Digital prints from negatives

I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops,
which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently
knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded
in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple, decent
4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype about
their levels of skill and service.

On first glance, at arm's length, prints seem bright and sharp. But just a
cursory closer examination, even without a loupe, shows a complete lack of
detail ,especially in shadows (e.g. you can't read a street sign in the
middle distance), unnatural and inaccurate colours, thick sharpening lines
that provide only an illusion of sharpness, and a noticible overall
fuzziness. I don't think this is down to my photo technique since I've been
into photography for 30+ years, including darkroom work, and have hundreds
of sharp prints made optically. (One of the stores can still produce optical
prints, which are certainly of a higher quality than their digital. But
they seem reluctant to do this and are phasing the service out). I've tried
going further afield - mailing film to approved "Kodak Labs" through
drugstores etc. Same outcome - lousy prints. (BTW both labs do produce good
enough digital prints from original digital images).

So what's the problem? I know from reading this and other discussion groups
that very good prints from scanned negs are possible. If amateurs can do it
on relatively downmarket equipment, why can't professionals on top of the
line equipment? Do they lack technical knowledge, do they simply not care,
do they scan at the lowest possible resolution to save time and effort, or
what? Or are my experiences unique (doubt it!) I can't be bothered getting
into home scanning and I still like to use color negative film for handiness
and its exposure latitute. But I'm frustrated in trying to find good quality
prints.

An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of
35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your
favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular
project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor
quality print. Might as well use a plastic lens Kodak disposable camera!

This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty
in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs.

Norm Fleming wrote:
I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops,
which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently
knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded
in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple, decent
4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype about
their levels of skill and service.

On first glance, at arm's length, prints seem bright and sharp. But just a
cursory closer examination, even without a loupe, shows a complete lack of
detail ,especially in shadows (e.g. you can't read a street sign in the
middle distance), unnatural and inaccurate colours, thick sharpening lines
that provide only an illusion of sharpness, and a noticible overall
fuzziness. I don't think this is down to my photo technique since I've been
into photography for 30+ years, including darkroom work, and have hundreds
of sharp prints made optically. (One of the stores can still produce optical
prints, which are certainly of a higher quality than their digital. But
they seem reluctant to do this and are phasing the service out). I've tried
going further afield - mailing film to approved "Kodak Labs" through
drugstores etc. Same outcome - lousy prints. (BTW both labs do produce good
enough digital prints from original digital images).

So what's the problem? I know from reading this and other discussion groups
that very good prints from scanned negs are possible. If amateurs can do it
on relatively downmarket equipment, why can't professionals on top of the
line equipment? Do they lack technical knowledge, do they simply not care,
do they scan at the lowest possible resolution to save time and effort, or
what? Or are my experiences unique (doubt it!) I can't be bothered getting
into home scanning and I still like to use color negative film for handiness
and its exposure latitute. But I'm frustrated in trying to find good quality
prints.

An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of
35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your
favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular
project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor
quality print. Might as well use a plastic lens Kodak disposable camera!

This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty
in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs.

Most of the printers that are using light to print on photographic
paper top out at about 300 ppi. Whereas this makes for a decent
looking print it is not as sharp as what even a very low cost inkjet
printer can achieve.

As for what is the point of having your upscale gear, you can make
larger print. Who would have up scale gear just to make 4 x 6 prints?
Live a little make some 8 x 12 prints, you will be amazed at how much
better then look then the 4 x 6 prints.

BTW a DSLR might surprise you with how much latitude it has. In fact
if you are simply dropping off your film to be processed and printed
you will find that you do much better using a DSLR.

When I was shooting film I went the home scanning route since I really
did not like what I got from the labs.

Scott

"Norm Fleming" wrote in message
...

I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops,
which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently
knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded
in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple,
decent 4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype
about their levels of skill and service.


You can't really make in-depth judgements based
on 4x6" prints, IMO.

Most commercial photo labs routinely apply an
S-curve that improves midtone contrast at the expense
of both shadow and highlight detail.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"rafe b" wrote in message
news

"Norm Fleming" wrote in message
...

I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo
shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently
knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded
in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple,
decent 4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype
about their levels of skill and service.


You can't really make in-depth judgements based
on 4x6" prints, IMO.

The only judgement I make is that 4X6 digital prints I've seen are inferior
to 4x6 optical prints. That's all. Some would say that's photo evolution in
reverse ;-). Many amateurs don't regard 4x6s as just proofs that have to be
enlarged, but as worthwhile photographic records in their own right. And
why not go for the best possible quality in all sizes/formats?



Most commercial photo labs routinely apply an
S-curve that improves midtone contrast at the expense
of both shadow and highlight detail.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Norm Fleming" wrote in message
...


On first glance, at arm's length, prints seem bright and sharp. But just
a cursory closer examination, even without a loupe, shows a complete lack
of detail ,especially in shadows (e.g. you can't read a street sign in the
middle distance), unnatural and inaccurate colours, thick sharpening lines
that provide only an illusion of sharpness, and a noticible overall
fuzziness.

I would bet that they are using some kind of image enhancement algorithyms,
and that they either cannot turn them off or choose not to turn them off. I
have the same problem at CVS Pharmacy.

As for resolution, their scanner might be set for low-rez (perhaps to speed
up scan time?) or the internal parts may have gotten dirty.

I have given up on one-hour processors. They simply do not cater to any but
the lowest common denominator.

I can't be bothered getting into home scanning and I still like to use
color negative film for handiness and its exposure latitute. But I'm
frustrated in trying to find good quality prints.

You can send your film to Kodak Easy Share Gallery (formerly OFOTO) and they
will process it, make prints and send back a CD with scans, but there is the
mailing time issue.

But what's the point in selecting your favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens,
and preferred film for some particular project, if it's all going wind up
as a lowest-common-denominator poor quality print.

That is a huge problem, and you are one of the relatively few people that
has even recognized it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and
there are tons of folks that employ good technique, use excellent lenses,
and then let some discount processor botch up their prints. Some people
never realize how much they have missed.

You really should re-think home scanning. I take my films to CVS for
developing only ($2.50) and they give me my uncut negatives in 15 minutes.
I scan them and upload the image files to Kodak for printing. If you get a
scanner that accepts the whole uncut roll of negs you can save a lot of time
versus using cut negs and film carriers. It takes about 2 hours to scan a
24-exposure roll, and I just let my scanner do its thing in the background
while I do something else. The key is to have your negatives developed
somewhere that will not cut them (and to get a scanner that supports whole
rolls).

The chances of finding a place that will reliably and consistently make good
prints are pretty dim. And, if you use a custom lab it's going to cost you
over the long term, to where you could have bought a scanner.

I hate to say this, but film developing and printing has become a sort of
nuisance product for one-hour places, especially at places like pharmacies.
Sure, they offer it, but most of their operators haven't a clue. If you
want good results from film, and you want it consistently, you have two
approaches:

1: Shoot slides.

2: Scan your own, edit them on PS or PSP, and upload them to an online
printer (or print at home, but that has its own difficulties and the cost is
usually more than an online printer charges, when you consider ink and
paper, plus your gas to go out and buy the supplies.)

"Norm Fleming" wrote:

An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of
35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your
favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular
project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor
quality print.


That's the main reason people shoot slides. The results are
intrinsically sharper than those on colour negative film, and nothing
can compare with the beauty of a top quality projected slide.

Only the very best colour negative films approach the standard of
slide film. Of course it takes greater skill to get the best out of
slide film because of the limited range of contrast that it can
accept, and the lack of exposure latitude compared with negative film.

I have always been surprised that people who are prepared to spend
quite a lot of money on top quality lenses tend to skimp when it comes
to film, buying the cheapest brand or even supermarket's own brand.
This effectively wastes the money they invested in good equipment.

These cheap films tend to have high contrast to make up for the poor
quality, low contrast lenses in cheap point and shoot cameras. Your
Nikon, Pentax and Olympus lenses have no need of high contrast film,
and will produce their very best results on a high quality, low
contrast emulsion

If you insist on prints, use the best negative film you can afford and
expose it with care. Then take it to the same lab and see if there is
a difference. If not, you need to find a better lab.

Films you might like to try include Fujicolor Pro 160S and 400H and
Kodak Portra 160NC and 400NC. These are low contrast films with good
ability at capturing a wide range of tones, with a particular
reputation for delivering accurate skin tones.

"rafe b" wrote in message
news

"Norm Fleming" wrote in message
...

I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo
shops, which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently
knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded
in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple,
decent 4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype
about their levels of skill and service.


You can't really make in-depth judgements based
on 4x6" prints, IMO.

Most commercial photo labs routinely apply an
S-curve that improves midtone contrast at the expense
of both shadow and highlight detail.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com



Several years ago I had Wal-Mart process some rolls for me. They were still
using optical printing. The results were awful. Washed-out colors and very
poor resolution (trees in the background looked fuzzy--like cotton candy).

I later scanned and printed the same negs and the results were like night
vs. day. So the information was present on the negative, and the cheap
processing lens was probably responsible for the lousy original set of
prints.

I'd bet that most of those one-hour places used poor quality enlarging
lenses. They were oriented toward the mass-market, cheap-camera customers,
not anyone with good lenses.

But they were so mediocre that one could easily see their poor quality, even
at 4 x 6.

"Norm Fleming" wrote in message
...
I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops,
which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently
knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded
in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple,
decent 4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype
about their levels of skill and service.

This is why I make my own prints. That way, whatever happens is my fault
which I can fix.

I find it very difficult to tell whether a 4x6 print was made with the
chemical process or on my inkjet printer.
Jim

"Norm Fleming" wrote

[local processors] seem incapable of producing a simple, decent 4x6 print
from scanned negatives, despite endless publicity hype about their levels
of skill and service. [Help ...]

Try http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/

Do they lack technical knowledge, do they simply not care, do they scan at
the lowest possible resolution to save time and effort

Yes, yes, yes.

Scanning color negatives is a slow process. Why it is so slow is
a darned good question -- there is no technical reason a negative
can't be scanned in a fraction of a second or so. With present
equipment a quick scan is a low quality scan.

I can't be bothered getting into home scanning and I still like to use
color negative film for handiness and its exposure latitute. But I'm
frustrated in trying to find good quality prints.

Try Dwayne's.

Just noticed, you are in Manitoba, Canada. Sorry, don't know
anyone north of the border. Maybe someone in the newsgroup
knows of a real photo processor up north.

This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty
in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs.

You need to start with good scans... Good scans cost money.

Call around and find someone with a good quality optical printer.

How do the local labs do if you order an 8x10? You may want to take
the 4x6's as proof prints and then have them make quality enlargements
of the keepers.

Does the quality improve if you order a photo-CD at the same time -
this may force them into a higher resolution scan.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Norm Fleming" wrote:

An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of
35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your
favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular
project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor
quality print.


That's the main reason people shoot slides. The results are
intrinsically sharper than those on colour negative film, and nothing
can compare with the beauty of a top quality projected slide.

Only the very best colour negative films approach the standard of
slide film. Of course it takes greater skill to get the best out of
slide film because of the limited range of contrast that it can
accept, and the lack of exposure latitude compared with negative film.

I have always been surprised that people who are prepared to spend
quite a lot of money on top quality lenses tend to skimp when it comes
to film, buying the cheapest brand or even supermarket's own brand.
This effectively wastes the money they invested in good equipment.

Well - I didn't say so in my original post, but I have gone back to shooting
slide film, and yes , the results are superb. Since it's end-point
chemistry, it's hard for processing labs to screw up. But if you ever want
to make digital prints from scanned slides the problem remains (positive
images probably do better than scanned negs - but I've no personal
experience of scanning, so may be wrong in this assumption).

My earlier comments are not based on the use of cheap/no-name film either.
Why should something like Fuji Reala or NPC 160 not produce outstanding
prints from scanned negs, even though they are on the high contrast side.
I've tried these in medium format for digital prints too (Yashicamat
124G/tripod/and well stopped down). Admittedly, the results are better than
35mm ,but not by much, and still short of traditional optical print quality.
Perhaps processor operators just take more care with med format material,
assuming it to be taken by photographers of higher ability.


These cheap films tend to have high contrast to make up for the poor
quality, low contrast lenses in cheap point and shoot cameras. Your
Nikon, Pentax and Olympus lenses have no need of high contrast film,
and will produce their very best results on a high quality, low
contrast emulsion

If you insist on prints, use the best negative film you can afford and
expose it with care. Then take it to the same lab and see if there is
a difference. If not, you need to find a better lab.

Films you might like to try include Fujicolor Pro 160S and 400H and
Kodak Portra 160NC and 400NC. These are low contrast films with good
ability at capturing a wide range of tones, with a particular
reputation for delivering accurate skin tones.