Rejections

I’M a color management specialist. I’m a pro digital guy who believes in the digital revolution. However, there are conventional processes that simply work and in some cases, better than the digital counterpart.

Recently, I needed to print a few of my images for submission so the quality requirement is somewhat critical. It was an automatic course of action to have it printed using a digital printer. I have been calibrating and optimising a particular inkjet printer to print this kind of quality requirement. I made some few prints and it looks okay except for some overflowing ink in the dark areas.

I decided to print the same images in the lab and I was surprised to find out that the prints are way better than my inkjet output. I was happy to see a very impressive output but at the same time confused. What’s in chemical-based printing that outputs this good? The developed photoprint was way sharper, ink limit was not an issue and the overall tone was balanced. I was already expecting this, but the digital believer in me is in a state of denial.

Although it’s quite obvious that the inkjet offers a wider gamut that allows the print to come out more vibrant and saturated than the lab output, I think it’s the overall tonal gradient and depth made possible by a really good density from a lab photoprint that catches your attention and making it more pleasing.

Wet lab or chemical-based printing is using the same photo sensitive paper that’s exposed through an LCD projector digitally, and which used to be exposed through a projected negative film. The entire process is the same after exposure. Exposed photo sensitive paper goes through the chemicals of developer and fixer to bring out the colors brought about by chemical reaction.

The result is still very much pleasing than inkjet prints. This is, of course, my opinion even if my profession is into digital printing. Although, all advantages point toward digital printing especially when it comes to larger sizes and smaller investments on the hardware, the output quality can make you think twice.

“The developed photoprint was way sharper, ink limit was not an issue and the overall tone was balanced. I was already expecting this, but the digital believer in me is in a state of denial.”

I’m sure that inkjet will eventually overtake wet lab printing. It’s a question of when, but the technology of chemical-based printing has served us for a long time and maybe more before inkjet gains total advantage. It may be hard for me to say it, but I still would recommend wet lab printing for good quality photo printing.

There are still good wet labs in the city, and you can check out Colours Digital Photo for regular size printing to as big as A3. Should you need a larger size, Jun Sagon of Ultra Digital Imaging is the go-to guy. Keep on shooting, everyone!

“It may be hard for me to say it, but I still would recommend wet lab printing for good quality photo printing.”

This image is heavy on the dark areas and inkjet printing would sometimes pour too much ink on it to get a good density. That’s the reason inkjet adds additional cartridges in different shades of black to solve this issue. Density in dark areas is...