Which labs still make traditional optical enlargements from 4x5 color negatives?

[Maris Rusis]

A colleague of mine wants to shoot 4x5 colour negative film, develop it himself in C-41, and sent the negatives to some one who put those negatives in an enlarger and turn out 16" x 20" prints. The end point is a body of work unified by an exclusively analog work flow; no pixel dust at any stage. I'm told the project is well funded.

So, who can offer this service anywhere in the world? Or is the era of colour optical enlargement well and truly finished?

[Jac@stafford.net]

So, who can offer this service anywhere in the world? Or is the era of colour optical enlargement well and truly finished?

A call to here (http://gammaimaging.com/darkroom-printing/color-prints/)might be worthwhile.

[Oren Grad]

Maris, I've reworded the subject line to more directly draw attention to what you're looking for. Good luck!

[Oren Grad]

Also, FWIW, Blue Moon Camera & Machine in Portland, Oregon, offers darkroom color printing. I don't know that they've catered to the large-print, fine-art market. But can't hurt to ask:

https://bluemooncamera.com/

[Pere Casals]

Or is the era of colour optical enlargement well and truly finished?

Still alive. IMHO it's soon to say that this is experimenting a revival, but we see that now Adox sells Fuji RA-4 color paper cut in sheets and price is affordable, around 1€ per 30x40cm Crystal sheet.

A big RA-4 optic enlargement from 4x5 it's something impressive... if the negative is good...


Let me make a recommendation, if you are to order that job far from you then you scan and make small digital RA-4 prints adjusting only the dominats, exposure, etc... what it can be adjusted in the enlargement, so you can show the printer what you want, you may simple send the edited digital images for reference but a RA-4 "prototype" print is a better reference. You may also show burning/dodging in the print or file.

What you do in the digital file may not be easy/possible in the optic print, but if the printer has a reference image then he has a good guide.

[Drew Wiley]

If he can get c41 chem there, why not RA4? Printing optically onto RA4 paper like Fuji Crystal Archive is rather easy if one has an enlarger with a colorhead, and a basic 16X20 drum. No need to go through the headache of a scan or redundant digi manipulation. There are indeed fewer big commercial labs doing this kind of service, but they're hardly extinct. Optical printing is quite alive and well; but it's straightforward enough that some of the momentum commercial labs once had has simply transferred over to personal darkrooms. But I don't know the state of supplies distribution down under.

[tgtaylor]

I agree. RA-4 printing is relatively a straight forward process with the required equipment and a used enlarger equipped with a color head is inexpensive these days. This image is a scan of an 11x14 RA-4 print made with a Beseler 45MXT enlarger equipped with a Besler 45S color head: https://www.spiritsofsilver.com/galleries/color_gallery_page_3 Anyone familiar with this location will recognize the improvement, while being faithful to the subject, that is possible by judicious manipulation of the filter pack.

Thomas

[Pere Casals]

I agree. RA-4 printing is relatively a straight forward process with the required equipment and a used enlarger equipped with a color head is inexpensive these days.

I agree, today equipment is no problem. It's easy in theory, but a sound RA-4 print requires an skilled color printer to make a sound job that would be superior, if not better to print with a lightjet/etc.

[Oren Grad]

There are indeed fewer big commercial labs doing this kind of service, but they're hardly extinct.

So which ones are they? I took a few minutes on the web to track down my own short list of high-end color labs that I'd either done business with in the past or was otherwise familiar with, and they've all either switched to digital files, abandoned printing or gone out of business.

[linhofbiker]

So which ones are they? I took a few minutes on the web to track down my own short list of high-end color labs that I'd either done business with in the past or was otherwise familiar with, and they've all either switched to digital files, abandoned printing or gone out of business.

Long time ago I shot 4x5 transparencies (E6) and had made Cibachrome prints. Later (10 years ago?) the only option was printing on Fuji print material that was almost as good as Cibachrome. Are there any labs doing this anymore. A 30x40 print can be a pleasure to see on the wall.

[Pere Casals]

So which ones are they? I took a few minutes on the web to track down my own short list of high-end color labs that I'd either done business with in the past or was otherwise familiar with, and they've all either switched to digital files, abandoned printing or gone out of business.

There is one in Madrid, optic RA-4 on demand: http://www.lab35.es/ Manually printed RA-4 , 50x60cm for 50€. Also developing (C-41) a 8x10" sheet for 6.5€, they do LF...

196782

Today a manually printed RA-4 is a sign of distinction :)

It sports authenticity and a unique natural "glow" that's difficult to describe in technical wording, but it rocks.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd be making phone calls. Numerous websites have not been sufficiently updated. I'd get ahold of a sales representative for Fuji paper in Asia or North America, who deals with directly with major labs. As of last year, you could get just about anything optically enlarged here in the Bay Area. But a year is a long time in this white hot real estate market, where commercial spaces are getting demolished right and left to make way for expensive condos, etc, unless one is willing to relocate to an unsafe neighborhood surrounded by nightly gunfire. The bigger problem is trying to communicate about visual nuances with some lab at a considerable distance, and the added expense of shipping a completed print even in a tube, which would still have to be mounted locally - an even greater expense than the printing itself. The high gloss surface of Fujiflex is nearly as fussy to mount as the Cibachrome surface it resembles. This would be the case no matter how it was printed. Big laser printers like Lightjet are a major investment. A big enlarger makes a lot more sense for moderate volume. You still need the same RA4 capacity. I just use big drums, even though I was offered a pristine 50 inch wide Kreonite processor for free. I don't want all the hazmat issues of high volume, and I don't print for other people. No matter what, it takes some time and skill to do viable color prints, or even to intelligently communicate your specific needs to a contracted printer. There's just no way around that. I think Bob Carnie of this forum is still relocating his own equipment. He might still offer optical; but frankly, his Lightjet prints come very close to optical in quality because he understands the look of both. And this category of look should be entirely distinguished from inkjet. Unless one is willing to pay a very high price, commercial printers face certain daily obstacles like less than ideal negatives, which need to somehow be affordably corrected before actual printing. And unless one is doing their own printing routinely, it's difficult to get constant feedback about your own exposure and color vision skills. Once something gets scanned, it automatically gets reinterpreted in some manner. Then corrections come into play. So communication skills are just as important as technical control when it comes to a contracted printer. I just find it soooo much easier to print color for myself; but there is no simply getting around a substantial learning curve if you want high quality prints. The ABC's of color neg printing are fairly easy.

[Oren Grad]

As of last year, you could get just about anything optically enlarged here in the Bay Area.

At which lab(s)?

[bob carnie]

I am not aware of any labs that work with fine art photographers that optically print RA4 .. I could make a optical print using my enlarger and a Jobo but I have long ago decided keeping a Colenta processer in tune with RA4 chemicals just not worth it. I feel inkjet prints are much better in so many ways.
There would need to be the client base that requires this type of production method to make it worth while . The day Ed Burtynski stops doing C prints will be the day the writing is on the wall for RA4 production in Toronto.
I have a Lambda and had a full RA 4 system not 5 years ago, the marketplace for me at least said get rid of the processing machine.

[Drew Wiley]

Here the market had nothing to do with it, Bob. RA4 is more economical, and has an entirely different look anyway. The problem was threefold : 1) more stringent hazmat rules which made high volume chemistry more expensive maintenance-wise with respect to zoning permits; 2) the dramatically rising expense of commercial space leases in major urban areas, intended to deliberately push such businesses over a cliff for sake of redevelopment purposes; and 3) the fact that there are less and less potential employees who understand traditional printing, in contrast to the vast mob around here with digital imaging skills. But there are still quite a few private venues - either workshop arrangements or individuals, who still do optical printing. I don't know about the current situation with Bay Area or LA full service labs, since I haven't used any such printing services in many years. I've long been fully equipped to do it myself. But since the RA4 chemistry and its paper selection is the same as laser printing needs, there are really no logistical issues involved when optically printing. Inkjet is another animal entirely, and hardly an ideal substitute for the more seamless look some of us want.

[Drew Wiley]

Oren, there were several big labs with multiple options not long ago. One was forced to relocate both their Berkeley and SF operations to a smaller space just about a year ago; and all I know is that they changed their name (formerly Light Waves) and had to forfeit one of their big dip n dunk machines, so there went our local 8x10 C41 option, and that now has to be done in SoCal. I didn't inquire about any remaining enlarger capacity. The biggest lab of all was owned by a friend now in his late 70's, who offered me the whole nine yards if I'd lease a big storage space and all off haul it all off. I only took one big Durst enlarger. I have no interest in starting up a commercial lab, even with a couple million dollars worth of free gear, especially at my age. That's just toy money to him. He outright owns major swaths of commercial real estate in several cities around here, and is still active in development and construction. One of his massive studios is still intact, but due to his age, he's reduced the operation just to food photography, and no more lab services to the public. Since I didn't want it, nearly all the lab equip per se went to the dump - nearly thirty LF enlargers, plus all kinds of commercial processing gear. He had once owned a six-story highrise studio/lab in downtown SF (Ziba - most of his clients were big overseas corporations, so the local photographic community never knew the sheer scale of it), plus an entire block of downtown Berkeley, with the entire below street level devoted to lab use, and then another two-level 9000 sq ft bldg down the street. He still owns it all, plus more and more each month it seems - one of those people who will keep working insanely until he drops, just for the adrenaline rush, I guess. He sure as heck doesn't need more money. But due to our long-term business relation, I was the only one he'd offer that gear to. He just didn't have the time to parcel it out randomly - a master of several trades, and expert at them all, with his key helpers just as versatile. He made an outright science out of work efficiency. Ran into him again a couple weeks ago, still driving a beat up old van, just like a couple other near-billionaires I have known, keeping a low profile.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, there were several big labs with multiple options not long ago.

What were the names of these labs?

[Pere Casals]

I feel inkjet prints are much better in so many ways.

Sure that there are images that are better in an inkjet, no doubt, but also many images may have an advantage in a C print.

I guess that YMMV, but I've recently seen a fashion work made with optic RA-4 from Portra 160 shot in a RZ 67... and my view is that inkjets are not capable of that, by a great extent, in the inkjets I've never seen those nuances in skin tones and textures, even the clothes had a superb depiction, I was perfectly feeling what touch the fabric would have, smooth cotton or plastic...

Also this is Spencer Tunick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Tunick) inspecting side by side an inkjet, a Lambda C print and LaserLab C Print, from digital capture I guess...

https://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/tunick.jpeg
196789
https://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/08/digital-c-prints.html


LAB35 (http://www.lab35.es/) do all, inkjets and optic RA-4, what shines is the optic RA-4, anyway this requires a good negative from a good photographer that knows how to illuminate. If this is not the case (IMHO) best is being intrusive with Ps and inking a paper :).


Of course market is what rules... but I suspect that Adox is starting to sell RA-4 in sheets again because we have some (still very small, really) optic comeback.

[Drew Wiley]

Oren, I just revised my post. There were five huge full-service labs in the immediate neighborhood two decades ago (Custom Process, Newell, Ziba, and two I can't remember). That shrunk down to three, then to two until quite recently. People retire. Getting into digital printing too early was the doom of Custom Process, another friend of mind. Now there are numerous local options for film dev up to 4x5, digital printing, and even traditional b&w dev and printing, but color printing has been reduced to inket and laser printing incl Lambda and Lightjet locally. All of that is still within walking distance of my former workplace. It really seems to have little to do with optical vs digital demand. Traditional businesses of all varieties are being forced out - bookstores, shoe repair shops, long-term restaurants, woodshops, picture frame suppliers; techie gentrification is running amuk. Quaint business neighborhoods are now turning into tall dark walled canyons of high priced condos with hyper-expensive ground floor retail space leases. Heavy industry still has a firm foothold around the ports; but there's nothing safe or clean about the effluent that comes from the pharmaceutical and electronics manufacturers either. This tendency has forced businesses to rethink their space demands. I helped cabinet shops and so forth scale down by going to Euro Shop alternative equipment, allowing them to work cleaner and safer in about a fifth the floor space. Photo labs have shrunk down from full-service operations to different specialty tasks apiece, and are surviving quite well in that manner. Big studios are now small ones. Restaurants either sink or swim - and there is an abundance of both kinds.

[Oren Grad]

Thanks, Drew.

[Drew Wiley]

I had quite a few conversations with the owner of one of the labs I can't remember the name of, because he was my customer even though I was not his. In that case, he developed hypersensitivity to Ciba bleach and had to throw in the towel. In another case, RA4 chem was the long-term culprit. That's why I develop color in drums outdoors in mild weather - one of the advantages of not being on the clock in this respect. People might think that inkjet has solved all those sensitivity issues; but I think it's just a matter of time till glycol sensitivities show up. That's why the EPA is trying to get polyglycols out of architectural paints. But it's darn hard to keep ordinary paint machine pigments from drying out and clogging without them, and unimaginable when tiny inkjet nozzles are involved. So it's probably not a good idea to have a whole bunch of huge inkjet prints laying around drying out without decent ventilation; but I know that happens in certain places. And glycol outgasses rather slowly, over weeks in fact. But one way or another, where there's a will, there's a way, and color printing will go on somehow regardless. Even dye transfer printing is making a firm commercial revival on limited scale for those lucky few who can afford that kind of labor intensive service. I'm having very good results at the moment with Portra internegs from old 8x10 chromes; but it's somewhat labor intensive too due to the masks and similar intermediate steps necessary for optimal results. My recent color shooting is all done directly onto color neg film instead, which needs masking only once in awhile.

[tgtaylor]

...Traditional businesses of all varieties are being forced out - bookstores, shoe repair shops, long-term restaurants, woodshops, picture frame suppliers; techie gentrification is running amuk. Quaint business neighborhoods are now turning into tall dark walled canyons of high priced condos with hyper-expensive ground floor retail space leases...

And the Mall is now a thing of the past. Last week I found myself at Hilltop Mall (https://hilltopbythebaysf.com/ with a hour to kill so I spent it walking through the mall. I was shocked! All the store fronts were vacant and those that remained were huddled in a common location sharing essentially zero foot traffic.

Thomas

[nickandre]

I used to do 4x5 enlargements onto RA4 16x20 paper. With the Kodak RA4 you can do it in trays at room temp. I’ve resumed shooting some Hasselblad negatives and it has reminded me how much better wet prints from a good negative looked than any sort of scan. A sharp Ektar 100 35mm negative could be enlarged to 16x20 without breaking a sweat. Plus the new Endura Metallic paper looks worlds better than inkjet glossy stuff.

I actually still have a pile of Kodak cut sheets that I bought when they announced the discontinuation of the sheets. Probably mostly toast by now, unfortunately.

It was not supremely difficult to do these prints and was quite fun. Might be a cool hobby to get a setup for 20x25 prints from 4x5 negatives and offer that as a service. Wonder if it would generate enough revenue to pay for a space.

[Willie]

There was nothing quiet like a beautiful large Cibachrome print from Fuji 50 sheet film. They worked so well together and oftimes one did not need a contrast mask for top quality in the print.

[Chester McCheeserton]

Wow -such a simple question and such a stream of roundabout non-answers.

LTI in nyc
Icon in LA

[Chester McCheeserton]

also Griffin Editions in nyc

[ernie57]

+1 for The Icon in LA. I have used them for years and never been disappointed. There used to be 15 labs that did LF C41 & E6 in LA. They are the last man standing.

[Drew Wiley]

Huh? The Darkroom still does C41 and E6 in the LA area, clear up to 8x10 film size, that is, in San Clemente nearby, and offers printing too. There are labs still going here in Norcal too.

[nickandre]

Wow -such a simple question and such a stream of roundabout non-answers.

LTI in nyc
Icon in LA

Interesting — Icon does digital prints up to 48 inches and analog enlargements.

[Chester McCheeserton]

Huh? The Darkroom still does C41 and E6 in the LA area, clear up to 8x10 film size, that is, in San Clemente nearby, and offers printing too. There are labs still going here in Norcal too.

By doing C-41 and E6 do you mean processing film? Because I don't see anything on the Darkroom website about making optical C-prints. When they refer to "Color files are printed on traditional wet-process Kodak Royal silver halide color paper" I am 99% sure those are done on a Noritsu or similar type digital printer, which scans the film and outputs like a mini lightjet. If they were doing analog printing by hand at an enlarger they would advertise that service.

huh.

[urnem57]

Huh? The Darkroom still does C41 and E6 in the LA area, clear up to 8x10 film size, that is, in San Clemente nearby, and offers printing too. There are labs still going here in Norcal too.

San Clemente is an hour and 30 minutes from LA. Hardly nearby. As I said, The Icon is the only lab left in LA that does 4x5 C41 and E6.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, E6 and C41 are film processes. RA4 is a print process, and can be achieved either via optical enlargement or scanning and laser printers. One generally has to do a little more in depth communication with any given service these days to figure out who still does specifically what.
I just linked one of the local ones (SF Bay Area) that no longer has space for enlargers due to yet another forced relocation, but has added back 8x10 film processing in both C41 and 8x10, which they temporarily couldn't do in their interim space. The usual commercial real estate nightmare around here.

Can anyone even drive across LA in an hour and a half? The whole mess south of the Tehachapi range is LA as far as I'm concerned. It can take an hour and half just to get across the Bay here the wrong time of day, or pre-Covid, an hour to get 10 miles to just the Bridge. But it's still considered local.

[Drew Wiley]

Magnolia is an Alt process lab which did a lot of special experimentation, especially involving scanning and laser etching, which has nothing in common with this particular thread. In recent years, they've added inkjet capacity as a lower-end option. Any dealings I had with them were quite awhile back, and quite specific, and I've never met any the younger staff who might or might not have responded to the alleged inquiry,
who might not even have been born yet, or certainly not employed yet, when that big jigsaw image of Chuck Close was made.

So, let me ask, what kind of malicious trolling are you up to this time, hornstenj? If push came to shove, I could hypothetically dig up the copy of the receipt to the ORIGINAL OWNERS of the specific wooden image equipment I sold them, if the former computer base is still in existence. I had a dedicated server, which might or might not have had its data base transcribed after I retired. If not, the German manufacturer themselves might still retain the warranty copy; I don't know how many years they retain them. But I have zero interest in feeding trolls.
Welcome to my Ignore list.