FILM + DIGITAL = PISSED

(let me preface this by saying "i know, i should dev and print my own film")

but help me out here.

i took a color 400 35mm roll in to my local super awesome pro photo finishing/dev company. got the prints back. it was expensive. not a prob. but when i scrutinized the pics... i saw the telltale crappy pixelated digital grain on the print. how could this be?! the whole point in shooting 35mm is the resolution and quality. found out a friend recently started working there in dev and he said they process your 35mm roll, scan the neg, and print that image/file ON AN INKJET.


thoughts?
I'm not understanding this. In order to get a pixelated print, they would have had to drastically reduce the original resolution of the neg to almost a postage size file and then printed from that.
 
I guess it also begs a larger question: if what you end up with is a digitally enhanced image anyway, why not just shoot digital? That's in now way what I advocate, and one of the reasons I use the lab I do: their work is still optical.

I dunno, man. I understand your frustration.
 
I guess it also begs a larger question: if what you end up with is a digitally enhanced image anyway, why not just shoot digital? That's in now way what I advocate, and one of the reasons I use the lab I do: their work is still optical.

I dunno, man. I understand your frustration.

As far as getting digital printouts of our film shots that is a comprimise many are forced to make to keep film going, many with out knowing it.

There are still a great many people using the cheap disposable film cameras who literally want nothing but pictures. I saw some of those disposable cameras on the a store shelf for as little as 1 USD (non-reduced price), for the price of a roll of film you can get three or four of these things, It should come as no surprise that labs all over the world are cutting costs and doing things in the easiest way possible to keep up with them.
 
As far as getting digital printouts of our film shots that is a comprimise many are forced to make to keep film going...

Though it may be seen as a compromise when comparing the results of mini-labs, digital post-processing of film is not a compromise at all for some of us - in fact it increases the versatility of film as far as I'm concerned. With colour negative film, for example, it makes it much easier to use the full dynamic range of the film.

The ability to apply different colour corrections to different film densities makes it possible to correct for lighting mismatch (eg daylight negative film in tungsten lighting) and for colour crossover to an extent that would be impracticable using purely optical means.

Best,
Helen
 
Though it may be seen as a compromise when comparing the results of mini-labs, digital post-processing of film is not a compromise at all for some of us - in fact it increases the versatility of film as far as I'm concerned. With colour negative film, for example, it makes it much easier to use the full dynamic range of the film.

The ability to apply different colour corrections to different film densities makes it possible to correct for lighting mismatch (eg daylight negative film in tungsten lighting) and for colour crossover to an extent that would be impracticable using purely optical means.

Best,
Helen
Yeah, I understand that, I am talking on a more general usage standpoint. I reprocess everything I do digitally at home simply because my lab sucks, Here is the truth of the compromise. The results of the common mini-labs won't hold a candle to what pro labs and skilled home labs can do and not everyone has quick access to the better labs. That is why I strongly discourage people from doing the "Photo CD" thing from wal-mart and the like, because they don't do "digital post-processing" They do some half baked color correction done by people who are happy having a job and not by people who actually care what goes out the door. Adequate film enabled scanning equipment can be bought on the cheap and and with some practice will have far superior results than anything you would get from a standard issue lab for the most part. Printing at home may not be spectacular with some of the higher end equipment but there is a way around that, but I won't endorse it until I have tried it and have seen the results for my self so. I'll look more into in on Monday when I go pick up some film I sent out the other day.





What caught my eye about this thread originally was the fact the lab used in this occasion was not your standard issue half baked processor, then Max's issue only engraved my original sentiment further, that being a trainee error.

and last but not least, you know me well enough by now. I can't just let a "why not just shoot digital" comment go unpunished despite being disclaimed ......even if it is from some one more known for film shooting than my self :lol:
 
and last but not least, you know me well enough by now. I can't just let a "why not just shoot digital" comment go unpunished despite being disclaimed ......even if it is from some one more known for film shooting than my self :lol:

Hey, I was having a bad day! ;)

But seriously, for me, I always know that when I process my black and white film that I can make the enlargements I want. And when I send my color film out to the lab, I know I'm going to get some good negatives back and, if I choose, can get quality enlargements, too. The main reason I scan my negatives and slides is to share them, not to digitally enhance them. I don't have Photoshop or any other sort of pro software to work with. I use the crap that comes with my Epsom scanner and Microsoft picture crap (whatever it is that comes with Office).

I'm not sure about the point of my rant here--I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet. But I think my point is this: I work with film and optical enlargements because I like them and feel that I get a different result, as crazy as that sounds. And to have the work hybridized undermines what I want to do. Not sure if that's the OP's point or not. So, like I said, if all we film users end up with is some sort of half-assed digitally enhanced cyborg thing, why not just put the K1000 or the FE or the Hassy on the bookshelf for a conversation piece and accept our fates?

Wow. I thought I was in a better mood today! I'll have my coffee and I'll feel better. :lol:
 
So, like I said, if all we film users end up with is some sort of half-assed digitally enhanced cyborg thing, why not just put the K1000 or the FE or the Hassy on the bookshelf for a conversation piece and accept our fates?

Because destiny is what you make of it, If we just shelve the the Hassies, Leicas and AE-1s Digital will become our destiny and we will be left with no chioce but to accept it. It's because of Dedicated film shooters that you do still have the option to get optical enlargements with out having to do it your self.



Adequate film enabled scanning equipment can be bought on the cheap and and with some practice will have far superior results than anything you would get from a standard issue lab for the most part. Printing at home may not be spectacular with some of the higher end equipment but there is a way around that, but I won't endorse it until I have tried it and have seen the results for my self so. I'll look more into in on Monday when I go pick up some film I sent out the other day.





What caught my eye about this thread originally was the fact the lab used in this occasion was not your standard issue half baked processor, then Max's issue only engraved my original sentiment further, that being a trainee error.

I looked into this way around theroy today, I have to say the results where acceptable given the half hearted effort I put into it.

What I did was took a non-processed image directly out of my scanner down to Rite-aid and had an 8x10 printed off my flash drive with their mini-lab equipment. The results wher far superior to the 4x6 I got from the sendout lab, so it works, the process needs to be honed a little but it can be done with out problems, for under 5 dollars.
 
the moral of this story might be that we can all make a nice wage in our respective towns... if we all opened up home based (low overhead) optical labs/service!
 
the moral of this story might be that we can all make a nice wage in our respective towns... if we all opened up home based (low overhead) optical labs/service!

Incorrect, the moral of this story is, "It's not the equipment used, it's the idiot behind the equipment"

I used a discontinued film scanner and scanned my negitive at less than a quarter of it's potential (some where around 400-500 dpi I think) and then went down and used the drugstores minilab (witch is constantly breaking down) and printed a sharp 8x10 that far surpassed the 4x6 I recieved from the send out lab.

Old film scanner + unrelyable mini-lab machinery + half hearted effort by me = acceptable results. Why....Because I have half an idea as to what I am doing and actually care how the print comes out. I am sure that if I sat down and did some math I could get a perfect print out of that machine right there at the drug store.

unrelyable labtechs are to blame for what happened to you not the process. If you get bad prints like that again you can refuse it and demand it be done right or redo it your self the same way they do it, or even just quit paying $45 for an 8X10 entirely.

Another thing you could do is take nealjpage's rout and look specifically for an optical lab.


Both Alpha and Helen B have extencive knowledge in film processing, they'll tell you the same thing.
 
I used a discontinued film scanner and scanned my negitive at less than a quarter of it's potential (some where around 400-500 dpi I think) and then went down and used the drugstores minilab (witch is constantly breaking down) and printed a sharp 8x10 that far surpassed the 4x6 I recieved from the send out lab.
I used the HP 20s, and scanning at the optical max of 300 dpi made me wonder why anyone would even opt for digital. Unfortunately, it became obsolete when I bought a new computer.
 
irminsul- that... is nuts! were the colors inverted, like a neg?! or just the image (mirrored)? maybe somebody hit Apple I instead of Apple S hahaha. that type of stuff blows your mind.

I haven't figured out yet what they did or how it could have been done. I guess it took some doing. The guy at the other lab couldn't believe it until he took a loupe and read the inverted sign! The Kodak?BJ prints were all crappy big time - lousy quality. But how theymanaged to invert the image I just don't know.
 
battou- a crap scanner! hahaha. its a cheap flatbed. i don't have the ability to scan negs. really. (but i still throw em on there if i want to design something in pshop and i don't care about the orig pic haha)

Go to Staples, Office Depot or the like, You should be able to get a film enabled Canon LiDE for around a hundred (UDS)

I used the HP 20s, and scanning at the optical max of 300 dpi made me wonder why anyone would even opt for digital. Unfortunately, it became obsolete when I bought a new computer.

I use a Canon Canoscan FS2710 dedicated, I used to scan everything at maximum but it was taking up too much space on my computer, So I have been scanning at around 400 and 500 dpi and it's more than enough for most of my applications.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top