printing from slides

[photodrew]

I hope this isn't off topic, but . . . <BR>
<BR>
what are opinions on getting prints/enlargements from slides?<BR>
<BR>
Is the old internegative method the way to go?<BR>
<BR>
Or is digital the superior way (scan and print)?<BR>
<BR>
Or is there a third alternative I'm missing, that's even better (and not outrageously expensive)?

[Bobfireman]

<BR>
I've been using The Slideprinter for years to get prints from my slides. They used internegs (a process they had pefected, IMHO), but recently switched to digital scanning, and then printing on regular photo paper. The last two prints I got back from them (1 8X10,& 1 11X16) done by scanning looked great. The other advantage is that they can do a full-frame print with out removing the slide from it's mount.<BR>
<A HREF=http://www.theslideprinter.com TARGET='_blank'>http://www.theslideprinter.com</A>

[Brendan]

Today I would say scan your slide, 4000 dpi and Print from there, the reason being time, you get a scan that can be reused for prints and edited. There is no real superior way of doing it, it comes down to cost/time/ availability.

[Gochugogi]

I used to use a prolab for slide printing and they did a great job but charged $50 for 8 x 12! Now I go to a local drugstore with a Fuji Digital Frontier 370 minilab. They can scan the slide and print on normal photographic paper for 1/10 the price and slightly better quality (less contrast). Nowadays I usually scan it myself, tweak in PS, save with an Fuji Digital Frontier color profile embedded, burn it on a CD and they print it exactly the way I want it.

[BobF]

If you're looking for inexpensive then finding a place with a digital Fuji Frontier machine is probably your best bet. <BR>
<BR>
I think the Frontiers are limited to 8" wide paper stock. If you need bigger then you can take it to a custom lab that can scan and print on an inkjet printer like the Epson 7600, 9600 or 10600.<BR>
<BR>
There's the interneg process that you already know about but you're making a negative out of the positive and negative film (even the specialized film for internegs) doesn't have the same ooomph as a slide.<BR>
<BR>
The other option is a Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome) or R print direct positive print from the slide. These look amazing and last a long time. It's hard to find a lab that does them anymore and they're going to be a custom job which means cost will be higher.

[DrJalapeno]

"..you get a scan that can be reused for prints and edited."<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
This supports the digital method in a nutshell.<BR>
Depending on the image control software in use, some Fuji Frontier machines can produce high resolution scans (3000 ppi) from 35mm slides. Costco charges 59 cents for this service!

[Deadhead]

The only problem that I have run across with the digital process is the limitations in constrast. I have some beautiful velvia and kodachrome slides that have a wide contrast and have been unable to get them to turn out correctly using the digital methods. The only option left is the cibachrome (ilfochrome) method.<BR>
<BR>
I know there are digital "work-arounds", but most of the custom digital printers will charge you for the additional digital work. By the time you are finished the price begins to get close to the cibachrome (ilfochrome) process.<BR>
<BR>
By far, this is the best method I have found to faithfully reproduce my more challenging slides.

[pnh173]

I think you have to decide. To do that you need to try each way. That may sound like a cop, but it isn't intended to be. You have to decide which has the "look" you want versus the price.<BR>
<BR>
I haven't had digital done myself, so I can't comment on it, but obviously others here have and were very happy. I can only encourage you to pick at least one slide you like and have it done on Cibachrome/Ilfocrome. Depending on the colors and contrast on your slide, you will be amazed at the way they look.<BR>
<BR>
I made some 25 years ago from a Cibachrome trial kit they used to sell. They are amazing even today. One of them was in a frame in a house fire and still holds color fidelity and contrast. That stuff is just a wonder to see. If the cost is too high, you might not want to do it all the time, but from time to time, you will have prints you will "see" in Ilfochrome.

[tabbyday]

<BR>
Are you doing these yourself? <BR>
Digitally scanned/printed, cibachrome classic (not rapid) and type R prints (reversal paper) are all better than a type C print from an interneg. A print from an internegative is a 3rd generation print and loses quite a bit of quality/detail in the transfer. Cibachrome classic prints are gorgeous though!

[photodrew]

Thanks all. My use would be only for the occasional enlargement of favored shots (my walls aren't that spacious). a 12x18 from a negative runs about $15-20. By comparison, any ideas what a digital print or an ilfachrome in that size might be?

[ChanTran]

May be you should consider doing it yourself using Illfochrome. I think the cost is less than $5 for a 8x12 print (I haven't checked the price of paper and chemical lately). Exposure and color balancing when printing from a slide is relatively easy compared printing from a negative. Color balance doesn't change much from slide to slide like negative. Slide film must have reasonably consitent color balance otherwise you the slide will look bad when view directly or projected.

[JR92]

<BR>
I was hoping to use A&I for my slide enlargments (possibly 20x30), they do all of my processing, has anyone had their enlargements done with them and if so were trhey good quality?<BR>
<BR>
JR92

[jantman]

<BR>
Ilfochrome.

[BobF]

----------------<BR>
On 8/27/2003 11:30:21 AM Chan Tran wrote: <BR>
<BR>
May be you should consider doing it yourself using Illfochrome. <BR>
----------------<BR>
<BR>
One would need to own an enlarger to do this. Also, I doubt that you could buy the chemicals in too many places anymore, if at all. They are highly toxic and quite tightly controlled. Disposal of the chemicals is quite difficult. That's why there are so few labs doing them any longer.