Digital Prints

[Lepospondyl]

OK. Could you do this? Has anyone done this? Where would i have it done, or get the stuff to do it myself...

You take a digital photo, but you want a REAL print, not an inkjet print.

Could you just:
"Negative" the image in photo software.
Flip it and flop it appropriately.
Print it (inkjet) on a transparency.
Trim to fit.
Put it through your standard photo processing as if it were a negative.
Have real prints.

I don't see why it couldn't be done. If you made the print the size of a 35 neg, and used the whole image (300+ DPI), then it really should look great, shouldn't it?

 

[John Orrell]

Using current-technology inkjet printers, I doubt you'd get enough detail in your "negative" in the surface-area of a 35mm negative to warrant printing it, as printers can't currently print to that definition. Even if they could, I doubt if transparency-film could take that dense a print without smudging and bleeding.

A few national photo-retailers here in the UK offer real prints from digital files. I don't know how they're produced. From my (limited) experience though, they're very good.

 

[John Orrell]

PS: If you do find a way, please let us know! I'd love to be able to create real 35mm slides from digital files (similar concept to your idea).

 

[Big Mike]

I think the weak point in your plan is that you are printing the image onto a 35mm transparency. You could only imprint so much resolution onto the "negative" so when you went to enlarge that into a print...there is just not enough detail to make the process worth the trouble.

Most photo finishers don't even make optical prints anymore...the new digital machines simply scan the negative and make prints from that digital file.

 

[Lepospondyl]

So, as far as the detail, would it work better to print say a 4X5 piece?

Big Mike, so what do they use to do the prints? Is it dye-sub?

 

[BernieSC]

if you use a dye sub printer or a printer like the fuji pictrostat that a lot of photo labs use that is a real print.

A dye sub printer is fairly inexpensive to buy but still a good bit higher than a ink jet.

 

[ksmattfish]

PS: If you do find a way, please let us know! I'd love to be able to create real 35mm slides from digital files (similar concept to your idea).

We used to do it all the time at the lab I worked at. There's a device called a film recorder which allows you to "shoot" a digital file onto 35mm film. We mainly used it for Power Point slide presentations. I'm not real sure what or if there is much quality loss.

 

[ksmattfish]

You take a digital photo, but you want a REAL print, not an inkjet print.

Talk to your local photo lab. Every lab around where I live, even the mini/econo labs, can make a chemical print from a digital file for about the same price as printing from a neg.

 

[fadingaway1986]

At work, our prints from digital files are cheaper than from negatives....


Also, a while ago I saw a machine on ebay that copies your digital files onto 35mm film... Bit expensive though.. But it's there all the same.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

You idea wouldn't actually work for way too many reasons.

As above stated, it unsifficient resolution at least.

You potentially COULD do this:
1) Invert the pic in photoshop
2) Print it on an inkjet transparency as 8*10
3) Make a contact print on the photo paper

It wouldn't work for MANY reasons:
1) It's expensive and time consuming
2) Inkjets do not give hi resolution prints on transparencies. Only on special photo papers
3) You'll get your colors screwed up. You know how when you scan a negative you have to balance the colors after you invert it? That's because the film negative is not an exact mathematical negative that is done in photoshop.

With film, it works fine because if you use matching film and paper they cancel each other, producing a realistic print in the end.

But you're lucky because the progress is way ahead of you. Now they have photo machines, like fuji frontier. It takes a piece of chemical photo paper and using lasers exposes it properly, pixel by pixel. In the end you get a chemical print which originated directly from the file.

Cool eh? And it costs cheaper than film prints. At least in canada.

Cheers man

 

[DocFrankenstein]

And do some recearch on some modern inkjets. Some of them have 6-8 colors and rated to last 20 years (canon) and 80 years (epson)

Canon i960
Canon i9900
Epson 2200 (I think)

Excellent quality, fast and convenient.

 

[K_Duffer]

Why not just get prints from various on-line photo places like shutterfly or ofoto. I personally like shutterfly because they use Fuji Crystal Archive paper. They expose the paper using lasers and then process the exposed paper chemically the same way film photo is processed. End results are "real" prints from digital photos.

 

[triggerhappy]

Why not just get prints from various on-line photo places like shutterfly or ofoto. I personally like shutterfly because they use Fuji Crystal Archive paper. They expose the paper using lasers and then process the exposed paper chemically the same way film photo is processed. End results are "real" prints from digital photos.

That's what I was thinking. Is there any reason why you want to have a 'real photo'?

Incidentally, I use

http://www.photobox.co.uk/

I've been pretty impressed with the quality of the service and prices (as I recall, prints start at about 12p).