How they make the photo CDs at labs

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Philip Hiscock - 01 Jul 2005 13:43 GMT

Being still unwilling to spend a lot of money to buy digital gear, but wanting the convenience
of having my photographs on my computer, I started getting the neighbourhood photolab to give
me a CD with each roll or batch of rolls they develop for me. It's not high quality, but it's
convenient for lots of things. They produce half-megabyte jpegs so at least three or four
rolls can go on one CD. I've been doing this about a year now and have a couple of thousand
pictures on my laptop.

Until recently they were using an analogue printer, making beautifully sharp 4x6 prints which
they stacked in an automated scanner to make the CD. Recently, they replaced their analogue
printer with a digital film scanner/printer, producing much poorer prints, which they still
stack in an automated scanner to make the CD. Because it's twice-scanned, each picture's
rendering in the jpeg is full of digital artifacts -- cross-hatching on diagonals, bad
pixellation, etc. Actually, the new digital prints are not much better than the jpegs in
terms of detail and depth of tone. My Reala 100 prints now seem to have the quality of an 800
film.

When they told me they were getting a digital film scanner for the prints, I imagined they'd
make the CD directly from that. Obviously that would reduce the artifacts, but from what I see
of those prints, it still wouldn't be as good as their old two-step analogue/digital process.

Is my experience typical of what photolabs are doing everywhere, or is it just what's
happening in my local area? I've started searching for labs that still have analogue printers
and will continue using them until they "up-grade" (ha!) to their digital printers.

What are people's experiences?

Philip

Reply to this Message

Nicholas O. Lindan - 01 Jul 2005 14:42 GMT

> Until recently they were using an analogue printer, making beautifully sharp 4x6 prints which
> they stacked in an automated scanner to make the CD. Recently, they replaced their analogue
> printer with a digital film scanner/printer, producing much poorer prints,

Something is seriously wrong here, unless someone is making schlock digital
mini-labs.
What is the brand name and model number of the machine?

> stack [prints] in an automated scanner to make the CD.

Even more wrong. Maybe this outfit is just cheap and wanted to use their
old scan & burn gear.

> Is my experience typical of what photolabs are doing everywhere,

Praise De' Lord, no.

> or is it just what's happening in my local area?

Hopefully it is limited to that store or chain.

> I've started searching for labs that still have analogue printers
> and will continue using them until they "up-grade" (ha!) to their digital printers.

Digital results can be _really_ good. Much better than analog. Look for a
Fuji Pioneer system. You got yourself a rotten apple with this outfit -
don't listen to any lying prelates: parts of it are not very good.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Reply to this Message

Rod Smith - 01 Jul 2005 16:37 GMT

This is seriously screwed up. First, most prints I've seen that are made
on digital equipment are pretty good -- or at least, they can be. (As with
any automated photofinishing system, results depend on the nature of the
input image [some are much tougher for automated systems than others], the
maintenance of the equipment, and the knowledge and care of the operator.)
That said, of course, I can't compare the digital prints I've received
with yours -- at least, not without exchanging samples. It's possible that
you're objecting to problems I wouldn't notice.

Second, I've only seen one outfit (Vermont Color) that I believe has
scanned prints for the CD-ROM. Most do digital scans of the negatives, or
at least, that's what it looks like to my eye. That said, I've only
ordered a few CD-ROMs of photos; I decided about a year ago to get my own
film scanner and use it myself.

> Is my experience typical of what photolabs are doing everywhere, or is it just what's
> happening in my local area?

I'd say you've run across a photofinisher that's far less competent than
most -- although with the caveat that I'm basing that on your description,
and words just aren't adequate for such things. Try another photofinisher
that uses either analog or digital gear. If you've really hit the bottom
of the barrel, as it were, you'll see an improvement, since there's
nowhere to go but up.

Signature

Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Reply to this Message

Justin Thyme - 02 Jul 2005 00:08 GMT

> Being still unwilling to spend a lot of money to buy digital gear, but
> wanting the convenience
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> sharp 4x6 prints which
> they stacked in an automated scanner to make the CD.

Horrible nasty way to make scans. Prints contain less range than a neg - the
best scans are made with a good quality neg scan.

>Recently, they replaced their analogue
> printer with a digital film scanner/printer, producing much poorer prints,

Something wrong there - digital minilabs should produce much better prints
than analogue minilabs. I've never seen an analogue minilab come close to
digilabs. The only prints I've seen that are comparable to digital minilab
prints have been hand-printed. What is the equipment they are using?

>which they still
> stack in an automated scanner to make the CD. Because it's twice-scanned,
> each picture's
> rendering in the jpeg is full of digital artifacts -- cross-hatching on
> diagonals, bad
> pixellation, etc.

Scanning digital minilab prints still shouldn't produce digital artifacts.
Something is majorly wrong with their printing process.

> Actually, the new digital prints are not much better than the jpegs in
> terms of detail and depth of tone. My Reala 100 prints now seem to have
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> and will continue using them until they "up-grade" (ha!) to their digital
> printers.

Digital printers are an upgrade on analogue printers. Sounds like the lab
you are using has either bought a crap digital printer or there is something
majorly wrong in it's setup. With the Fuji Frontier labs (the only digital
ones I've used), there is an option to create the CD at the same time as
printing. The data on the CD is exactly the same data it used to create the
print. Reprints off this CD are just as good as the original print. There is
no 2nd scanning step required, making the process quicker and easier for the
lab operators.

> What are people's experiences?
>
> Philip

Reply to this Message

RSD99 - 02 Jul 2005 02:46 GMT

I agree with all of the other posters ... something is SERIOUSLY WRONG
here.

Find another minilab that uses something like the Fuji Frontier or the
Noritsu minilab equipment.

> Being still unwilling to spend a lot of money to buy digital gear, but wanting the convenience
> of having my photographs on my computer, I started getting the neighbourhood photolab to give
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Philip

Reply to this Message

babelfish - 03 Jul 2005 08:05 GMT

>I agree with all of the other posters ... something is SERIOUSLY WRONG
> here.
>
> Find another minilab that uses something like the Fuji Frontier or the
> Noritsu minilab equipment.

And don't forget the top of the line - the Agfa Dlab.

Reply to this Message

Philip Hiscock - 05 Jul 2005 15:44 GMT

Thanks to everyone who responded to my query about one-hour labs and
their methods of printing and burning. I haven't heard back from the
chain's techie people yet but I emailed them at the same time.
I'm glad to hear that the system they are using is supposed to
be much better -- there's a possibility of improvement!

Reply to this Message