4x5 Negs - the heart of a business system

[Jakaleena]

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...

[Jim Conway]

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

[thomasgeorge]

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

[Ron]

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

[G. Couch]

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.

[G. Couch]

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.

[Jakaleena]

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...?

[Doug Nelson]

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.

[Vikki]

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.

[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. 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! :-)

[Jakaleena]

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.

[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.

[Jakaleena]

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.

[Jakaleena]

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.

[Ed_L]

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

[Ed_L]

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

[G. Couch]

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!

[Jakaleena]

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).

[Gerry Monaghan]

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

[Ron]

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.

[Vikki]

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.

[Jim Conway]

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

[thomasgeorge]

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

[Jim Conway]

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

[thomasgeorge]

Thanks for the link and info. Tom

[Jim Conway]

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...tem=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

[Jim Conway]

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!

[G. Couch]

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!