 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2006Digital prints from negatives
I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple, decent 4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype about their levels of skill and service. On first glance, at arm's length, prints seem bright and sharp. But just a cursory closer examination, even without a loupe, shows a complete lack of detail ,especially in shadows (e.g. you can't read a street sign in the middle distance), unnatural and inaccurate colours, thick sharpening lines that provide only an illusion of sharpness, and a noticible overall fuzziness. I don't think this is down to my photo technique since I've been into photography for 30+ years, including darkroom work, and have hundreds of sharp prints made optically. (One of the stores can still produce optical prints, which are certainly of a higher quality than their digital. But they seem reluctant to do this and are phasing the service out). I've tried going further afield - mailing film to approved "Kodak Labs" through drugstores etc. Same outcome - lousy prints. (BTW both labs do produce good enough digital prints from original digital images). So what's the problem? I know from reading this and other discussion groups that very good prints from scanned negs are possible. If amateurs can do it on relatively downmarket equipment, why can't professionals on top of the line equipment? Do they lack technical knowledge, do they simply not care, do they scan at the lowest possible resolution to save time and effort, or what? Or are my experiences unique (doubt it!) I can't be bothered getting into home scanning and I still like to use color negative film for handiness and its exposure latitute. But I'm frustrated in trying to find good quality prints. An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of 35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor quality print. Might as well use a plastic lens Kodak disposable camera! This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs. > I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops, > which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty > in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs. Most of the printers that are using light to print on photographic paper top out at about 300 ppi. Whereas this makes for a decent looking print it is not as sharp as what even a very low cost inkjet printer can achieve. As for what is the point of having your upscale gear, you can make larger print. Who would have up scale gear just to make 4 x 6 prints? Live a little make some 8 x 12 prints, you will be amazed at how much better then look then the 4 x 6 prints. BTW a DSLR might surprise you with how much latitude it has. In fact if you are simply dropping off your film to be processed and printed you will find that you do much better using a DSLR. When I was shooting film I went the home scanning route since I really did not like what I got from the labs. Scott >Most of the printers that are using light to print on photographic >paper top out at about 300 ppi. Whereas this makes for a decent >looking print it is not as sharp as what even a very low cost inkjet >printer can achieve. Some number of years ago, I could see the dots from 300 dpi laser printers by holding a print very close to my eyes. These days I can't do that anymore :-( I sort of doubt that there will be a lot of difference between a good 300 ppi digital RA-4 print and an analog RA-4 print. I ordered one digital A4 sized print of a relatively sharp frame from which I also have an analog print. Even after studying the prints closely for some time, it is not clear which print is better.  SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >Most of the printers that are using light to print on photographic > >paper top out at about 300 ppi. Whereas this makes for a decent [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I sort of doubt that there will be a lot of difference between a good 300 > ppi digital RA-4 print and an analog RA-4 print. Yeah but I got a set of defective eyes that focus far to close. With out my glasses the farthest I can focus is right about 10 inches. BTW I have only seen a handful of really good RA-4 prints, most of the labs didn't seem to be able to or care to focus the enlarger. Many of the prints from film that I got were really bad, which is just one of many reasons I started scanning my own film. After scanning my own I would never go back to lab prints, not just the resolution but also things like white balance and dynamic range are way better when I scan the film. Pretty much I am happy with the 300 ppi prints but I wish they would have gone to 400 ppi. Scott > > >Most of the printers that are using light to print on photographic > > >paper top out at about 300 ppi. Whereas this makes for a decent [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > like white balance and dynamic range are way better when I scan the > film. Then you were using a crappy lab, or you were just afraid to stand up for yourself. If you're using a pro lab and you don't like your prints (and you can vocalize why not), it's up to you to hand the negs back over to the lab and say, "try again." > Pretty much I am happy with the 300 ppi prints but I wish they would > have gone to 400 ppi. I don't know of a printer that can take advantage of the added resolution. Experiments of my own showed little if no difference between 240 ppi and 300 ppi. > I don't know of a printer that can take advantage of the added > resolution. Experiments of my own showed little if no difference > between 240 ppi and 300 ppi. Some printers can. But to see the diff you need to be printing on a smooth, glossy paper and using the printer's very best settings. There are test targets at this site: www.ddisoftware.com meant for this purpose. Using these targets (and viewing with an 8x loupe) I could see an improvement between 360 dpi and 720 dpi. OTOH, the improvement was subtle, and not visible at all without the loupe. (Printing on an Epson R1800.) I'm sure the difference would have been nil when printing on any kind of matte or textured paper. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > > I don't know of a printer that can take advantage of the added > > resolution. Experiments of my own showed little if no difference [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm sure the difference would have been nil when > printing on any kind of matte or textured paper. That's DPI, printer dots, we were talking pixels per inch in the digital image itself. I don't know of a printer that can make use of more than 300 PPI. That doesn' t mean there isn't one out there, but it certainly isn't the norm. > That's DPI, printer dots, we were talking pixels per inch in the > digital image itself. I don't know of a printer that can make use of > more than 300 PPI. That doesn' t mean there isn't one out there, but > it certainly isn't the norm. No, I'm taking about pixels per inch in the image itself. Go to ddisoftware.com, read the "methodology" for yourself. In general I agree that resolutions in excess of 300-360 aren't worth much. But I was impressed that I could in fact see the difference, in print, between the 360 ppi target and the 720 ppi target (subject to the conditions I listed in the earlier post.) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com SNIP > In general I agree that resolutions in excess of 300-360 aren't > worth much. Ah, but that is exactly what what makes people prefer Qimage prints over Photoshop prints! 360 PPI is equal to 7.1 cycles/mm, which is almost the limit of visual acuity. The additional pixel printed 'in between', allows to further sharpen the edges or smooth gradients. It also allows to exploit Vernier acuity, i.e. resolution in excess of what can be resolved by eye. > But I was impressed that I could in fact see the > difference, in print, between the 360 ppi target and the 720 ppi > target (subject to the conditions I listed in the earlier post.) SignatureBart >SNIP >> In general I agree that resolutions in excess of 300-360 aren't >> worth much. > >Ah, but that is exactly what what makes people prefer Qimage prints >over Photoshop prints! Do you have evidence that they really do? I have a lot of respect for Mike Chaney, and I know Qimage has a lot of fans. Even so, I've gotten along fine without it all these years. >360 PPI is equal to 7.1 cycles/mm, which is >almost the limit of visual acuity. > >The additional pixel printed 'in between', allows to further sharpen >the edges or smooth gradients. It also allows to exploit Vernier >acuity, i.e. resolution in excess of what can be resolved by eye. Bart, you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical. Maybe this is something I should investigate further. For prints up to 13x19" nowadays, I usually have no need for upsampling. For prints larger than that, I'm usually printing on matte paper, and I'd be amazed if that paper could physically hold a resolution better than 360 dpi -- if that. In any case, I don't expect folks to be grain-sniffing a 24x36" print. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com SNIP >>Ah, but that is exactly what what makes people prefer Qimage >>prints over Photoshop prints! > > Do you have evidence that they really do? Besides my own observed preference, only reported user evidence from the Qimage forum at Yahoo, and from the Printing forum at DPreview, and the Open Photography Forum, and possibly some others (I don't keep track). There is a potential difference between the internal printer (driver) scaling methods used to reach the native printer resolution (at which the dithering method is optimized). Some printers therefore show larger differences than others, which has to do with the interpolation method (bilinear versus something more accurate), and the amount of interpolation needed for the output size. SNIP > Bart, you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical. > Maybe this is something I should investigate > further. For prints up to 13x19" nowadays, > I usually have no need for upsampling. Depends on your source material, high resolution film scans have plenty of pixels, but digicams may benefit from a little help going to the 600 or 720 ppi native printer resolution they are capable of. > For prints larger than that, I'm usually printing > on matte paper, and I'd be amazed if that > paper could physically hold a resolution > better than 360 dpi -- if that. In any case, > I don't expect folks to be grain-sniffing a > 24x36" print. Indeed, the printer drivers may use a lower resolution or coarser dithering, depending on driver settings for paper, but then Qimage interrogates the printer driver for that and uses the appropriate resolution, without additional need for further printer driver interpolation. SignatureBart > That's DPI, printer dots, we were talking pixels per inch in the > digital image itself. I don't know of a printer that can make use of > more than 300 PPI. That doesn' t mean there isn't one out there, but > it certainly isn't the norm. Just about any inkjet can make use of more then 300 ppi. This is a 1200 ppi scan of one of my prints that was done on a Canon i560, not at all a high end printer. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/69258455/original At 300 ppi you can no longer make out the rope pattern on the Canoe. Scott > > That's DPI, printer dots, we were talking pixels per inch in the > > digital image itself. I don't know of a printer that can make use of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Scott Now you're talking scanning, not printing. You can scan as high as you like, with a diminishing return, but when it comes time to print, say, with West Coast Imaging, you'll send them a 300 PPI digital file, or you'll have your file converted to 300 PPI by them. Also, the tests I ran with a Nikon scanner and Epson 1270 indicated you could not see an improvement if your image was set at anything beyond 240 PPI. I printed at maximum DPI, mind you, and scanned at maximum PPI and then resized. I've tried printing matching dpi to ppi. > > > That's DPI, printer dots, we were talking pixels per inch in the > > > digital image itself. I don't know of a printer that can make use of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > printed at maximum DPI, mind you, and scanned at maximum PPI and then > resized. I've tried printing matching dpi to ppi. The point is that is a scan of a print, and it shows more detail then 300 ppi. If the print were made with 300 ppi it would have to have less detail. Scott > > > > That's DPI, printer dots, we were talking pixels per inch in the > > > > digital image itself. I don't know of a printer that can make use of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Scott No, the point is, you're talking smack. Have you got anything other than your mouth/keyboard to back up what you're saying? > No, the point is, you're talking smack. Have you got anything other > than your mouth/keyboard to back up what you're saying? Well I did show you a print that clearly has more then 300 ppi of detail, just what do you want? Scott > > > > No, the point is, you're talking smack. Have you got anything other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Scott But ppi means nothing to a digital file, only to a print, so how can you say scanning this print and then changing its ppi loses detail? If you're also resizing it, well then yeah, you're likely to lose detail. If you're saying scanning it at 300 ppi rather than 400 ppi loses detail, ok, I'll take your word for it, but that's not the same thing as printing it at a certain number of pixels per inch, that's a scanning thing. And I do wish Rafe would quit substituting dpi for ppi as they do not relate. And while I'm on Rafe's posts: I should buy a newer printer and run my tests again. I pretty much quit using my Epson as I just send those few enlargements I want to Kodak Gallery online, so I probably won't worry about it. >But ppi means nothing to a digital file, only to a print, so how can >you say scanning this print and then changing its ppi loses detail? If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Epson as I just send those few enlargements I want to Kodak Gallery >online, so I probably won't worry about it. I don't think either Scott or I are confusing resolution units. Scott's images are *huge* in terms of total pixel counts, and so are mine. Scott builds his images from composites of digicam captures, and mine are derived from 4000 dpi scans of MF and LF film. In either case, when making (for example) 8x10" prints, I have enough pixels at hand to print at 600 dpi or more. For example, a typical MF (645) scan is 8700 x 6500 pixels. A scan of 6x7 cm yields 10,900 x 8700 pixels. In other words, I have to *downsample* heavily in order to print something as "small" as an 8x10" print. With my R1800, if I'm printing on glossy paper I generally just downsample to some round number like 480 dpi. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >But ppi means nothing to a digital file, only to a print, so how can > >you say scanning this print and then changing its ppi loses detail? If [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > With my R1800, if I'm printing on glossy paper I generally > just downsample to some round number like 480 dpi. You don't _have_ to downsample, you could just turn off resample image in Photoshop's resize dialogue and set the size to something close to 8 x 10 and print that. Of course, all those extra pixels won't make a difference to the final image. But you did confuse dpi for ppi in your post previous to this one. There is a difference, as I'm sure you're aware, and it only confuses discussion to use them interchangeably. "It is true that contone printers (Lightjet, Lambda, Durst Epsilon) top out at relatively low resolutions (241, 305 dpi) but then again they're contone. " These printers don't print in dots, they use lasers, or other devices, so you couldn't be talking about dpi, you were talking about ppi. "The "conventional wisdom" is generally on your side, ie., it's rare that a print will show more than 300 dpi worth of detail." Here again you say dpi when you must mean ppi. Even my ancient 1270 prints at more than 300 dpi (I don't believe you can set it that low, even). I'm not disputing what you're saying, just how you're saying it, (though I would like to hear this print fact from more than the two of you or see the results myself before I advise anyone of it). I am disputing what Scott's saying, because I still can't figure out what the hell he is saying. For instance, the scan of the print he's showing. If he has another print of the same image printed at a lower ppi (but not lower than 300), and there's less detail in it, then he should show them both. Otherwise he's pointing at one image and saying, "see the ropes on the canoes?" Yes, I do see them, but they don't add up to much by themselves. > > >But ppi means nothing to a digital file, only to a print, so how can > > >you say scanning this print and then changing its ppi loses detail? If [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > saying, "see the ropes on the canoes?" Yes, I do see them, but they > don't add up to much by themselves. Sadly my i560 died, well ok I killed it by putting third party ink into it, so I can't do test with that printer any more. I did find an old test that I did when looking into this whole issue. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/69348129 Note to do a good test of this the source needs to be sharp at 600 ppi, otherwise the 300 ppi image can have as much detail in it. As an example making two prints from scanned film when one is made from a 4000ppi scan and the other from a 2000 ppi scan will show little difference. This is not because the printer could not make use of the extra pixels but because the extra pixels did not really capture much more detail. I now mostly do my prints at Costco and those I know are limited to 300ppi. And looking at the Costco prints they look a bit softer then what I use to get from my inkjet printer. I am on the look out for a replacement printer but have not found one that I like, one problem with living on an island. Scott >No, the point is, you're talking smack. Have you got anything other >than your mouth/keyboard to back up what you're saying? Scott generally does. Just so you know who you're dealing with. In a recent post you cited evidence from an Epson 1270, but you must know that that's an acient machine, about four or five generations behind. Epson's best printers spit out 1.5 picoliter drops nowadays, compared to the 4 pl. drops in your 1270. It is true that contone printers (Lightjet, Lambda, Durst Epsilon) top out at relatively low resolutions (241, 305 dpi) but then again they're contone. The "conventional wisdom" is generally on your side, ie., it's rare that a print will show more than 300 dpi worth of detail. But it's certainly achievable, and I can do it without much effort on an Epson R1800. Whether that's a reasonable or useful thing to do is a whole 'nother matter. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>> I don't know of a printer that can take advantage of the added >>> resolution. Experiments of my own showed little if no difference [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > more than 300 PPI. That doesn' t mean there isn't one out there, but > it certainly isn't the norm. The Canon i9950 (i9900 in USA) native resolution is 600 ppi, and prints at 4800 dpi. Very hard to tell the difference from a wet print. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Then you were using a crappy lab, or you were just afraid to stand up > for yourself. If you're using a pro lab and you don't like your prints > (and you can vocalize why not), it's up to you to hand the negs back > over to the lab and say, "try again." But you are missing the point-- Most of us don't use "custom labs" for any but our most important work. Especially amateurs, who would typically use Kodak (Qualex), or the drug store, or perhaps film mailers. Virtually all of those photofinishers produce machine-made prints, using diffusion enlargers, and automated color balancing. While most of those mass-market photofinishers offered a buy-back guarantee on prints that were not up to par, virtually none of them would "try again." Even if they did, their automated printing machines would produce the same quality prints that we had just rejected. Digital editing and online printing affords us an opportunity to get results a lot closer to what we really want, while still using low-cost photofinishers. (I am a big fan of Kodak Easy Share Gallery, formerly OFOTO.COM). I can get "real" photos, printed on photo silver halide paper, made with photo dyes, not inkjet, and a 4x6 is only fifteen cents. Depending upon my skill, I can get near custom-lab results while paying less than drugstore prices. I do a lot of landscape-type work and I generally want bold colors--especially of subjects like fall foliage. Finally I can control the color intensity, rather than rely upon the mechanized judgment of a machine or, even worse, of a poorly-motivated high school kid who runs one of those machines part-time after school! I usually prefer high acutance. Finally I can control the degree of sharpening, not have to accept whatever results come out of those diffusion enlargers. I like controlling the exact area of the crop. Finally I can decide exactly where to put the crop lines, rather than rely upon standard negative masks. I am very much happier doing the pre-print editing myself, rather than having to settle for someone else's choices of how my prints should look. > Then you were using a crappy lab, or you were just afraid to stand up > for yourself. If you're using a pro lab and you don't like your prints > (and you can vocalize why not), it's up to you to hand the negs back > over to the lab and say, "try again." That is one option, but then you may find yourself going back time and again. And unless you scan your negative and print from the scan how can you be sure that your lab is really getting the best print it can? > > Pretty much I am happy with the 300 ppi prints but I wish they would > > have gone to 400 ppi. > > I don't know of a printer that can take advantage of the added > resolution. Experiments of my own showed little if no difference > between 240 ppi and 300 ppi. Going past 300 ppi of detail is not a problem for even a low-end inkjet. This is a 1200 ppi scan from a print off of my Canon i560 printer, the printer cost all of $80. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/69248508/original That is way more then 300 ppi of detail. Scott >I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops, >which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently >knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded >in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple, >decent 4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype >about their levels of skill and service. You can't really make in-depth judgements based on 4x6" prints, IMO. Most commercial photo labs routinely apply an S-curve that improves midtone contrast at the expense of both shadow and highlight detail. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo >>shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can't really make in-depth judgements based > on 4x6" prints, IMO. The only judgement I make is that 4X6 digital prints I've seen are inferior to 4x6 optical prints. That's all. Some would say that's photo evolution in reverse ;-). Many amateurs don't regard 4x6s as just proofs that have to be enlarged, but as worthwhile photographic records in their own right. And why not go for the best possible quality in all sizes/formats? > Most commercial photo labs routinely apply an > S-curve that improves midtone contrast at the expense > of both shadow and highlight detail. > > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com >>I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo >>shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com Several years ago I had Wal-Mart process some rolls for me. They were still using optical printing. The results were awful. Washed-out colors and very poor resolution (trees in the background looked fuzzy--like cotton candy). I later scanned and printed the same negs and the results were like night vs. day. So the information was present on the negative, and the cheap processing lens was probably responsible for the lousy original set of prints. I'd bet that most of those one-hour places used poor quality enlarging lenses. They were oriented toward the mass-market, cheap-camera customers, not anyone with good lenses. But they were so mediocre that one could easily see their poor quality, even at 4 x 6. >>> I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo >>> shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > But they were so mediocre that one could easily see their poor quality, even > at 4 x 6. Most of the optical printers have relatively fast, about f/2.8 or f/3.5 enlarging lenses which they use wide open to get short exposures so their throughput is maxed. At those apertures the depth of focus at the negative is extremely narrow, and despite optimum focusing, any slight curve in the negative will print out of focus. They don't refocus between negatives, so if your neg deviates from a dead flat plane, the result is a furry print. This doesn't happen with laser or lightjet printers like Frontiers or Lambdas. Colin D. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > I'd bet that most of those one-hour places used poor quality enlarging > lenses. They were oriented toward the mass-market, cheap-camera > customers, The lenses in the machines are very good, but they need periodic re-focusing. I have found the operator can make a day/night difference in the quality of the prints. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> I'd bet that most of those one-hour places used poor quality enlarging >> lenses. They were oriented toward the mass-market, cheap-camera [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can make a day/night difference in the quality of the > prints. Well, that depends upon how you define "very good." I have seen those one-hour processing machines offered for $10,000 when new, compared to Dale Labs' purchase of a Nikkor enlarging lens, where the lens alone cost more than that. How much lens can they put into a one-hour processing setup, and still keep the cost down? I have never been satisfied with any one-hour processor, and I suspect that there may have been tons of folks that never were able to see what their lenses were capable of recording onto their films, because their photofinishers were the weak link in the imaging chains. Honestly, have ANY of us ever inquired of our photofinishers as to what kind of enlarging lenses they used? One reason I like the digital darkroom model is that there is no more worry about image degradation caused by a mediocre enlarging lens, because there isn't one. Even though digital editing requires extra time on the part of the photographer (along with a learning curve), the results are more consistently nearer to what the photographer wants, rather than being compromised by poor developing equipment, an unskilled or poorly-motivated operator or both. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find very many photographers that would not say that their results aren't better using digital editing than they were back when they relied upon the lab to produce their prints. Custom labs might be the only exception, but most of us amateurs used labs that were geared more toward the mass-market. > >> I'd bet that most of those one-hour places used poor quality enlarging > >> lenses. They were oriented toward the mass-market, cheap-camera [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > might be the only exception, but most of us amateurs used labs that were > geared more toward the mass-market. I went to scanning also because I could not get good photos from the mini-labs consistently. But I mostly got 4 x 5 or 5 x 7 prints made and it would take a really bad enlarging lenses not to be able to make a good looking print this small. I always blamed the focus since even the small prints were so soft that a $10 enlarging lens could have done better. The mini-labs would accidentally make sharp prints from time to time but what they never could seem to get right was the color balance. When we got a film scanner it was a real joy to go back to photos already taken and printed and be able to print them the way they should have looked. I think digital would have been a lot slower to catch on in the early days of 1 and 2 MP cameras if the mini-labs could have handled film better. My Nikon 995 with its 3 MP and printed at Costco was blowing away the prints I was getting from film and mini-labs. Scott >I think digital would have been a lot slower to catch on in the early >days of 1 and 2 MP cameras if the mini-labs could have handled film >better. My Nikon 995 with its 3 MP and printed at Costco was blowing >away the prints I was getting from film and mini-labs. As far as I remember, in the early days, there was almost no way to get digital prints done. Early digital cameras were for the web, and other digital uses. Then came better quality color printers, and finally, consumer labs would start doing digital. Of course, there were proably professional digital printing services early on. But I assume that we are talking about consumers. The interesting thing is, for a long time during the 90s, the Kodak lab in .nl made great prints on 4x6. At some point they decided that consumers like prints with way too much contrast better. Fortunately they retained to old line as well (but you had to know what to ask for). By the time they dropped the decent printing service, I was lucky enough to have a scanner, and the digital printing services were just starting to show up. So it was relatively easy to switch to digital printing. Often Kodak would print a badly exposed frame well enough that it took me quite some time to get the same quality digitally. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >I think digital would have been a lot slower to catch on in the early > >days of 1 and 2 MP cameras if the mini-labs could have handled film [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course, there were proably professional digital printing services > early on. But I assume that we are talking about consumers. As I recall the Costco starting doing digit prints in either late 2002 or early 2003. I know I used them to make almost 300 prints from a long vacation we took in the early spring of 2003. It was in 2001 that we bought our first printer that could make prints that looks like photographs, the HP Photosmart 1100. Scott >As I recall the Costco starting doing digit prints in either late 2002 >or early 2003. I know I used them to make almost 300 prints from a >long vacation we took in the early spring of 2003. I got my first digital prints on RA-4 about half 2002. But the Nikon 995 you mentioned is from 2001. >It was in 2001 that we bought our first printer that could make prints >that looks like photographs, the HP Photosmart 1100. I got my first film scanner in 2001, and I remember the lack of printing options (other than getting an inkjet, which I didn't want to). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Well, that depends upon how you define "very good." I tried making a print with my Fujinon-EX 50/2.8 wide open to see how it would do. It is actually amazingly good with nice sharp grain patterns seen through a loupe. Exposure was 2 seconds for an 8x10, which explains why I normally use it around f/8, but it was actually pretty good at f/2.8. >I have seen those > one-hour processing machines offered for $10,000 when new, compared to Dale > Labs' purchase of a Nikkor enlarging lens, where the lens alone cost more > than that. I won't contest that a super expensive lens might be better, but you don't have to spend a fortune to get an enlarger lens which can produce very sharp prints at f/2.8. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net [SNIP] > Honestly, have ANY of us ever inquired of our > photofinishers as to what kind of enlarging lenses they used? Yes... Peter >>I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo >>shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com Hey Rafe. I saw your website. Great pictures. I'll be glad if you submit your website to my new Photography Directory. I need many links to populate a database in order to get some traffic. Please help me. Thanx in advance. Andy > >>I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo > >>shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanx in advance. > Andy Is there a link to this directory, and do you have an email address to take this off list? > On first glance, at arm's length, prints seem bright and sharp. But just > a cursory closer examination, even without a loupe, shows a complete lack > of detail ,especially in shadows (e.g. you can't read a street sign in the > middle distance), unnatural and inaccurate colours, thick sharpening lines > that provide only an illusion of sharpness, and a noticible overall > fuzziness. I would bet that they are using some kind of image enhancement algorithyms, and that they either cannot turn them off or choose not to turn them off. I have the same problem at CVS Pharmacy. As for resolution, their scanner might be set for low-rez (perhaps to speed up scan time?) or the internal parts may have gotten dirty. I have given up on one-hour processors. They simply do not cater to any but the lowest common denominator. > I can't be bothered getting into home scanning and I still like to use > color negative film for handiness and its exposure latitute. But I'm > frustrated in trying to find good quality prints. You can send your film to Kodak Easy Share Gallery (formerly OFOTO) and they will process it, make prints and send back a CD with scans, but there is the mailing time issue. > But what's the point in selecting your favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, > and preferred film for some particular project, if it's all going wind up > as a lowest-common-denominator poor quality print. That is a huge problem, and you are one of the relatively few people that has even recognized it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and there are tons of folks that employ good technique, use excellent lenses, and then let some discount processor botch up their prints. Some people never realize how much they have missed. You really should re-think home scanning. I take my films to CVS for developing only ($2.50) and they give me my uncut negatives in 15 minutes. I scan them and upload the image files to Kodak for printing. If you get a scanner that accepts the whole uncut roll of negs you can save a lot of time versus using cut negs and film carriers. It takes about 2 hours to scan a 24-exposure roll, and I just let my scanner do its thing in the background while I do something else. The key is to have your negatives developed somewhere that will not cut them (and to get a scanner that supports whole rolls). The chances of finding a place that will reliably and consistently make good prints are pretty dim. And, if you use a custom lab it's going to cost you over the long term, to where you could have bought a scanner. I hate to say this, but film developing and printing has become a sort of nuisance product for one-hour places, especially at places like pharmacies. Sure, they offer it, but most of their operators haven't a clue. If you want good results from film, and you want it consistently, you have two approaches: 1: Shoot slides. 2: Scan your own, edit them on PS or PSP, and upload them to an online printer (or print at home, but that has its own difficulties and the cost is usually more than an online printer charges, when you consider ink and paper, plus your gas to go out and buy the supplies.) >An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of >35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your >favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular >project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor >quality print. That's the main reason people shoot slides. The results are intrinsically sharper than those on colour negative film, and nothing can compare with the beauty of a top quality projected slide. Only the very best colour negative films approach the standard of slide film. Of course it takes greater skill to get the best out of slide film because of the limited range of contrast that it can accept, and the lack of exposure latitude compared with negative film. I have always been surprised that people who are prepared to spend quite a lot of money on top quality lenses tend to skimp when it comes to film, buying the cheapest brand or even supermarket's own brand. This effectively wastes the money they invested in good equipment. These cheap films tend to have high contrast to make up for the poor quality, low contrast lenses in cheap point and shoot cameras. Your Nikon, Pentax and Olympus lenses have no need of high contrast film, and will produce their very best results on a high quality, low contrast emulsion If you insist on prints, use the best negative film you can afford and expose it with care. Then take it to the same lab and see if there is a difference. If not, you need to find a better lab. Films you might like to try include Fujicolor Pro 160S and 400H and Kodak Portra 160NC and 400NC. These are low contrast films with good ability at capturing a wide range of tones, with a particular reputation for delivering accurate skin tones. >>An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of >>35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to film, buying the cheapest brand or even supermarket's own brand. > This effectively wastes the money they invested in good equipment. Well - I didn't say so in my original post, but I have gone back to shooting slide film, and yes , the results are superb. Since it's end-point chemistry, it's hard for processing labs to screw up. But if you ever want to make digital prints from scanned slides the problem remains (positive images probably do better than scanned negs - but I've no personal experience of scanning, so may be wrong in this assumption). My earlier comments are not based on the use of cheap/no-name film either. Why should something like Fuji Reala or NPC 160 not produce outstanding prints from scanned negs, even though they are on the high contrast side. I've tried these in medium format for digital prints too (Yashicamat 124G/tripod/and well stopped down). Admittedly, the results are better than 35mm ,but not by much, and still short of traditional optical print quality. Perhaps processor operators just take more care with med format material, assuming it to be taken by photographers of higher ability. > These cheap films tend to have high contrast to make up for the poor > quality, low contrast lenses in cheap point and shoot cameras. Your [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ability at capturing a wide range of tones, with a particular > reputation for delivering accurate skin tones. > Well - I didn't say so in my original post, but I have gone back to > shooting slide film, and yes , the results are superb. Since it's > end-point chemistry, it's hard for processing labs to screw up. But if > you ever want to make digital prints from scanned slides the problem > remains (positive images probably do better than scanned negs - but I've > no personal experience of scanning, so may be wrong in this assumption). Well, there's part of your problem maybe. Were these prints from slides? Honestly, have you tried another photo lab or shop? If that fails maybe try doing the scanning and printing yourself. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Well - I didn't say so in my original post, but I have gone back to shooting >slide film, and yes , the results are superb. Since it's end-point >chemistry, it's hard for processing labs to screw up. Exactly. >But if you ever want >to make digital prints from scanned slides the problem remains (positive >images probably do better than scanned negs - but I've no personal >experience of scanning, so may be wrong in this assumption). If you have them scanned at a minilab, the scanning resolution is quite low. Even the highest resolution normally used in minilabs can be pitifully low. The base FujiFilm Frontier comes with a 1500ppi-capable scanner but it is often used at lower resolution for greater speed. But even 1500ppi produces only just over 3.0 megapixels, which is a woeful waste of the resolution of 35mm film. No wonder people think digital offers better quality! > My earlier comments are not based on the use of cheap/no-name film either. >Why should something like Fuji Reala or NPC 160 not produce outstanding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Perhaps processor operators just take more care with med format material, >assuming it to be taken by photographers of higher ability. With the same 1500 ppi resolution the medium format image will still only produce a little over 9.0 megapixels, not remotely near enough to extract the information in a 6x6cm slide or negative, but three times more information than with 35mm film, hence the apparent improvement. I scan my own slides and negatives at 4000 ppi (with a Nikon scanner) or have them drum scanned at up to 6000 ppi . The scan is no longer the limiting factor, and the resulting FujiFilm Frontier prints are of excellent quality. >But if you ever want >to make digital prints from scanned slides the problem remains (positive >images probably do better than scanned negs - but I've no personal >experience of scanning, so may be wrong in this assumption). In my experience, scanning and digitally printing slides is easier than printing negatives. > My earlier comments are not based on the use of cheap/no-name film either. >Why should something like Fuji Reala or NPC 160 not produce outstanding >prints from scanned negs, even though they are on the high contrast side. Reala is not harder to scan/print digitally than other negative films. I didn't like NPC 160. The new 160S is quite good. I still have to try 160C, my local shop doesn't have it in stock. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > That's the main reason people shoot slides. The results are > intrinsically sharper than those on colour negative film <snip> Sorry, that's flat out wrong. If you look at Fuji's own MTF charts (PDFs available on the web,) you'll see that Reala's resolution beats any of their slide film resolutions. IIRC, most of the Fuji chromes have MTF-50 of around 35-40 lp/mm, while Reala's is around 50. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> That's the main reason people shoot slides. The results are >> intrinsically sharper than those on colour negative film <snip> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > IIRC, most of the Fuji chromes have MTF-50 of around > 35-40 lp/mm, while Reala's is around 50. Yes.....I don't notice that they are sharper, but I do notice that the colors are brighter, and, IMO, a little better....... > > That's the main reason people shoot slides. The results are > > intrinsically sharper than those on colour negative film <snip> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > IIRC, most of the Fuji chromes have MTF-50 of around > 35-40 lp/mm, while Reala's is around 50. Tony said "sharper", not "have higher resolving power". 'Sharpness' is a perceptual thing that compounds resolution, local contrast and (especially) accutance - and on these terms, slide films often do give a greater impression of sharpness than negative films, despite not resolving as much actual detail. Peter >I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops, >which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently >knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded >in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple, >decent 4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype >about their levels of skill and service. This is why I make my own prints. That way, whatever happens is my fault which I can fix. I find it very difficult to tell whether a 4x6 print was made with the chemical process or on my inkjet printer. Jim > [local processors] seem incapable of producing a simple, decent 4x6 print > from scanned negatives, despite endless publicity hype about their levels > of skill and service. [Help ...] Try http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/ > Do they lack technical knowledge, do they simply not care, do they scan at > the lowest possible resolution to save time and effort Yes, yes, yes. Scanning color negatives is a slow process. Why it is so slow is a darned good question -- there is no technical reason a negative can't be scanned in a fraction of a second or so. With present equipment a quick scan is a low quality scan. > I can't be bothered getting into home scanning and I still like to use > color negative film for handiness and its exposure latitute. But I'm > frustrated in trying to find good quality prints. Try Dwayne's. Just noticed, you are in Manitoba, Canada. Sorry, don't know anyone north of the border. Maybe someone in the newsgroup knows of a real photo processor up north. > This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty > in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs. You need to start with good scans... Good scans cost money. Call around and find someone with a good quality optical printer. How do the local labs do if you order an 8x10? You may want to take the 4x6's as proof prints and then have them make quality enlargements of the keepers. Does the quality improve if you order a photo-CD at the same time - this may force them into a higher resolution scan. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com [SNIP] > How do the local labs do if you order an 8x10? You may want to take > the 4x6's as proof prints and then have them make quality enlargements > of the keepers. > > Does the quality improve if you order a photo-CD at the same time - > this may force them into a higher resolution scan. I was just having a similar thought. Maybe if after looking at the negative strip you decided to ask for one of them as a 10x8, with the rest as 6x4s, they'd end up scanning the whole strip at a higher resolution, if that's less work than switching part way through. No idea if that is the case, but it's an experiment that could be worth trying. Peter >I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops, >which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty > in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs. I will answer this with a phrase that is as old as I am, (71) at least......"If you want something done right, then do it yourself." > I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops, > Both have good reputations, founded > in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple, decent > 4x6 print from a scanned negative, ************************************************************************* Try this company for prints from slides to see if they are better. They have been in the business for years and have just recently switched to digital, but use top of the line equipment. The address is... The Slideprinter 145 W. Alameda Denver, Co. 80223 (202) 698-2962 If they can't give you a good print, then something else is wrong. I don't know if they do negatives but probably they do. Check out their website if you are interested. Ric in Wisconsin. > So what's the problem? I know from reading this and other discussion groups > that very good prints from scanned negs are possible. If amateurs can do it > on relatively downmarket equipment, why can't professionals on top of the > line equipment? Oddly enough the scanners in equipment like the Fuji frontier are not that great, and high end "home scanners" do a better job. This is less apparent with 35mm film but grossly obvious with 120 format. A Nikon 8000/9000 will beat the pants off the Fuji Frontier. Nonetheless I've gotten several very good 15x10" from a Frontier from 35mm. I've printed 8.5 x 11 at home from slides that is as good and possibly better than from the Frontier or Noritsu. Do they lack technical knowledge, do they simply not care, > do they scan at the lowest possible resolution to save time and effort, or > what? Or are my experiences unique (doubt it!) I can't be bothered getting > into home scanning and I still like to use color negative film for handiness > and its exposure latitute. But I'm frustrated in trying to find good quality > prints. I've been very disappointed with local lab prints myself. On one image from a fashion show I shot the digital image shows clean contrasty detail in a bright white blouse. In the first print, the detail was totally washed out. However, sharpness, even in 8x12 prints from 35mm scans or digital have been quite sharp on both a Noritsu and FujiFrontier. (Whether they scanned my film or I scanned it or digital). Occasionally, prints are just perfect but that's seems to be luck more than anything else. Color is a more difficult area and in one case a sharp operator (a pro photographer as well) caught me out when I neglected to put a warming filter for some under the shade graduation shots (blue sky) and everything was terribly blue shifted. She fixed it perfectly. When I scanned the same negatives later I was shocked at how blue those shots were. I scanned some nice Sensia studio shots with perfect studio lighting and perfect looking slides. The scans were sharp, detailed and color correct (on my moniotor). The prints had muddy skin tones and the highlights "bled" over; red jacket detail was totally washed in the print. Crap. (Part of this may be that I don't have CS2 where I'd be able to measure and correct the skin tones in CYM rather than RBG.) Another complaint I have is that the two places where I get prints don't speak my language. If I ask them for their calibration data for me to load on my machine, they stare at me like I'm nuts and say "use Adobe sRGB". Then when I complain about color they just ask what I want and then adjust to that color point (pulling all other colors with it...) > An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of > 35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your > favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular > project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor > quality print. Might as well use a plastic lens Kodak disposable camera! Talk to them. Talk to them. Talk to them. Go back with your prints and negs and show them where they have erred. Be sure, use a loupe (8x or better) to be sure that your negatives _are_ sharp. > This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty > in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs. I don't see it any different than getting good prints from negatives. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty > > in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs. > > I don't see it any different than getting good prints from negatives. I see a big difference. If I get a set of prints made at a lab and then scan the negatives and have the digital files printed at the same lab the prints from my scans look better. And when you think about it this makes sense, with the digital file the colors are defined as was as the white point. With the negatives I have to trust them to set white point, and they rarely put it were I would. Color balance seems like a joke when they scan the negatives. I always have to take time to adjust the color balance of the scans, I am sure they have a computer doing this. At least with the labs I have dealt with if you give them film the prints don't come out very good but if you give them a digital file the prints come out looking very good. Scott >>>This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty >>>in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > prints don't come out very good but if you give them a digital file > the prints come out looking very good. That has not been my experience. At two places where I get prints from negatives, the color quality is usually very well done. At both places aspiring pro photographers run the printing, so that helps. From digital (whether scanned or camera) it's luck these days. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > That has not been my experience. At two places where I get prints from > negatives, the color quality is usually very well done. At both places > aspiring pro photographers run the printing, so that helps. From > digital (whether scanned or camera) it's luck these days. Must be the differances in the labs. Do you know if the labs you are using scan the negatives as part of the workflow or are they doing optical prints? Scott >>That has not been my experience. At two places where I get prints from >>negatives, the color quality is usually very well done. At both places [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > using scan the negatives as part of the workflow or are they doing > optical prints? They stopped doing optical prints long (10+ years?) ago. This does not explain why the 35mm prints were (in the main) good 3+ years ago and now I get luck or not. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >>That has not been my experience. At two places where I get prints from > >>negatives, the color quality is usually very well done. At both places [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > explain why the 35mm prints were (in the main) good 3+ years ago and now > I get luck or not. So whether they are printing from your digital files or the scans they do of your film they are printing from digital files. I would have expected that if you controlled the generation of the digital file (do your own scan) that the results would have been more consistent. Scott >> They stopped doing optical prints long (10+ years?) ago. This does not >> explain why the 35mm prints were (in the main) good 3+ years ago and now [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > expected that if you controlled the generation of the digital file (do > your own scan) that the results would have been more consistent. Were it only so. -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.