Negative -> Print Traditional; Positive -> Print Digital

Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

In article ,
(Geshu Iam) wrote:

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Its because scanners even good ones don't have the dynamic range reading ability
to handle many B&W, and C41 negatives which are fully exposed.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
(Geshu Iam) wrote:

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Its because scanners even good ones don't have the dynamic range reading ability
to handle many B&W, and C41 negatives which are fully exposed.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

(Geshu Iam) wrote in message . com...
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

'Dynamic range' is a term in electronics, not optics. You mean
'density range'. Yes, the density range of negatives is less than that
of slides.

Negative films are designed to be printed on paper. That's what I
recommend.

In article ,
says...
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Many people get successful prints from scanned slides and negatives. Like
any output path there is a considerable amount of learning that is
required to achieve the full capabilities of the medium.
The latest generation of scanners are noticeably better than those of
just a year or two ago.
I suggest visiting some galleries or photo exhibits and speaking to
those making digital prints for some guidance on what to do.
By the way, black and white is much harder than color.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

In article ,
says...
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Many people get successful prints from scanned slides and negatives. Like
any output path there is a considerable amount of learning that is
required to achieve the full capabilities of the medium.
The latest generation of scanners are noticeably better than those of
just a year or two ago.
I suggest visiting some galleries or photo exhibits and speaking to
those making digital prints for some guidance on what to do.
By the way, black and white is much harder than color.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Robert Feinman wrote:

In article ,
says...
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Many people get successful prints from scanned slides and negatives.

Again does "sucessful" mean they are better than the tranditional prints
done by someone who is competant? I think people who believe digital output
is better are comparing the results to prints they had made at wallmart.

That's why I laugh when people compare their digital camera to scanned
film, they dumb down the film using the scanner so they can believe their
digicam is as good. Comparing a digicam to scanned film isn't comparing the
digicam to film, it's comparing the scanner to the digicam.


The latest generation of scanners are noticeably better than those of
just a year or two ago.

And they will continue to do so, which will continue to make film even
better.

--

Stacey

Robert Feinman wrote:

In article ,
says...
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Many people get successful prints from scanned slides and negatives.

Again does "sucessful" mean they are better than the tranditional prints
done by someone who is competant? I think people who believe digital output
is better are comparing the results to prints they had made at wallmart.

That's why I laugh when people compare their digital camera to scanned
film, they dumb down the film using the scanner so they can believe their
digicam is as good. Comparing a digicam to scanned film isn't comparing the
digicam to film, it's comparing the scanner to the digicam.


The latest generation of scanners are noticeably better than those of
just a year or two ago.

And they will continue to do so, which will continue to make film even
better.

--

Stacey

"Geshu Iam" wrote in message
om...
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Not sure why, but nothing can match the look of a properly shot and printed
neg. There's no discussion. I did a test with a friend a while back, and
shot some Reala with a Mamiya 7II, and then printed one of the shots. He did
the same shot with his digicam (high-end DSLR), and printed whatever way he
wanted. No comparison. Detail and tonality in the Reala print were amazing.
The digi print was good, but in a different class altogether.

"Geshu Iam" wrote in message
om...
Finally I gave up scanning the negatives. I just can't match that
sweet, smooth and natural (well, don't argue on this) tonal
appearance. I had similar problems with slides. Calypso, a
professional photographer's photo lab, told me that they also get the
best prints with the traditional negative prints, but unfortunately,
they only do that up to 20x24, beyond that, it has to be scanned and
digital prints.

Why digital is so hard for the negatives? Isn't that the negatives has
less dynamic range than the slides, and is easier in exposure than the
slides?

Not sure why, but nothing can match the look of a properly shot and printed
neg. There's no discussion. I did a test with a friend a while back, and
shot some Reala with a Mamiya 7II, and then printed one of the shots. He did
the same shot with his digicam (high-end DSLR), and printed whatever way he
wanted. No comparison. Detail and tonality in the Reala print were amazing.
The digi print was good, but in a different class altogether.