Neil Ambrose , Nov 20, 2009; 03:45 p.m.
Optical prints will cost a lot. I wonder whether that is the right model for proofs.
I include optical prints in my work, but only as fine-art silver prints enlarged to reasonable size, otherwise the costs are prohibitive. A scanned print on 6x4 Fuji Crystal will cost around 20 cents per image, making it totally workable for a large number of proofs. And frankly, there are few if any clients who could tell the difference at such a small size. But the equivalent as an optical print would come with limitations: most labs won't print optically less than 8x10, as it's too expensive for them, and their charges will be closer to $5 per print.
Caveat to the above - I'm not in the US so please don't take my pricing as accurate. I'm merely doing an on the fly currency conversion for what it costs me, and assuming the pricing model is broadly similar on both sides of the Atlantic.
An often overlooked source of good optical prints is in the back pages of photography magazines. Many b+w afficionados have small hobby businesses doing handmade prints by post, and can often price work more favourably than labs. Plus, in some cases, they may be your only route for getting the work done.
Don't overlook making your own, either. For a few hundred dollars you could get a decent enlarger, easel and lens and a lot of paper. You'd then be able to make your own, and over time recoup your costs quite easily. I'm assuming you're already comfortable processing film and can therefore do your own prints. It rather depends if this is a 'one off', or whether you intend to base future work on the same lines.
Edit:
BTW - it's worth checking what you mean by 'optical print'. This is a specific term for handmade images. If all you need is some film printing, you can just get machine prints. These will be scanned from the negative and printed on crystal archive - see my first paragraph. Any high street lab / drugstore will do this very cheaply.