Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,280   Online: 818
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Windscale View Post
    I think most labs would scan your slide and do inkjet prints afterwards. Prices for the scanning will be directly proportional to the quality (size) of the file. Traditional methods of enlargements are almost dead if not already died.
    Everything said here is true. Virtually NO lab does optical prints anymore - most everyone scans and prints, whether you shoot negatives or transparencies. So, at the end of the day, it matters little whether you shot transparencies or negatives. About the only way you are going to get true, optical prints from negatives is to DIY. But if this is someplace you don't want to go, then there is nothing wrong with shooting transparency film. Besides, negatives just don't look good on a light table.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    30
    Images
    4
    Like J says, there is no better alternative way of printing from transparencies than "ILfochrome"! If you can DIY great welcome to the club. If not you should really have it done at least once, you'll see what all the love is about with an Ilfochrome print when its in your hand. Will be love at first sight. Traditional methods of Wet Darkroom are out there, they and film process are not dying.
    Scott

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin