 |
 | 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 / Medium format / December 2003Will it happen with MF too?
When I get my 4"X6" prints back from the film (35mm) processor, I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints back, almost every one comes back washed out. As a result, I went digital and printed 8X10's myself and these are as color rich as 4"X6" film prints. Then I had a photoprocessor print a 16"X20" from one of my 1600X1200 pixel files and it was outstanding. However, I still lust after a medium format camera (which will cost much less than the high end digitals). My question is, will I have the same washed-out enlargement issue with the MF format, or will I have to have the negatives/slides scanned and have those printed? Will the photoprocessors print 16X20 prints from 48 megaByte files? E. Eugene Herbert Does your State pay lawyers to sue it? Alabama does! "E. Eugene Herbert" <eherbt..cutthespam..@excite.com> wrote... > When I get my 4"X6" prints back from the film (35mm) processor, > I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the same washed-out enlargement issue with the MF format, or will I > have to have the negatives/slides scanned and have those printed? No, if you use the right laboratory. > Will the photoprocessors print 16X20 prints from 48 megaByte files? Yes, if you use the right laboratory. Victor Yes. Labs are too lazy or stupid to care. I went to a Canon 10D and Epson 1280 and couldn't be happier. > Yes. Labs are too lazy or stupid to care. I went to a Canon 10D and Epson 1280 > and couldn't be happier. Then why are you posting to the Medium format NG "Troll". << Yes. Labs are too lazy or stupid to care. I went to a Canon 10D and Epson 1280 and couldn't be happier. >><BR><BR> If you're getting a 16x20 out of an Epson 1280 I want one, too! dan > When I get my 4"X6" prints back from the film (35mm) processor, >I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >have to have the negatives/slides scanned and have those printed? >Will the photoprocessors print 16X20 prints from 48 megaByte files? It's your choice. There are some new Epson flatbed scanners that do a respectable job scanning MF film at a reasonable price. So you can go on printing your own if you want. Or you can have your film processor (lab) do the scanning for you. Most likely it won't be quite as good as what you can do at home with a $3000 Nikon film scanner, but it will probably be good enough for most purposes. Most corner labs can't do 16x20" prints but there are plenty of services on the web that will, and any decent sized town has professional labs that will do it for you. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com It shouldn't be happening now. When the prints come back washed out don't accept them and demand they do it over. Whether or not it will come back washed out from your medium format negatives depends entirely on what lab you use. If you use the same lab there's a very good chance you'll get exactly the same results. Jeffery S. Harrison > When I get my 4"X6" prints back from the film (35mm) processor, > I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does your State pay lawyers to sue it? Alabama does! Dear Eugene, I am new to this so I know what you are going through. Before I went digital for a year I considered an APS camera just for the feature of being able to mark the film with a signal that would turn off "color correction" at the one hour photo CVS. I was having incredible difficulty with snowscapes. Even when I exposed correctly the one hour place would "color correct" my whites. The minimum wage guy working there just did not care. I eventually made the choice for medium format because I wanted to a) have more resolution than the 35mm crowd b) get away from one hour photo joints c) get both a negative and a digital. I now send my 120 rolls to "kodak Royal" service through a local camera store. They have an incredibly knowledgable staff I like, and I now trust them with my Girls 35mm P&S rolls. They do the 35mm in house and it is decidely better, especially when I tell them "no one hour rush" on the 35mm. I get back 4x4's by kodak. The good ones I send back to get 8x10. I scan the 8x10. My snowscapes are now as I intend them to be. I am happy. Good luck with your decision, --- Scotty "newjack" at the medium format newsgroup > When I get my 4"X6" prints back from the film (35mm) processor, >I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Does your State pay lawyers to sue it? Alabama does! << When I get these prints back, almost every one comes back washed out.>> repeat 100 times: "Entirely the fault of the processor." Taking 35mm or MF film to a quality lab (not the typical one at the local drugstore with its processor in the store) yields the quality because they know that the automatic exposure by the printing machine does not work in different circumstances and can override an automatic setting programmed into the system. You CAN get good prints properly balanced from some automatic machines if the operator cares and knows the proper way to use the machine...but I have encountered TWO places like that locally in my lifetime! So I send it to Kodak or to a pro lab when I want the quality. Its not the film, its your lab. Choose a lab which caters to quality. I have yet to see an ink jet printer which can not be blown out of the water by an emulsion paper. Real prints last much better also. ink jet printers make good proofs, Christmas cards, letter head, fliers; you now, the kind of stuff you would have done at a printer. Large prints from small digital files are possible with good software to interpolate the pixels. The lines remain sharp and there is no detectable aliasing but the image is overall lacking in detail. Have a 16 X 20 made as a good lab from a properly exposed 6X7cm negative then hold it up to the print made from your 1200 X 1600 computer enhanced print. If you can not see the difference, don't bother with MF. When I get my 4"X6" prints back from the film (35mm) processor, I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints back, almost every one comes back washed out. Real prints last much better also. ink jet > printers make good proofs, Christmas cards, letter head, fliers; you > now, the kind of stuff you would have done at a printer. Yep, that's what all those $50,000 digital backs, $8,000 digital cameras, $10,000 printers, etc. are being used for - Christmas cards, proofs, and fliers. They're secretly using film for all the good stuff and just not telling anyone. But don't worry, some day it will all be revealed. Then this horrible digital stuff will disappear like it was a bad dream, enlargers will once again rule the world, and Columbotrek can tell us he knew it all along. > Its not the film, its your lab. Choose a lab which caters to quality. > I have yet to see an ink jet printer which can not be blown out of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints > back, almost every one comes back washed out. Since when does some one with a $50K digital back send 1200 X 1600 files in for 16 X 20 prints? Digital can produce good results but not with en epson 1280 or a 2Mp point and shoot. Yep, that's what all those $50,000 digital backs, $8,000 digital cameras, $10,000 printers, etc. are being used for - Christmas cards, proofs, and fliers. They're secretly using film for all the good stuff and just not telling anyone. But don't worry, some day it will all be revealed. Then this horrible digital stuff will disappear like it was a bad dream, enlargers will once again rule the world, and Columbotrek can tell us he knew it all> along. > Real prints last much better also. ink jet > > printers make good proofs, Christmas cards, letter head, fliers; you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will once again rule the world, and Columbotrek can tell us he knew it all > along. I don't think anything will ever change for the better if left in the hands of manufacturers or the uninformed. Do you own a 50K back? Or a highend inkjet? If one looks at output from say a lambda / lightjet etc side by side with a conventionally made print its the old John Henry story, with the conventional print being at the very least on par, more than likely superior in some ways (like overall resolution). I being someone who has made 100's of 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives and worked rather recently in a prolab. I think most photographers would conclude otherwise for a variety of reasons, most notable that "They" now have control to get the image closer to the way it was seen, at home or whatever. But a skilled printer using the same high quality negative will more than likely equal or excel for resolution any output I've seen. I've watched digital evolve with great interest over 22 my years in photo, what is somewhat interesting to me that many of the "informed" have yet to show me imagery that makes me want to spend the bucks on digital equipment on a rotating 5 year plan. Whats even more interesting is how quickly standards of exceptable quality have gone down hill. Just something to chew on with your Christmas dinner ;-) Merry Christmas to all!!!  SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > Its not the film, its your lab. > [...] It's not neccessarily the lab. It's the untrained part-time, minimum wage servant that's running it. > It's not neccessarily the lab. It's the untrained part-time, minimum wage > servant that's running it. And as we know there's little incentive to make good prints on a consistant basis, as then every idiot cheapskate photographer "You-Me & our brothers" will flock to and start demanding prolab quality from the local mini lab shmoe's. I worked through college at a Ritz camera for about two years, and was as unappreciated as you state....but I had few returned print orders and all things said and done I ended up learning a thing or two about color printing, & the "Christmas season" working at a very busy Mall. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > When I get my 4"X6" prints back from the film (35mm) processor, > I select some for 8"X10" enlargements. When I get these prints > back, almost every one comes back washed out. Sounds like you need a new lab. There is no technical reason why the colors on an 8x10 should not be as good as on a 4x6. > As a result, I went > digital and printed 8X10's myself and these are as color rich as > 4"X6" film prints. Then I had a photoprocessor print a 16"X20" > from one of my 1600X1200 pixel files and it was outstanding. The same one as did the 8x10? If so, it's further evidence of inconsistency. > However, I still lust after a medium format camera (which will cost > much less than the high end digitals). My question is, will I have > the same washed-out enlargement issue with the MF format, or will I > have to have the negatives/slides scanned and have those printed? > Will the photoprocessors print 16X20 prints from 48 megaByte files? Many labs do not handle medium-format negatives. If you find a good one that does, no problem. If not, constant problems. >Sounds like you need a new lab. There is no technical reason why the colors >on an 8x10 should not be as good as on a 4x6. Thanks, all, for the helpful posts. BTW, I've always used "Kodalux", assuming that Kodak owns it and therefore does the best. However, even getting copies of the 4"X6" prints does not match color nor the intensity of the 1st set of prints. The 8"X10" enlargements were also done by Kodalux, with results I described. I'm quite enamored by the 16"X20" prints done by Shutterfly from my 1600X1200 pixel file, but the lust for higher resolution lingers. 1st goal is to find that better photo-printing lab. Suggestions welcome. E. Eugene Herbert Does your State pay lawyers to sue it? Alabama does! "E. Eugene Herbert" <eherbt..cutthespam..@excite.com> wrote... > >Sounds like you need a new lab. There is no technical reason why the colors > >on an 8x10 should not be as good as on a 4x6. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > higher resolution lingers. 1st goal is to find that better > photo-printing lab. Suggestions welcome. Check out www.photo.net and its "Neighbor to Neighbor" section with lots of opinions on laboratories. Victor |
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.