how to walk or ride a bicycle because at first the results are not exactly what is desired...practice and more practice is what is needed...
I am totally digital and do my own printing and the results, at least to judge by customers responses are excellent, as I draw from towns as far as 100 miles away and am frequently presented with traditional style prints from copy negatives, which are not very good...now I think this is due more to lack of experience with the copy negative procedure, which I understand to be the most difficult type of photography to do and requires a whole wagon load of skill and experience ( there's that "E" word again).
Digital isnt going away...not with the investments made in it by the Big Corporations like Kodak, etc., what I see is a fusion of the two technologies..each complementing each other. But who knows...just my opinion....Tom

I keep thinking this thread will get picked up so glad you jumped in Tom :-)

On DIGITAL BACKS - I'd love to own one but (go to the beginning of the thread) it wouldn't add anything to my services and I already own all the equipment I actually need for the work I do. I can take and process 24 negs in a few hours and I can hand my clients a human readable record that they can store for centuries without question.

On McDonalds - ok Vikkie - I'm with you on that! I like my Western hats, my boots ...and fast food. My wife prefers fine dining and so like Tom has done in this thread - we try and find the best in both worlds.

On TIME - I'm at the end of the trail in more ways than one. When I put the digital equipment in here, the idea was (and maybe still is) to draw young blood into the business, offer a partnership that would give him or her a jump start - then turn it over and go fishing ....

Seeing as how that hasn't worked out yet and the Salmon are running, if you'll all excuse me - with or without that partner, I'm goin' fishin!

Jim C

Originally posted by Jim Conway
Jak ...the first question we ask when someone calls or comes in to our showroom is; "Are you looking for museum quality work?" Then we go on to "show and tell" explain our cleaning the originals, the 4x5 negs and the reason we use that as a starting point

Yes, but if you'll pardon my saying so, it sounds to me as though if they answer "no" to your question, you have nothing further to offer them other than educating them to your viewpoint so they may say "yes" to the question if asked again.

Or, they may abandon your idea of restoration, perhaps in favor of using the digital guy down the street...

What exactly IS your reasoning for making the 4x5 neg immediately after cleaning the original instead of restoring the image digitally and THEN making the negative from a finished image?

You didn't actually go into why it wouldn't be feasable to clean the original, make a digital copy, restore the image digitally, and then output to film afterwards... You would still have a restored image. You would still have a 4x5 negative that is human readable and traditionally printable.

When I first started learning to do digital imaging, I had to adjust and adapt in order to incorporate digital effectively into the way I was previously doing things. Perhaps you want digital to fit into your old methods and are less willing to adapt to a new way of doing things?

But, to remain completely traditional without finding that way to incorporate the best of both worlds is, IMHO, heading toward professional suicide. In the last 2 years, I have watched several labs go under, mainly because they seriously underestimated the damand for digital services and didn't keep up effectively with the new digital technology available. I completely agree with Tom that digital is not going to go away, so I believe it is worthwhile to find a way to adapt my procedures to take advantage of the digital possibilities. I can make repairs and restorations MUCH more quickly, accurately and cost effectively now using digital methods than I ever could using traditional ones. I would never think of going back to traditional repair methods now. But, I still want to give the client an end product that is better than an RC print. That is why I said I'd like to do things in the order I stated above - a quality end result but with a digital process in the middle...

Jac - Let me assure you that if they say no, I send them down the street to a friend with a one hour shop that does the job for them - he in turn sends just about everything that is out of his league to me.

The rest of your questions are too complex to answer but the basic idea is that you will never get the quality going from a computer to a film recorder that you can get directly from the original and I don't care if you use a digital back or you use film that will always be the case. That is the "starting point" as far as I'm concerned and I'd never change it - in fact, I'll often make a negative BEFORE I even do any cleaning or anything else. That's part of professionalism - you leave nothing to chance if it's avoidable instead of living on the edge with Murphy's law.

The demand for my services is in 6 figures and growing at about 20% a year without me wanting any more - so I'm not overly concerned about going under if I don't get a lot of digital work - and I could look at the businesses you talk about and am willing to bet that the reasons they went under is a lot more complex than any case of sticking to "old methods".

The digital in the middle - front - or on the side is ok with me - there is much too much emphasis here being put on how - all of the tools are available to all of us, and like Tom said it's all experience and in knowing how to use them. I love doing airbrush work most people don't or can't. I think it's odd that people who use a computer for retouching think that everyone should, while those of us with traditional labs and artist skills can are are willing to try just about anything.

Jim

I have to disagree about the quality of negatives produced by a film recorder...from what I have read, the output from high end units is as good as negatives produced in the traditional manner, but the key here is top end units run by highly experienced operators. Now by high end I am talking about units which will cost well over $20,000 with the various camera backs ( 35mm, 120/220, 4x5).
I think the blending of traditional and digital is perhaps best seen in this type of confluence. A photo can be scanned in at very high resolution, then transfered,as is ( warts, scratches etc.) to 4x5 and archived. Next, the scan can be retouched to remove blemishes, adjust tone etc., the finished product transfered to 4x5 film, then prints made in the traditional manner or the negative may be scanned by a third party ( perhaps the owner) and copys made for whatever purpose the owner wishes without the need for darkroom work. Some folks will prefer a traditional print, but many are happy with the "instant gratification" of having the print avaliable immediately ( providing, of course, that the print is done on proper equipment by an experienced operator), although in some cases, all that is needed or even wanted is just a quick print to give to relatives or whom ever.
Those folks who do high end work, are going to be more skeptical of anything new, and this is good...jumping in without close examination of the facts is a perfect recipe for disaster. But, most of the digital work done is not high end and most of the demand is not for perfection but perception...as in, " that looks good". It is a truism that popular demand is what drives the markets and determines to a large extent what technologies are refined and polished and which are allowed to die from lack of interest. Digital facinates and captivates because if the immediacy and power it brings to photography, and places that power in the hands of anyone who can push a button..( although as folks quickly learn, there is a whole lot more to it than just pressing buttons)..and Digital is able to be done without darkrooms, chemicals and such...thus again its appeal...ready avaliability, ease of use, and the industry is moving in step with popular demand.
That is not to say traditional is dead...far from it. But more and more it will move to the specality and high end markets as digital claims more and more of the "work-a-day-world" clients. Combining the two makes a lot of sense, but not every traditional photographer/retoucher will want to...nor will every Digital photographer/retoucher want to blend with traditional methods. But at least having an understanding of the strong and weak points of each process, not colored by personal views but simply " the Facts", is going to become more and more necessary...as is being able to redirect a client to someone who can better fill the clients needs, rather than "scrambling" for business and making misleading statements or claims.
Like Jim pointed out, if the person who walks into his shop wants something he is not prepared to do, he refers them!
Sorry for the longwinded diatribe...Tom

On a more serious note...

I'm impressed with the depth of information in this thread concerning Restoring/Archiving a photo/negative of Abraham Lincoln "Eating Humble Pie" to the year 9595 and beyond, but what about kindly Joe Lincoln the neighborhood butcher.

He walks in the door with a stained and creased color 4x6 print of his mother-in-law done in 1967 (no negative). Now he doesn't particularly like his mother-in-law but it's his wife's birthday so he wants to surprise her with a special present. Yes he's willing to fork over twenty-five big ones for a retouched 8x10 enlargement in a gilded frame.

We know what typical future is in store for this print. It'll sit on some simulated wood corner shelf for the next 35 years, to be occasionally dusted by the wife. Then, when a drunk driver kills her and her husband New Years Eve 2037, the estate, c/w household contents, will be sold by the state. This photo, of some nondescript woman, will then find it's way to the local landfill 3 months later.

What is the life expectancy of the average photo? I would suspect that the life span of the average photo wouldn't extend beyond three generations. Only in exceptional circumstances would anyone be interested in preserving a photo of their Great Great Grandpa. Most often, I believe, photo work is requested for some relative that remains in "living memory".

In the world of regular people the most important consideration remains cost. Any improvement is appreciated as long as the price is affordable. It also seems reasonable to assume most customers want a print to take home. This could mean farming out digital images to a photo lab, but digital printers and paper are getting better every day.

Sure we all know that negatives contain the most information, produce the best prints and archive the longest without deterioration, but is it pertinent to the average customer?

In the words of a current talk show host….
"That’s my opinion -- I could be wrong."

Ron

Originally posted by Jim Conway

I think it's odd that people who use a computer for retouching think that everyone should, while those of us with traditional labs and artist skills can are are willing to try just about anything.


I have never had that impression. In fact, most of the people I know who avidly use computers for any type of graphic work, still have a great deal of interest and respect for "traditional" methods.

Just because something comes labeled as "digital" does not make it better...but you chose to get into this with a 10k investment. My only point in this thread is that your investment does not match what you want to get out of it. In order to get the quality you want, you need the proper equipment and trained individuals to run it...just like with more traditional methods.

Originally posted by Ron


Only in exceptional circumstances would anyone be interested in preserving a photo of their Great Great Grandpa. Most often, I believe, photo work is requested for some relative that remains in "living memory".




I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence, especially given the huge increase in interest in genealogy. I have had several people who were VERY interested in preserving images of relatives they had never know.

Originally posted by G. Couch


I have never had that impression. In fact, most of the people I know who avidly use computers for any type of graphic work, still have a great deal of interest and respect for "traditional" methods.

I agree wholeheartedly with that! I have had a love for beautiful black and white fiber prints for years. When I get prints of my own art images to hang on my walls, they are usually fiber prints. I often hand color them traditionally with oils.

But for my clients, I prefer to work digitally. I hate using an actual airbrush, and get much better results from a computer than I ever did by airbrushing. I can work more quickly, more efficiently and with less mess digitally too. And, I don't get that artificial "spray painted" look. The RC prints I have made are ones I'm proud of and happy to sell to clients.

One other thing to consider. Portland (and it's surrounding suburbs) is a large metropolitan area with many affluant pockets. Having lived there, I would say that getting clients for the type of work Jim does would not be difficult...

I live in an EXTREMELY rural area where the main source of income is farming. Average yearly income around here is probably around $20-30K - give or take some... Often it's less... There are small pockets of affluency, but they are not nearly big enough to support the kind of business Jim has. There's just no way I could operate on the kind of premise Jim operates on, even if I did attempt to educate people about the fine attributes of museum quality prints. Most people around here have never been to a museum and really don't care about museum quality. If the print is fixed, they can buy a frame at Wal-Mart and stick the picture in it, and it will last their lifetime, they're happy campers.

Most would no more pay good money for that "high falutin'" stuff than try to fly to the moon...

I do have one question though...

Here's what I'm not sure I understand - why would someone go out and spend $10K on digital equipment without first fully researching it and knowing before purchasing it exactly how it would be integrated into any existing system...?

I've been enjoying the dickens out of this thread, so I guess its my turn to contribute.

In the entire restoration process, if done properly, the lowest resolution document is the original print. You could point a 20x24-inch view camera at that sucker and you're not going to get any more data than a good-quality scan.

The second lowest will be the final print. There's not a wet or dry output system made that can match the tonality and resolution of a good negative or scan.

So, again if done properly, wet or digital, you're not going to be able to tell the difference in quality of the output.

That does not mean they're interchangeable, though. Or that one is superior to the other. Stored negs and digital files both have their pros and cons.

The most important thing is that you're comfortable with the tools you use, both in practice and in theory.

However, this is all in the abstract. In the real world we have to make allowances for the perceived needs of our customers. And the more educated they feel they are, the quicker you'll lose them by trying to re-educate them.

I've shot cases of prof. copy film, along with polaroids (they made a nifty instant negative film), and 35mm. I've attempted airbrushing but didn't have 'the wrist' for it, so good airbrushers have my undying respect. I've also done more than a few scans. I can honestly say I can see room for both.

I've also spent man-years in a darkroom, and now I do inkjet prints. I can also see room for both there.

My own preferred arsenal would have analog/digital options at the beginning and end, but would have to be digital in the middle, due to my own limitations, not that of any particular process.

Again, in that darned real world, choices have to be made. So, since I need that digital middle, I start and end digitally as well.

I have to say Jim, although you have said that you don't want to debate the issues of which is better, your statements are to the contrary. Sometimes, as I'm reading your posts, I think, does he really want help, or does he just want to inform us about how crappy the whole "digital" thing is.
Not sure how this statement fits in:
I think it's odd that people who use a computer for retouching think that everyone should, while those of us with traditional labs and artist skills can are are willing to try just about anything.

Only my opinion, but, I think your "attitude" towards digital is probably what is hindering you the most. There must have been something, initially that made you believe that digital would be advantageous to your business.
I have to ask the same question Jakaleena asked:
[QUOTE]why would someone go out and spend $10K on digital equipment without first fully researching it and knowing before purchasing it exactly how it would be integrated into any existing system...?[QUOTE]

Finally, it doesn't seem as if this thread is providing you with any good solutions to your dilema. (Have we?)
All is not lost. As many of us are unfamiliar with the process you currently use, we may not be able to provide you with the answers you are looking for, but it doesn't mean the answer isn't out there.

Vikki - After numerous interviews, I brought in a "photoshop expert" as an "associate" to set up the digital end of the business with no intent on my part to learn any more than I already know. - I gave him the money to get what was needed (a business transaction not really a gift, the workstation was suppose to pay) and I ended up with what I have. Others who have been into the shop seem to think it is a rather elaborate work station, not as shabby as this thread would seem to indicate. All of this has been covered in posts over the past year - I guess my problem is that I didn't repeat it all here.

The objective was not for me to change my business plan just add the digital to it, bring the associate up to speed to take over the business by letting him learn on the job and he would "inherit" several thousand high end accounts in a going concern when he took over.

Everybody is telling me what I need to "change" or how I can do better with more expensive digital equipment. Do "what" better I guess is my question?

This thread was started because I was requested to give some info on MY use of 4x5 negatives .... not an inquiry for me to learn how to make them some other way.

Now, the fish are still out there ...and I'm still trying to get down to the river! So if you will please excuse me - Bye! :-)

Originally posted by Jim Conway
The objective was not for me to change my business plan just add the digital to it, bring the associate up to speed to take over the business by letting him learn on the job and he would "inherit" several thousand high end accounts in a going concern when he took over.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your whole point, but this statement would seem to be at odds with your previous statement regarding educating clients about museum quality prints and sending those who do not require that category to the 1-hour place down the street. It seems as though you feel that digital is inferior and don't want to sully your good business name by association with it. (The difference between McDonald's and Atwaters...?)

I once worked for a man for 3 months. He basically said he wanted me to come in and re-arrange his lab, set up a studio, and get the digital department up to speed. I accepted the job eagerly, looking forward to the challenge of accomplishing all that he had presented to me. However, once I was there, his attitude toward ANY type of change was so limiting that I could not accomplish what he had hired me to do, and so I left.

I am wondering if this could be a similar circumstance to the case with your associate, since what you say you had brought him on for "made my mouth water" at the thought of such an opportunity... I can't imagine leaving such a setup unless my hands were irreperably tied in some way.

I don't usually respond to insults but just to clear the record, he reinlisted in the Navy for a 40 grand bonus.

Originally posted by Ron
On a more serious note...
Most often, I believe, photo work is requested for some relative that remains in "living memory".

My own personal experience has been just the opposite. My minimum charge for a repair is $40. I've had people come in with fairly recent photos of persons still living, and after being told the cost of the repair, have decided to just take another picture or abandon the idea. Only when the photo is really very special, or from the childhood of a now grown person, do they usually decide to go ahead with repairs. The majority of my business has been the restoration of irreplaceable photos of people that are no longer living.

Originally posted by Jim Conway
I don't usually respond to insults but just to clear the record, he reinlisted in the Navy for a 40 grand bonus.

No insult was intended, Jim... I'm sorry.

Please accept my apologies.

Yes I'm still following this interesting thread, and I'm trying to make sense out of all that's been said. I think part of the problem is that we might be talking about different things .... original negatives vs. original prints. As Doug pointed out, the original print won't gain any more information than is already contained in it regardless of how it is duplicated. A negative, on the other hand, could easily show a significant difference when scanned on a run of the mill flatbed, or copied on 4 X 5 film. Another thing that might come into play is that Jim is looking at it as a conservator, while the rest of us are looking at it as restoration artists. I'm not qualified to say whether or not very high end digital techniques/equipment are capable of grabbing as much detail as a 4 X 5 neg, but I do think that if it's not, it won't be long in coming. In my personal opinion, I agree with Jim when he said that the traditional copy methods have been proven over time, and digital is too young to have been time tested as yet. So I think there's room for both to live comfortably side by side. Then there's always the other side ... money. There are a lot of people who can't/won't pay extra for having prints or negs made that will last two or three hundred years. There are also people who can't see the difference between very high (museum) quality and moderate quality, and most people refuse to pay for something they can't see. In their mind, if they can't see it, it just doesn't exist. Everyone who posted on this thread had some important points, and they should not be brushed aside just because it's not the way we do (or want to do) things. This is how we learn.

Ed

Sorry Ron, but I think you're out voted on whether or not people are interested in keeping an image alive for generations. I have a couple of pretty old prints (copies) starting from around the mid 1850's of family members. These, of course, are of people I never knew. But having them is priceless to me. I have several of family members who died before I was born, as well as many who I knew at one time in my younger years. Hopefully, when I'm long gone, someone else will treasure them.

Ed

Originally posted by Jim Conway
Vikki - After numerous interviews, I brought in a "photoshop expert" as an "associate" to set up the digital end of the business with no intent on my part to learn any more than I already know. - I gave him the money to get what was needed (a business transaction not really a gift, the workstation was suppose to pay) and I ended up with what I have......

....Everybody is telling me what I need to "change" or how I can do better with more expensive digital equipment. Do "what" better I guess is my question?

This thread was started because I was requested to give some info on MY use of 4x5 negatives .... not an inquiry for me to learn how to make them some other way.


I think your explanation of how 4x5 negs are the "heart" of your business is a good one. It sounds like you have a successful business and the traditional approach not only works for you as far as being profitable, but it gives you the quality and high standard your customers expect.

As Doug and Tom have pointed out, there are advantages and disadvantages to both traditional and digital. One of the disadvantages to digital is cost. In order to get "museum quality" you have to invest a great deal of money in the proper equipment. If your business is large enough, it makes sense, because an all digital workflow is fast, efficient and can be of VERY high quality.

You obviously have very high standards for your work and seem to be very disappointed in the results you have achieved with a $10k investment in digital methods. My only reaction is, what made you think $10k would get you the quality you desire? When the lab I worked for switched over to digital they made an investment of close to $500,000. That included a Light Jet printer, digital back camera, Eversmart Pro scanner, etc... The quality level of the resulting work often surpassed more traditional methods. Now, most people can not afford an investment like that and have no real need to. I noticed you mentioned you use Epson scanners... I love my Epson but I would not in a million years expect an Epson scanner to give me museum quality results.

I guess my point is, 4x5 negs work for your business and you have no real need to "go digital". Like Vikki, I sense a certain amount of negativity in a lot of your posts toward digital, probably due to the less than satisfactory results you have been able to attain...but just because you have not had the greatest experience, does not mean digital is not very capable of high quality. It just does not fit your business.

P.S. Hope you catch lots of fish! :)

Originally posted by G. Couch


You obviously have very high standards for your work and seem to be very disappointed in the results you have achieved with a $10k investment in digital methods. My only reaction is, what made you think $10k would get you the quality you desire? When the lab I worked for switched over to digital they made an investment of close to $500,000. That included a Light Jet printer, digital back camera, Eversmart Pro scanner, etc...

The last place I worked that actually installed a digital department where there was none previously spent approximately the same amount on equipment. The scanner alone had a price tag of about $20k (an Imacon Drum Scanner).

Aren't we in business to offer services and goods?
Photo Restoration is anything we can do to move an image into the future.
If that means selling good RC prints and CDs then so be it.
The more services we offer the more we bill.
The more products we offer, the more we bill.
Not every image is worthy of a neg.
I can't see any room for my mark-up on film output.
I am offering film output in my pricelist and brochure, but my clients are much more pedestrian.
Film is an important part of photo preservation.

Mr. Conway, could you help us understand, are you doing state archive work? Or something of that level where your clients are, to use a word you have used, industrial?
Gerry

Ed_L

You’re absolutely right! There is a growing desire to get in touch with and preserve our roots.

My sad attempt to poke fun at serious professionals was tasteless and inappropriate and I apologize to all the members.

I just felt that very few members would have the resources to get into $10,000.00 plus systems. I know many of you are dedicated hard working professionals and a higher level of capital investment is required. However, I suspect that most (like me) find buying Photoshop a major investment.
This is a great site. I love the personal interaction, the wealth of information and interesting challenges. Someday (with practice) maybe I could make this a paying proposition myself, but if it wasn't for digital I'd never get the opportunity.

Jim
I'm not sure of the details of your past associate, but I guess if I were in your shoes, I'd find someone that was digital media* savy, and teach him your complete traditional process. Once this person learned your process, and the quality requirements, then direct the individual to investigate the digital options available that would meet your standards. If the digital thing isn't feasible at present, you would still have someone who knew your process, and could carry on for you.
*I say "media" savy as opposed to Photoshop, as I think you need someone who is aware of technology advancements, not just Photoshop.
Have you thought about local universities (photography departments)? There are many that have mentor/co-op/temp programs, that would let you work with some fresh minds (and ideas), at reasonable prices, without committments.

This thread went far enough off track that I think it may be appropriate for me to try to clear up a few mistaken ideas created by assumptions along the way.

Every business has to have a central theme - like "Ford Tough" or it won't succeed. In Timemark, it's "Museum Quality". And, the central "technical point" (or heart) of that theme is the 4x5 negative. Being against something because it's "old fashion" or "for something" because it's old or new has little merit in a workable business theme over any period of time.. You'll have to define your businesses in billboard terms to raise awareness or fall into that 90% that fail in the first two years or even worse, hang on for years on starvation income. Think about it!

Why do we use negatives and not scanners. We don't! That is an unwarranted assumption made by a few here - we make negatives FIRST. The reason is simple, it's so that I'm not restricted by the size or shape of the original. It opens business opportunities because it allows me to take in a very wide variety of work - 40x60's are as easy to handle here as a sub-wallet size print. If your choice is to use digital printing instead of using a wet lab, negatives offer a very consistent source of data for scanning. I don't think you have to do it, it's just an option you should be aware of if you are in this business..

My being a Conservator has nothing to do with this either - this is coming from the business side of C&R work. - the simplicity of handling a wide variety of work with the repeatability of the successes is what is important!. The longevity of the negatives that I can hand my client is a bonus! The Mylar base on sheet film that is virtually indestructible by time is "conservator talk" - so is "human readable" and "silver fast toning" and they add to the sales theme, but the question from the customer is always the same - "Do I get to kept it!" Yes Virginia, they do care!

Everything we do here is NOT "traditional" art. I don't think there is any way that you can beat computer retouching when you are mixing text with an image (such as photos of the old battleships in WWII.) . As I've told some of you from private inquiries, ScanForce in New York is doing most of my digital retouching and any of you that have read my help wanted ad in this forum know what my specs are for out-servicing assignments.

On when and what negatives? In traditional work, it's neg to work print, the art work on both, then a 2nd gen neg is made for final printing. The system that started in 1840 still works well! If you want top quality, make the work prints larger than the intended final prints. If you are using the computer for retouching, it's negative to scanner, the art work and back to a negative via a film recorder or, as most of you are doing, skip the film recorder and go directly to printing. Big files for neg to negs, smaller for printing, even smaller for screen viewing. Nothing new here, visualize your Grand Dad and his 8 mm movie screen, Ansel Adams and his fine art prints. Would either of them have gotten what they wanted if you switched film sizes on them?

On digital backs - I would be using the same camera and the same lights, have the same labor cost in the same amount of space. The difference in adding a digital back at a cost of around $30,000 amortized over a 36 Mo. period would be to increase my expenses by about $1,400 a mo. requiring somewhere around a $6,500 a month increase in sales. (excluding cost of buying market share) to break even. With it, I could close one 10x10 darkroom and with the darkroom gone, I would cut my options on the type of prints that I can offer my clients while I'm trying to pay off that loan! They are great and I would love to own one but, in the here and now, they are not a viable option in a small copy business.

It's too bad we do not have a separate section in this forum for traditional methods. Perhaps it would end the urge to mix apples with digital oranges to look for useful tools in their own place. Many of you would be surprised at the "old" ways, how successful the techniques can be employed with the new electronic aids we have today and how much your own work could be enhanced by knowing a little more about them. Without it perhaps Jennie is right, I may be in the wrong place!

And finally, the REAL SECRET to my success? I'm next door to a real old fashion bakery (in business since 1932) and the aroma of fresh home baked bread, donuts and apple pies fills the building! Now what does that do for nostalgic instincts? My clients always come in smiling! :-)

Jim Conway

Jim, what would you estimate it would cost an individual to get the equipment to begin taking and developing 4x5 copy negatives, cameras, lighting,what type of stand, what type of darkroom equipment and so on, and what is an average charge to the customer on a per negative basis?
Plus, what about color vs BW...cost differences, developing cost differences and amount of skill required? Thanks, Tom

Try this link on Ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?

or do a search for Item # 1359583187 That MP4 will probably go for under $300.00. Then add the cost of a 12 sheet 4x5 tank a few holders and chemistry and you are in for about $45.00 more and no upgrades ever needed in your lifetime! :-)

I would recommend this as a starting point - and sticking to your digital output for the rest if that is what you are doing now. If you want to add fiber base printing, farm it out until you see if you get enough business to justify another $7K for a complete lab setup (and probably a remodel on a portion of your house).

About color - no different - I still make 4x5 negs but farm out the processing. I'm also experimenting with color separation with black and white negs and going to the computer for combining the final result - interesting possibilities there!

I use the 4x5 neg as a leader and only charge $14.95 (low in most places). Prices go up up when the job is complex - and I charge $39.50 for a color neg. Skill level required to make negatives? Not much talent needed once you zero in on your exposures and film types. It's all time and temp developing.

Jim Conway

Thanks for the link and info. Tom

That link is a long one and I only got the first part of it in my post.
I'll try again ...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1359583187

It will be up for another two days and is worth a look by anyone who had an interst in this thread.

Jim C

For anyone who digs into this thread at some future date, I want to add another note I think may further reduce the apparent conflicts in opinions. It's about money! I had my attorney son check D&B for "Photo Retouching and Restoration" firms doing more than 100,000 annually and apparently there are not more than a hand full that have a D&B rating. Also checked on those doing over a million annually (who could actually afford to buy or rent the type of equipment suggested earlier that is needed for HQ digital work) and the only ones that are rated high enough are in the motion picture restoration business. (mostly going film to film not prints to film) Perhaps others here know of others that would be of valid interest to restorers, I for one would like to hear about them.

On the use of negatives, I found this to be a very simple explanation (excerpt's borrowed from the article) - "The only purpose for film is to be enlarged. Photo prints and print grains were not designed to be enlarged. The negative being the "master" version and the print being a relative poor copy of the master. If you have to start with the customers print as most photo restorers do, the reason for making a negative is to retain the pertinent detail of the original and add whatever "missing detail" that you intend to reestablish into the image to an enlarged version of it. The reason you should deliver that negative directly to your customer is to assure that, if they want additional prints in the future, they don't have to start the process all over again with anything less than a master."

So, just an opinion, but if you don't like the idea of making real negatives and you don't have a high end scanner you are still capable of doing high quality work with the majority of distressed original prints that I see. In fact, using an expensive scanner at it's optimum performance would be overkill (like making photo murals for traditional art work prints), collecting more garbage than image detail. Scanning film is the miracle you seek, but it's not film that you have! (can anyone post a small section of an image from a distressed old wallet size photo scanned on their 30K machine that proves otherwise?) If I'm right about that, you can substitute "large digital file" for "negative" in the writers statements in the paragraph above with little problem so most of us end up very close to being on the same page after all.

Jim Conway

BTW fishing is great - best in decades!

Jim - Good point about scanners. You certainly do not need a high end scanner if you mostly just scan small prints. The extra resolution would be overkill and even low end scanners can see all the detail in a print. The only limitation is size. You obviously can't scan a large photo or painting with a small flatbed. Your only option then, is to either purchase a scanner with a larger bed, shoot a negative or use a digital back camera. The question of which option has a lot to do with the type of business, expertise of employees and the nature of the other equipment in the work-flow. Certainly for your business, the 4x5 negs are the best option, given your familiarity with the format, high quality level your customer's demand and the low cost (compared to a "high-end" digital system).

As far as businesses doing photo restoration and retouching, I doubt there are many out there doing only that. At the lab I worked for restoration was just a small part of a larger business. (that did close to 1 million a year in sales). The high end equipment they had on hand certainly was overkill in some situations but there were times, when for example the local museum needed large images copied, that the equipment was a necessity.

Glad the fishing is good!