If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
6x4 Prints from 4MP olympus poor compared to 35mm scans.
Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from
a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the same time. Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great. Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine. I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing professionally printed prints? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shooting digital is different from shooting film. Certainly not
inferior...but very different. When scanning the film did you set the software to adjust for color tints? It might have been automatic...and did you do the same with your digital camera? Have you found a way to do that with a film camera? When you send your film off to be developed and printed did you stand over the operators shoulder while he adjusted each photo? Or did you just let the machine do what it thought best? If you don't like the color you get back with film...too bad. If you don't like the color you get with digital...then fix it! Its not the digital process....you haven't used the digital process. In a related vein....what is the point of those printers that print directly from the chip? I am a professional with years of experience and I don't take many perfect photos....why print them before fixing them? "pomodorojimmy" wrote in message om... Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the same time. Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great. Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine. I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing professionally printed prints? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shooting digital is different from shooting film. Certainly not
inferior...but very different. When scanning the film did you set the software to adjust for color tints? It might have been automatic...and did you do the same with your digital camera? Have you found a way to do that with a film camera? When you send your film off to be developed and printed did you stand over the operators shoulder while he adjusted each photo? Or did you just let the machine do what it thought best? If you don't like the color you get back with film...too bad. If you don't like the color you get with digital...then fix it! Its not the digital process....you haven't used the digital process. In a related vein....what is the point of those printers that print directly from the chip? I am a professional with years of experience and I don't take many perfect photos....why print them before fixing them? "pomodorojimmy" wrote in message om... Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the same time. Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great. Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine. I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing professionally printed prints? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with Gene... with film, there are certain characteristics that
are produced through film choice, developer, etc. With digital colours - you will need to adjust white balance settings in particular to suit the situation. Colour saturation, tones and curves can also be adjusted through post processing. Regards Julian http://www.shuttertalk.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with Gene... with film, there are certain characteristics that
are produced through film choice, developer, etc. With digital colours - you will need to adjust white balance settings in particular to suit the situation. Colour saturation, tones and curves can also be adjusted through post processing. Regards Julian http://www.shuttertalk.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix
the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as good as my film camera. I've been shooting for 15 years with an slr but I'm no pro. 90% of my photos are great. I don't want to sit in front of a computer correcting peoples pasty faces. I can see others loving the editing and perfecting side to digital but I just want film like colors out of a digital. I dont have the time to sit and adjust 100s of photos a month! Thanks for your replies. "Gene Palmiter" wrote in message news:D5zZc.4032$P97.2657@trndny04... Shooting digital is different from shooting film. Certainly not inferior...but very different. When scanning the film did you set the software to adjust for color tints? It might have been automatic...and did you do the same with your digital camera? Have you found a way to do that with a film camera? When you send your film off to be developed and printed did you stand over the operators shoulder while he adjusted each photo? Or did you just let the machine do what it thought best? If you don't like the color you get back with film...too bad. If you don't like the color you get with digital...then fix it! Its not the digital process....you haven't used the digital process. In a related vein....what is the point of those printers that print directly from the chip? I am a professional with years of experience and I don't take many perfect photos....why print them before fixing them? "pomodorojimmy" wrote in message om... Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the same time. Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great. Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine. I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing professionally printed prints? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix
the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as good as my film camera. I've been shooting for 15 years with an slr but I'm no pro. 90% of my photos are great. I don't want to sit in front of a computer correcting peoples pasty faces. I can see others loving the editing and perfecting side to digital but I just want film like colors out of a digital. I dont have the time to sit and adjust 100s of photos a month! Thanks for your replies. "Gene Palmiter" wrote in message news:D5zZc.4032$P97.2657@trndny04... Shooting digital is different from shooting film. Certainly not inferior...but very different. When scanning the film did you set the software to adjust for color tints? It might have been automatic...and did you do the same with your digital camera? Have you found a way to do that with a film camera? When you send your film off to be developed and printed did you stand over the operators shoulder while he adjusted each photo? Or did you just let the machine do what it thought best? If you don't like the color you get back with film...too bad. If you don't like the color you get with digital...then fix it! Its not the digital process....you haven't used the digital process. In a related vein....what is the point of those printers that print directly from the chip? I am a professional with years of experience and I don't take many perfect photos....why print them before fixing them? "pomodorojimmy" wrote in message om... Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the same time. Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great. Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine. I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing professionally printed prints? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
pomodorojimmy wrote:
When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as good as my film camera. If you shoot negatives and get prints, then every one of your pictures has had the colors fixed in addition to other adjustments at the lab. When you shoot digital, that isn't happening any more. In addition, it's not just "digital" that you're shooting; with a film camera you can get different looking results by choosing a different kind of film. With digital, the "film" is part of the camera, and can differ from one camera to another. There are also some settings in most cameras that affect color rendition, contrast, and the like, that you can play with to try to get it the way you want right out of the camera (somewhat similar to choosing a type of film). -- Jeremy | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
pomodorojimmy wrote:
When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as good as my film camera. If you shoot negatives and get prints, then every one of your pictures has had the colors fixed in addition to other adjustments at the lab. When you shoot digital, that isn't happening any more. In addition, it's not just "digital" that you're shooting; with a film camera you can get different looking results by choosing a different kind of film. With digital, the "film" is part of the camera, and can differ from one camera to another. There are also some settings in most cameras that affect color rendition, contrast, and the like, that you can play with to try to get it the way you want right out of the camera (somewhat similar to choosing a type of film). -- Jeremy | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
pomodorojimmy wrote:
When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as good as my film camera. If you shoot negatives and get prints, then every one of your pictures has had the colors fixed in addition to other adjustments at the lab. When you shoot digital, that isn't happening any more. In addition, it's not just "digital" that you're shooting; with a film camera you can get different looking results by choosing a different kind of film. With digital, the "film" is part of the camera, and can differ from one camera to another. There are also some settings in most cameras that affect color rendition, contrast, and the like, that you can play with to try to get it the way you want right out of the camera (somewhat similar to choosing a type of film). -- Jeremy | |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The prints from my Olympus p-400 are to dark | Jim | Digital Photography | 6 | August 19th 04 01:24 AM |
The prints from my Olympus p-400 are to dark | Al | Digital Photography | 2 | August 15th 04 11:48 PM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Mike Henley | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 182 | June 25th 04 03:37 AM |