Printer and Ink Costs

[Paul Butzi]

"Just another reason why I'm content to go into the dark to make my prints -- much cheaper..."

Really?

If I go into the darkroom (I actually have one) to make a gelatin silver print on, say, Ilford MGIV fb paper, it costs me about $3.50 to set up the tray line - that covers developer, stop, fixer, wash aid. I'll ignore the cost of wash water.

Each sheet of 11x14 paper I use costs me 1.25, more or less. If I burn four sheets getting the print right (hopelessly optimistic for a print of any complexity) and make six keepers when I've got it right, the session cost me 16 bucks amortized across 6 prints, for a total of 2.60 for each print.

In contrast, my cost of goods for a print, same size, on Epson Enhanced Matte, is $1.35, including ink and paper.

Prices on inkjet materials are falling. Prices on gelatin silver paper and the chemicals to process it are rising.

[matthew blais]

Paul your information is appreciated, but your last post comparing cost of inkjet vs. silver Fb and the final print/product may be valid in terms of actual cost, but not (IMHO) in "real" value.

Not including of course comparison in cost terms of darkroom equipment vs. digital darkroom.
One must include (possible) cost for scanning the original (assuming you shot it in film).

Give me FB print anyday.

And BTW, I print digital for my commercial work.

[Paul Butzi]

The equipment I have for making digital prints can make prints up to roughly 40" x 80".

If we adjust for that, either by reducing the amount I have tied up in a printer to match the capabilities of my wet darkroom, or by increasing the amount I have tied up in the wet darkroom by purchasing equipment that would allow me to make large prints in the darkroom, I estimate that I'd actually have more tied up in the wet darkroom.

That's including the scanner I use.

As for the aesthetics of the silver print, I used to agree with you. I've changed my mind, fairly recently. It's an interesting switch, actually, so I wrote up my thoughts and put it on my website at www.butzi.net/articles/silverstandard.htm

-Paul

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul,
Every once in awhile I run across an article that so closely resembles my own experience that I could have written it. Or sometimes I wish I had written it......the silver standard is one of those articles. Inkjet is its own medium and should develope its own aesthetic, its own standards that relect its inherent strenghts and beauty.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Paul, please.....if I wanted to I could make 40x80 inch prints with my Zone VI enlarger that I bought 12 years ago all I would need would be the extra cash to buy or make processing trays. I doubt very much that the cash outlay to make similar size prints would even come close to buying one of those wide format printers.

As to your chemical prices, I dont know where you got them but they seem awfully inflated. I come up with a $1.5 amount which will process at least 10 11x14 prints, making the cost of chemicals negligible or pennies when you take into account that those chemicals can be reused. Every time you make an ink jet print it is a one shot deal, not so when I process a silver print. Your $2.6 price per sheet assumes you are using the chemistry one shot. If you made 10 (your 4 test prints plus the 6 "keepers") prints at $1.25 per print that is $12.50, add the $3.5 for your chemicals and that is a total of $16. Divided by 10 that is $1.6 per print, not $2.6 as you state. And I am assuming you will throw away the fixer and stop bath, since you are not counting the cost of water I will not count the cost of electricity to run your printer, scanner and computer...

Arguing that "mine is bigger than yours" is not going to take us anywhere. What I find more telling is your statement:

Each sheet of 11x14 paper I use costs me 1.25, more or less. If I burn four sheets getting the print right (hopelessly optimistic for a print of any complexity) and make six keepers when I've got it right, the session cost me 16 bucks amortized across 6 prints, for a total of 2.60 for each print.

This as well as your thoughts on ink jet printing in your web site show a lack of understanding of tone reproduction, and reinforces the idea that if I cannot get it right in the negative I can fix it with PS. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but as a pt/pd printer I cannot afford the luxury of making test strips and/or 3 or 4 work prints. I had to learn how to get it all right in the negative as well as the print the first time around, there is no reason why you cannot do this with silver printing, but you have to learn how to tailor your negatives to your paper response.

Your arguments about Dmax and short toe and shoulder of silver papers simply show your inability to use the paper to it's full potential and your lack of understanding of tone reproduction, not the paper's "lack" of response.

I am attaching a picture that was printed on the first try and I think is a good example of what I am talking about. I made this print without test strisp, dodging, burning, bleaching etc, etc....what came out of the ligh box was processed, mounted and sold. This can also be done with silver, but you need to understand tone reproduction, paper response and how to tailor your negatives to the paper.

[Bill_1856]

Jorge, your HAT picture is Weston/Strand quality. Congratulations (and thanks for showing it).

[Paul Butzi]

Jorge-

16 bucks divided by six final prints equals $2.66667. I stand by my figures. The costs for the chemicals are actual costs, observed over time, of setting up a two liter tray line in trays sized reasonably for printing on 11x14 paper.

Your experience (each print you sell is the result of putting the negative in the enlarger, putting paper in the easel, and making exactly one print) doesn't match my experience in the darkroom.

In fact, in the group of photographers I've met with to review new work every other week for the past 7 years, there are NO printers who routinely make their final print on the very first attempt. In that group are two of the finest silver printers I've ever had the good fortune to meet. They also routinely use up paper exploring possibilities with each print before settling on the final print. To put it more broadly, I've never actually met a photographer who claims, as you appear to do, that he/she routinely gets a print right on the very first sheet of paper they try the print on.

As for your assertion that "Your arguments about Dmax and short toe and shoulder of silver papers simply show your inability to use the paper to it's full potential and your lack of understanding of tone reproduction, not the paper's "lack" of response. " - I think you mean 'long toe and shoulder' instead of 'short toe and shoulder'. It's the LONG toe and shoulder that makes it hard to get contrast in the shadows and the highlights, especially when combined with the toe and shoulder of the film's characteristic curve. Your arument that I don't actually understand would be more persuasive to me if you got the terminology right.

It doesn't matter to me, in any case. All I can do is honestly recount my thoughts and my experiences. If you feel that my thoughts are based on 'a lack of understanding of tone reproduction' - go right ahead.

If you think silver prints are superior - make silver prints. I have neither the inclination nor the ability to stop you, and in fact, I think gelatin silver prints can be a thing of beauty and a joy forever. I did, after all, make silver prints for years before I tried digital printing.

Likewise, if you think silver printing is incredibly cheap, and inkjet printing is so expensive it's entirely impractical - it makes little difference to me. I tracked my costs when I was silver printing, and I track my costs now that I'm inkjet printing, and based on those figures, I disagree.

[JimL]

Paul and others who print inkjet,

I'm curious how often the first print out of the inkjet printer is your final. I suppose that if your system is well calibrated, what comes out of the printer will be pretty close to what you see on-screen, but how often do you feel the need to tweak the print after seeing the result on paper? Is there a "test printing" process with inkjet too? Do you print out smaller sections of a large image to check colour and tonality?

Jim

[Paul Butzi]

Is the first print that comes out of my printer 'final'?

At the risk of being 'clintonian', that depends on the definition of 'final'.

If by 'final', you mean that I make the print, and never feel a need to change it and print it again, then it's rare that the first print out of the printer is final.

That's largely a matter of my style of working on prints. I like to work on them for a while, make a print, put it on the wall where I'll see it daily, perhaps show it to other people, and some time later go back and revise it.

If by 'final' you mean I'm as happy with that first print out of the printer as I am with the last print made during a darkroom session when I'm silver printing, then yes, generally the first print is 'final'. In other words, it's very rare that I edit for a while, think I'm done, make a print, look at the print, and think "No, that's still not right".

As for 'test' printing - no, I don't make 'test' prints the way I would in the darkroom when working out how much to burn/dodge, or fine tuning contrast, etc. It took a little while but it is actually possible to get that stuff right just by viewing it on the screen.

All my work is B&W. If I were printing color, I might well be making test prints. I've no idea of how hard it is to judge the color from the screen.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Thank you Bill, very kind of you.

Ok, lets start with the "long" toe and shoulders, you state:

But the real, honest reason is this: the crippling property of gelatin silver paper, which no one will mention, is that it has a pronounced toe and shoulder.

I understand "pronounced" as abrupt or IOW "short"...maybe you meant differently but this is what you wrote. OTOH if papers have a long toe and shoulder, then they should be able to sparate tones better...so which is it? Long or short. The statement you made above that it is because papers have long toes and shoulders that makes it hard to get contrast in highlights and shadows is wrong.

Besides as I said before, it is all a matter of tailoring the negative to the paper, you can place your tones any way you like.

Yes 16 divided by 6 is 2.66, but if I recall correctly you made 4 test prints in your example, that makes a total of 10 prints processed in the same chemistry. Oh, I see...I guess the test prints dont count so that you can better support your argument....my bad....

The fact that you have not met anybody that can do a print on the first try does not mean there are not those of us out there who can. Being able to produce a good print does not necessarily mean you understand the sensitometry and tone reproduction, your insinuation that you meet with the greatest printers in the world and since they cannot make a good print in the first try then it must be true that nobody can is ridiculous. There are times when I too have to make 3 or 4 prints to get it just the way I want, but I would say 80% of the time, with good process control and testing my first print is a keeper, if you ever find yourself in Mexico I would be glad to demonstrate it to you...
Here is another print that was taken out of the light box, processed, mounted and sold.



Like you, I dont care if you think ink jet prints are the cat's meow, and almost free to make, as you say that is your opinion and I too disagree, but dont expect to go unchallaged when you place information in a public forum, specially when that information is inaccurate. Specially concerning your statements about Dmax. Oh and BTW.....no, you cannot make ink jet prints that "look" like platinum prints and I wll challange you on that at your convenience.