photo processing

I never really looked in detail how a color lab works to transfer the
image from film to paper.
I mean, when I was a kid and making my prints in my grandfather's
studio, I was using his 2m high enlarger and exposing all my prints one
by one. This was the only way to go back then, you had to expose the
paper through the film. I always assumed that the same process, only
automated, happens inside a photo lab.
Obviously, the technology evolved and labs changed. Still for past few
years, while still shooting film, the quality seemed to vary a lot
depending where you'd go for prints. And I'm talking about specialized
shops, not drug stores.
And now, to complicate things even more, they have new digital labs.

So, here is my question:
how do modern film labs work?
Do they still really expose? Or they scan and then print?
What happens with digital?
I don't know what resolution the B&W paper that I was using when I was a
kid was able to resolve. But I'm curious what is the resolution that a
modern digital color lab can resolve. A Fuji Frontier for example, since
the name comes up pretty often.

"Paul Bielec" wrote in message
...
I never really looked in detail how a color lab works to transfer the image
from film to paper.
I mean, when I was a kid and making my prints in my grandfather's studio,
I was using his 2m high enlarger and exposing all my prints one by one.
This was the only way to go back then, you had to expose the paper through
the film. I always assumed that the same process, only automated, happens
inside a photo lab.
Obviously, the technology evolved and labs changed. Still for past few
years, while still shooting film, the quality seemed to vary a lot
depending where you'd go for prints. And I'm talking about specialized
shops, not drug stores.
And now, to complicate things even more, they have new digital labs.

So, here is my question:
how do modern film labs work?
Do they still really expose? Or they scan and then print?
What happens with digital?
I don't know what resolution the B&W paper that I was using when I was a
kid was able to resolve. But I'm curious what is the resolution that a
modern digital color lab can resolve. A Fuji Frontier for example, since
the name comes up pretty often.

The fuji frontier labs are digital. They are 3 seperate lasers. Yes three
guns. sometimes they are cathodes. forget about toner 3 passes or
whatever. You are exposing photographic paper. As for the film and slide
you are scanning. They are incredibly high speed. The scanning workstation
is usually £100,000 on its own. We are talking about a second to scan for a
6x4. The frontier machine itself once warmed up and data downloaded will
produce a 6x4 inch print every three seconds.

As for digital there is usually a seperate server with a touch screen. You
insert your digital media directly or via a pc card adapter, pick the
individual pictures or the whole lot, choose the size, orientation crop.
Things like brightness and colour can be changed on some kiosks. There is
even redeye removal options and convert to black and white. Beleive it or
not a trained operator can do nothing for your prints on the latest fuji
machines. The idea is that all the exif data is used to print. The
operator even when accessing the digital kiosk server can't make an
adjustment. You can pay extra to have film hand assessed which means the
operator should use an expert eye to adjust colours and density.

The biggest problem is when people say "thats too dark, and its much
brighter on my screen at home". I ask them
"have you profiled your computer"
they look at me guardedly and then say "oh yes"
at which point i usually say "liar you don't even know what that means".
Turn your brightness and contrast down.

When i used to have a seperate dvd decoder card it ran a calibration
program. That turned out to be spot on for my printing too. Adobe is a
real pain in the ass. I do my editing in it but the final print is via the
canon easy photoprint software because it is properly calibrated and takes
into account the exif data from the canon camera too. Sometimes i don't
even edit it at all.

"Paul Bielec" wrote in message
...
I never really looked in detail how a color lab works to transfer the image
from film to paper.
I mean, when I was a kid and making my prints in my grandfather's studio,
I was using his 2m high enlarger and exposing all my prints one by one.
This was the only way to go back then, you had to expose the paper through
the film. I always assumed that the same process, only automated, happens
inside a photo lab.
Obviously, the technology evolved and labs changed. Still for past few
years, while still shooting film, the quality seemed to vary a lot
depending where you'd go for prints. And I'm talking about specialized
shops, not drug stores.
And now, to complicate things even more, they have new digital labs.

So, here is my question:
how do modern film labs work?
most modern labs (frontier etc), are digital. They still use RA4 process
photo paper, but instead of exposing it by shining a light through the
negative, they expose it with Red, Green & Blue lasers that scan over the
surface.
Do they still really expose?
Yes, they expose, with lasers, not by shining light through the neg.
Or they scan and then print?
Yep. The RGB lasers are controlled from digital data. When printing from
film, they scan the neg first to produce a digital image, then they print
it. This means they can do a few things that conventional labs can't easily
do. Eg, the operator can easily make colour & density adjustments that can
be previewed on screen before the print is made. There are also a number of
digital filters that can be applied, such as sharpness, cross-filter,
shadow/highlight adjustment, contrast adjustment and even red-eye removal
(automatic on some of the newer labs). This is all done very easily - when
the machine sucks in the strip of negatives, it does a very fast preview
scan that is then used to allow the operator to make any adjustments needed.
The operator will make any adjustments to the image, then the machine will
make it's proper scan based on the parameters selected - boosting colours
etc as needed. The machine will also scan at a resolution based on the
output size - so if printing 6x4's, it will scan at a resolution to deliver
300dpi @ 6x4, allowing it to scan very fast. If printing 8x12's it will take
a bit longer to scan due to the higher detail required.
What happens with digital?
The fuji system has the various touch screens where the customer enters
their order. The images are automatically resized to the target size as
needed and sent through to a digital controller machine. Here the operator
can control which order the jobs go through, and does have an option
(although rarely used), to view the images prior to print and make
adjustments similar to the options for film printing. The actual lab has the
option to print from film, in which case it scans and prints, or print from
digital, in which case it prints data sent to it from the digital controller
PC. The lab also has the option to just scan - in which case the images that
it scans are sent over to the digital controller pc from where they can be
burnt onto CD, saved onto it's hard drive for editing etc.
I don't know what resolution the B&W paper that I was using when I was a
kid was able to resolve. But I'm curious what is the resolution that a
modern digital color lab can resolve. A Fuji Frontier for example, since
the name comes up pretty often.
The frontier prints at 300dpi. I don't know what the peak resolution of the
paper is, but the lasers scan at 300dpi.

Paul Bielec wrote:
I don't know what resolution the B&W paper that I was using when I was a
kid was able to resolve. But I'm curious what is the resolution that a
modern digital color lab can resolve. A Fuji Frontier for example, since
the name comes up pretty often.

A frontier is a scanner based minilab. The scan resolution is
moderately high, but not cutting edge. (I had some 6cm scanned recently
and they came to a measley 3260 x 3260 or 1500 dpi from the film)

The printing end of a minilab is usually photo paper exposed with a
laser (via a filter, I assume) or color LED's (possibly white via filter
too).

The advantages, other than workflow include removing quality issues of
all the lenses in an enlarger (vignetting, curvature, soft corners, etc.).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:08:46 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Paul Bielec wrote:
I don't know what resolution the B&W paper that I was using when I was a
kid was able to resolve. But I'm curious what is the resolution that a
modern digital color lab can resolve. A Fuji Frontier for example, since
the name comes up pretty often.

A frontier is a scanner based minilab. The scan resolution is
moderately high, but not cutting edge. (I had some 6cm scanned recently
and they came to a measley 3260 x 3260 or 1500 dpi from the film)

The printing end of a minilab is usually photo paper exposed with a
laser (via a filter, I assume) or color LED's (possibly white via filter
too).

My Guess - 3 separate colored LED based lasers. A 'white' laser must
be more expensive than the sum of R+G+B.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Owamanga wrote:


My Guess - 3 separate colored LED based lasers. A 'white' laser must
be more expensive than the sum of R+G+B.

I was woo lazy to look it up and ("duh") lasers are always one color
(wavelength) aren't they... I like the Frontier output usually, but
what they did with my Velvia 100F and E100VS (120's') was atrocious.
I'm still sulking.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

[snip]
The biggest problem is when people say "thats too dark, and its much
brighter on my screen at home". I ask them
"have you profiled your computer"
they look at me guardedly and then say "oh yes"
at which point i usually say "liar you don't even know what that
means".
Turn your brightness and contrast down.

[snip]
hmm, perhaps its not so much the person you ask that question, but the
way you ask it.
profiling a computer DOESNT always mean a reference to your monitor.
there is also hardware driver profiles you can setup.
IE certain drivers/apps are either blocked or enabled during boot up of
the OS depending on the driver profile you selected.
and where did this start? Autoexec.bat and Config.sys of the days of
ole.

profiling a computer can also be extended to other things loosly as
well.
when you tweak/tailor/configure your pc via hand editing registery,
installing or uninstalling programs to make your computer work
differently than the default user settings.

now lets look at monitors themselves, line up a sony trinitron based
monitor and a standard non trinitron, grab 4 or 5 diff ones, set them
all up with their monitor drivers/brightness etc set as close to the
same as possible..
you'll find they will vary in some degree's. some will show images with
more red (trinitrons do this with or without you loading anything)
some are heavier on greens, and yet others are.. (well you should get
it by now) i'm not even gonna go into the variations used by each mfg
of monitors to handle gamma settings .
you also have different timing setups for the monitors in question that
can effect changes in the display on your screen (to a lesser degree,
but it happens). not to mention the ages of the monitors too. oh, and
how bout that pesky go between.. the video card, and its own drivers,
and how they communicate to the monitor (profiles or not) and software.


now about adobe... its hands down one of the best graphics editors on
the market, but like anything else, if you dont take the time to learn
it, you may as well use MS Paint. my other fav is Gimp for linux,
AWESOME opensource gfx program. if you cant get the job done with
adobe, with the proper ICM, INF and brightness/contrast/gama settings,
its the user 99%.. period.
your fav canon software states as the first thing on its list of
features as:
High-speed RAW image processing and display with a powerful new
algorithm.

that last word... thats what makes the difference. its likely doing
more work than you realize its doing for you, have you tried pulling
the ICM out of the canon software, and loading it in adobe? did the
results look the same as the canon software? if not.. thats gotta tell
you something, i'll leave it to you to figure out what.

heres how your conversation should be:

User/Customer: "thats too dark, and its much brighter on my screen at
home"
You: "can you tell me about your pc and the monitor you use?"
user/customer: "sure, blah blah megahertz, blah blah 19inch monitor,
etc etc.
you: "have you loaded your monitors proper INF file? and the proper ICM
in your editor?
etc etc...

but what you did, was ask them about their computer, then turn it
around and answer like you where talking about their monitor,
misleading the person, no matter what look they gave you... maybe it
wasnt so much a guarded expression, as one of "i cant believe this guy"
even if their answer is no, you can still tell them what to check for,
and how to correct minor error's

in closing, i dont like it when people set people up with a vague
blanket question such as yours, to deliver a premeditated answer such
as yours.
PC's vary greatly, no one configuration is the same, there may be
similarties in alot, but you cant expect every user to own the exact
pc, running the exact same way, that shows ignorance in pc's and their
function. just because shutterbug mentions profiling, you should do
more research into pc's and the terminology, and even then, unless
you've pounded a keyboard for years and years you may not find the
answer your looking for in a glossary.

i'm likely gonna get flamed from the regs (if your one too it will be
worse).. but it happens. but someones gotta defend the people you duped
with your question.. sorry.

love the newsgroup here guys, lots of info to be had here.
cheers.
john.

"Mmm_Beefy" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
The biggest problem is when people say "thats too dark, and its much
brighter on my screen at home". I ask them
"have you profiled your computer"
they look at me guardedly and then say "oh yes"
at which point i usually say "liar you don't even know what that
means".
Turn your brightness and contrast down.

[snip]
hmm, perhaps its not so much the person you ask that question, but the
way you ask it.
profiling a computer DOESNT always mean a reference to your monitor.
there is also hardware driver profiles you can setup.
IE certain drivers/apps are either blocked or enabled during boot up of
the OS depending on the driver profile you selected.
and where did this start? Autoexec.bat and Config.sys of the days of
ole.

profiling a computer can also be extended to other things loosly as
well.
when you tweak/tailor/configure your pc via hand editing registery,
installing or uninstalling programs to make your computer work
differently than the default user settings.

now lets look at monitors themselves, line up a sony trinitron based
monitor and a standard non trinitron, grab 4 or 5 diff ones, set them
all up with their monitor drivers/brightness etc set as close to the
same as possible..
you'll find they will vary in some degree's. some will show images with
more red (trinitrons do this with or without you loading anything)
some are heavier on greens, and yet others are.. (well you should get
it by now) i'm not even gonna go into the variations used by each mfg
of monitors to handle gamma settings .
you also have different timing setups for the monitors in question that
can effect changes in the display on your screen (to a lesser degree,
but it happens). not to mention the ages of the monitors too. oh, and
how bout that pesky go between.. the video card, and its own drivers,
and how they communicate to the monitor (profiles or not) and software.


now about adobe... its hands down one of the best graphics editors on
the market, but like anything else, if you dont take the time to learn
it, you may as well use MS Paint. my other fav is Gimp for linux,
AWESOME opensource gfx program. if you cant get the job done with
adobe, with the proper ICM, INF and brightness/contrast/gama settings,
its the user 99%.. period.
your fav canon software states as the first thing on its list of
features as:
High-speed RAW image processing and display with a powerful new
algorithm.

that last word... thats what makes the difference. its likely doing
more work than you realize its doing for you, have you tried pulling
the ICM out of the canon software, and loading it in adobe? did the
results look the same as the canon software? if not.. thats gotta tell
you something, i'll leave it to you to figure out what.

heres how your conversation should be:

User/Customer: "thats too dark, and its much brighter on my screen at
home"
You: "can you tell me about your pc and the monitor you use?"
user/customer: "sure, blah blah megahertz, blah blah 19inch monitor,
etc etc.
you: "have you loaded your monitors proper INF file? and the proper ICM
in your editor?
etc etc...

but what you did, was ask them about their computer, then turn it
around and answer like you where talking about their monitor,
misleading the person, no matter what look they gave you... maybe it
wasnt so much a guarded expression, as one of "i cant believe this guy"
even if their answer is no, you can still tell them what to check for,
and how to correct minor error's

in closing, i dont like it when people set people up with a vague
blanket question such as yours, to deliver a premeditated answer such
as yours.
PC's vary greatly, no one configuration is the same, there may be
similarties in alot, but you cant expect every user to own the exact
pc, running the exact same way, that shows ignorance in pc's and their
function. just because shutterbug mentions profiling, you should do
more research into pc's and the terminology, and even then, unless
you've pounded a keyboard for years and years you may not find the
answer your looking for in a glossary.

i'm likely gonna get flamed from the regs (if your one too it will be
worse).. but it happens. but someones gotta defend the people you duped
with your question.. sorry.

love the newsgroup here guys, lots of info to be had here.

There was no duping. "Well it looked bright enough on my own screen"
is all you need to know. If he said "and i know i have my screen, inf
etc.." then fair enough. But not to comprehend there may be a difference
gives away his level of knowledge. Actually the fact he walked into a
jessops shop at all gives away his knowledge.

I have had a person birng in a picture of his wife standing in front of a
white door way with white walls waring a white t-shirt and a white card with
writing on it "happy birthday". The fact that her face was underexposed was
blamed on the printer. He had a nikon D70 and an expensive flash and had
the whole lot on fully automatic. I needn't say anymore.

Alan Browne wrote:

I was woo lazy to look it up and ("duh") lasers are always one color
(wavelength) aren't they... I like the Frontier output usually, but
what they did with my Velvia 100F and E100VS (120's') was atrocious.
I'm still sulking.

There are some multi-colored lasers but they generally are not of much
use. The Frontier does use a red, green and blue laser.

Alan, why not scan your Velvia photos at home an then take in the
digital files, this would seem to give you much greater control on the
outcome?

Scott

i'm sorry, but my point still stands, regardless, you shouldnt ask
someone about their "computer being profiled" then turn it around and
say you where refering to the monitor.

it wouldnt matter if they used a polaroid instamatic, or a $4k nikon
setup.
and it only confirms it, if you look at the pic and can clearly see
where the mistake lies, prior to asking them that question in that
form, if they shot a pic as you state above then it wouldnt have
mattered how "profiled" their computer was. you should just point out
their error in the shots, tell em what they might be able to do to
better the picture even before they edit it.
as for them walking into a jessops, instead of a pro shop, thats moot.
not everyone feels the need to go to a pro shop for developing film,
not everyone has an eye for detail, and had they gone into a pro shop,
they'd have likely dev'd em and when asked, may have given more info
than just asking a vague question about profiling, and given the
photographer a critique and a tip or two if asked the same question.

its not just the development process that defines a "pro" shop, its the
quality of customer service that counts too, for most people. if
anything you confirm the reason not to go to jessops, and its not the
quality of the pics developed.
your right, you need not say more.