Anthony MD Posted January 30 Share #1 Posted January 30 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there a noticeable difference between the two…? Edited January 30 by Anthony MD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Hi Anthony MD, Take a look here Lab scans vs optical prints. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Pieter12 Posted January 30 Share #2 Posted January 30 Two different things. A lab scan gives you a digital file, usually printed inkjet. An optical print is usually made from an analog negative in a darkroom. Although it is possible to get an optical print from a digital file, it involves making an LVT film negative for enlarging, or a digital negative for contact printing black and white platinum prints. I am not aware of any services that print optically from digital files. You can get silver gelatin prints from a digital file through a service that uses a light jet laser printer, but that is not what I would consider an optical print. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 30 Share #3 Posted January 30 About as different as a horse and cart are different from an automobile. Both 'get you there', but by completely different routes, and the destination is not exactly identical. The tonal range possible from a digital file and printed on an inkjet type printer exceeds that possible in a normal darkroom process. However, the darkroom print is capable of a 'look' that digital seems to miss. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 31 Author Share #4 Posted January 31 I shot film for many years with a Nikon F2. Costs of development, optical printing, film, shipping with long wait times discouraged me enough to go digital with the MD 262. Still like film enough to shoot occasionally. The lab scans are considerably less expensive than optical printing…🎞️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 31 Author Share #5 Posted January 31 Just now, Anthony MD said: I shot film for many years with a Nikon F2. Costs of development, optical printing, film, shipping with long wait times discouraged me enough to go digital with the MD 262. Still like film enough to shoot occasionally. The lab scans are considerably less expensive than optical printing…🎞️ Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/418943-lab-scans-vs-optical-prints/?do=findComment&comment=5748972'>More sharing options...
Pieter12 Posted January 31 Share #6 Posted January 31 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Anthony MD said: I shot film for many years with a Nikon F2. Costs of development, optical printing, film, shipping with long wait times discouraged me enough to go digital with the MD 262. Still like film enough to shoot occasionally. The lab scans are considerably less expensive than optical printing…🎞️ Lab scans are not prints. You seem to want to compare an image displayed on a monitor with a print. Not the same. It takes a similar set of skills and talent to make a good inkjet print as it does a darkroom print. And a good digital print will cost about the same as a good wet print. Having said that, both can be done poorly. Edited January 31 by Pieter12 Addition 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 31 Author Share #7 Posted January 31 Advertisement (gone after registration) 6 minutes ago, Pieter12 said: Lab scans are not prints. You seem to want to compare an image displayed on a monitor with a print. Not the same. It takes a similar set of skills and talent to make a good inkjet print as it does a darkroom print. And a good digital print will cost about the same as a good wet print. Having said that, both can be done poorly. What I meant was premium scans on flash drives vs optical enlargements from Blue Moon Camera…📷 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieter12 Posted January 31 Share #8 Posted January 31 And digital files straight out of your camera are even cheaper. Your point is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 31 Author Share #9 Posted January 31 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Pieter12 said: And digital files straight out of your camera are even cheaper. Your point is? Do the enlargements of optical prints surpass the premium scans of film and digital files straight out of a digital camera in quality…? Edited January 31 by Anthony MD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieter12 Posted January 31 Share #10 Posted January 31 Once again, you cannot compare prints to scans. A well-made print from a scanned negative (at sufficient resolution) should compare favorably to a well-made darkroom print from the same negative. Neither is inexpensive. The digital file has the advantage (in color) of being simpler to adjust, manipulate and retouch if any of that is necessary. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 31 Share #11 Posted January 31 A variable not mentioned here is whether you do your own darkroom work or scanning and printing, or shop it out to a lab. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieter12 Posted January 31 Share #12 Posted January 31 52 minutes ago, erl said: A variable not mentioned here is whether you do your own darkroom work or scanning and printing, or shop it out to a lab. A big variable, indeed. Can you communicate what you want from a negative or file to the technician doing the work? Do you have the skills and equipment suited to produce the end results you want on your own? Expense has been mentioned, and neither option is cheap. Sure, straight machine prints can be made from a scan or a negative but they usually are not the best that can be made from either. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prioritet Posted January 31 Share #13 Posted January 31 Nowadays, the advent of artificial intelligence is greatly devaluing digital photography. I'm not talking about professional photography, where you need promptness and certain requirements. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 31 Share #14 Posted January 31 16 hours ago, prioritet said: Nowadays, the advent of artificial intelligence is greatly devaluing digital photography. I'm not talking about professional photography, where you need promptness and certain requirements. It seems that AI is getting absolutely everywhere; even here in this thread. When will it be killed off? Philip. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 31 Share #15 Posted January 31 3 minutes ago, pippy said: It seems that AI is getting absolutely everywhere; even here in this thread. When will it be killed off? Philip. The moment it appears before my camera, I will shoot it! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 31 Share #16 Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, erl said: The moment it appears before my camera, I will shoot it! Thank you, erl! Me too. Philip. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted February 1 Share #17 Posted February 1 22 hours ago, Pieter12 said: A big variable, indeed. Can you communicate what you want from a negative or file to the technician doing the work? Do you have the skills and equipment suited to produce the end results you want on your own? Expense has been mentioned, and neither option is cheap. Sure, straight machine prints can be made from a scan or a negative but they usually are not the best that can be made from either. Yes, something which cheapened our hero Cartier Bresson, a bit I believe. He always sent his stuff out for printing and fixing his exposure mistakes...sakre bleau.. He did get a couple nice pics though... I'm of old dark room school...follow through from film to print. Unless it's digital of course.. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted February 1 Share #18 Posted February 1 1 hour ago, david strachan said: Yes, something which cheapened our hero Cartier Bresson, a bit I believe. He always sent his stuff out for printing and fixing his exposure mistakes...sakre bleau.. He did get a couple nice pics though... I'm of old dark room school...follow through from film to print. Unless it's digital of course.. I continue the old school theory with digital. Just as much to learn, just as much to keep track of, just as much skill required. One of my mantras (there are many ), 'What I don't do, doesn't happen'. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted February 2 Share #19 Posted February 2 On 2/1/2025 at 3:53 AM, erl said: I continue the old school theory with digital. Just as much to learn, just as much to keep track of, just as much skill required... Absolutely agree 100%. 'Old School Skills' are every bit as valuable - not to mention directly transferrable - and relevant in the Digital World as they are in the Wet-room World. Philip. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now