Knowing nothing about film, I have this question

[stsinner]

Due to the extent of my film knowledge being having used Kodak Disk and 110 cameras to take pictures before dropping them off for developing at my local drug store, I have to ask a question:

I remember having family photos taken 10 or so years ago at an Olan Mills studio, and when we went to preview and order the pictures were on a computer for perusing.

I was just wondering how those pictures got on that computer-were they developed fully and then scanned, or was there a way to look at the pictures on the film and display them on a computer screen before printing? We didn't get them on the spot-we selected which prints we wanted and in what package, and they were delivered a couple of weeks later.

Again, a very elementary question, I'm sure, but I was just wondering.

 

[ann]

they could have just scanned the negatives, unlikely they printed them out , scanned and then used them for viewing. Not cost effective

they scanned the negatives into the computer and then let you decide which ones you wanted printed,

 

[abraxas]

ask these guys
Film Discussion and Q & A - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

 

[MrsMoo]

they probs used a film scanner, we have one at college
it's used for B+W film tho!

 

[stsinner]

So film isn't a primitive as I apparently wrongly assumed... So there is a way to "develop" negatives into a computer and then print them out? I had no idea.. Film was such a pain in the butt for me, even doing it the easy way of just dropping it off, that I still have undeveloped rolls everywhere.. Seems like every time I open a drawer I find another roll of undeveloped film from Germany or Switzerland or Italy or Mexico... I wish I wasn't so lazy, because I'd probably have some great memories!!

I was told that film is better than digital for several reasons (for me there's no comparison, because digital is much easier and cheaper), but if you use a developing machine to extract the pictures from the film, instead of doing the good old chemical bath, do you suffer the same claimed shortcomings of digital over film? Is there a warmth to film that a digital sensor simply cannot capture?

I've noticed that many people still use film, and I refuse to believe that it's just because they love making things harder on themselves, so is digital still lagging behind film in some areas, and if so, what would those areas be? I can't imagine with the advent of the 5D MkIII that film could any long hold a candle to digital...

 

[Josh66]

So there is a way to "develop" negatives into a computer and then print them out?

You still have to develop the film same as always, but you can scan the negatives before printing to get them on the computer for viewing/editing.



I still think that film is "better" than digital in many ways, but digital is certainly more convenient and I do use it more than film.

 

[Pure]

Basically.

You develop the film in chemicals, and you get negatives. you scan that film, and you get those computer images....OR you can use those negatives in the darkroom to make prints.

 

[stsinner]

You still have to develop the film same as always, but you can scan the negatives before printing to get them on the computer for viewing/editing.

So you can't look at the images from a negative and hit the PRINT button and get a picture out of your Selphy printer?

 

[Josh66]

So you can't look at the images from a negative and hit the PRINT button and get a picture out of your Selphy printer?

Not sure I understand exactly what you mean...

You can't get them onto the computer before you develop the film.
The computer can't develop the film - you still need chemicals for that.

Once they're on the computer, printing them is just as easy as printing a digital photo.
(Or you could do it in a darkroom.)

 

[stsinner]

Not sure I understand exactly what you mean...

You can't get them onto the computer before you develop the negatives.
The computer can't develop the film - you still need chemicals for that.

Once they're on the computer, printing them is just as easy as printing a digital photo.
(Or you could do it in a darkroom.)

Well, just before I totally abandoned my silly little film cameras, I remember a big machine at the drug store where they somehow loaded the film and the prints came out in a a tray in 4X6 fashion.... The machine apparently "developed" the film and printed pictures ...

Is this type of developing somehow differnt than me connecting my camera to my computer and printing with my Canon Selphy printer? I'm trying to figure out the advantage of film here, which is still practiced, even though it is about 1000% more of a pain in the rump...

 

[Josh66]

Those machines are printing from digital files (scanned negatives), so it is not that much different than what you can do at home. Except that the printer you have at home can not process film.

Those machines process the film, scan it, then print it.

You do realize that film is sensitive to light, right? If you tried to scan it before it was devloped you would 'erase' anything that might have been on it.

 

[Battou]

Well, just before I totally abandoned my silly little film cameras, I remember a big machine at the drug store where they somehow loaded the film and the prints came out in a a tray in 4X6 fashion.... The machine apparently "developed" the film and printed pictures ...

Is this type of developing somehow differnt than me connecting my camera to my computer and printing with my Canon Selphy printer? I'm trying to figure out the advantage of film here, which is still practiced, even though it is about 1000% more of a pain in the rump...

You can buy those machines, but they are commercial machiens and they are seriously expencive and their processing quality is shit to put it bluntly.

What you want to do is just what O|||||||O said, Have your film processed, Get a home film scanner and scan and print.

It is not as complicated as many would have you believe. Many labs still allow "Process only - NO Prints" instructions. Doing this all you get is your negitives back, then if you have a scanner you can do just what you asked. Scan, preview and print the desired frames only.

 

[Josh66]

Many labs still allow "Process only - NO Prints" instructions. Doing this all you get is your negitives back, then if you have a scanner you can do just what you asked. Scan, preview and print the desired frames only.

Wal-Mart does it for $1.78.

 

[stsinner]

I'm tired of trying to pronounce oiiiiiiiiio, so I think we need to come up with a name for you. How about Oi?

 

[Josh66]

I'm tired of trying to pronounce oiiiiiiiiio, so I think we need to come up with a name for you. How about Oi?

It is un-pronounceable (It's the grill of a Jeep, in case you were wondering). I think "we" already came up with a name for me, It is Josh (Joshua) if typing O|||||||O is too hard (it's in my signature).

Oi works too, I guess (seen it before, and understand it - even though there is no "i" in my user name).



edit
About your user name- I always assumed that it was a play on words: Saint/Sinner. Is this the case?
I've always pronounced it "Stinner" though...