Alessandro Fanchin Posted October 12, 2008 Share #1 Posted October 12, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the last months I have noticed a degraded quality in the prints from negatives. I notice that very well if I compare pictures printed 3-4 years ago with pictures printed in the last months. I have a theory: now the prinitng process is not any more a projections of the negatives, it is an electronic scanning of the negatives and then a digital print. In order to save time, maybe they reduce the definition, the contrast, the deep of colours, etc. And worst of all, maybe they use some software to clarify the faces, the shades, etc. I ask to all the competent people in this forum to confirm or deny my suspicion. If my suspect is right, then there may be some laboratories that are still using the old process. If not, the only way will be to use slides...... What do you all think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Hi Alessandro Fanchin, Take a look here Letest results in printing from negatives. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Lotw Posted October 12, 2008 Share #2 Posted October 12, 2008 you did not change from silver-based to C41 developed B&W films? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alifie Posted October 12, 2008 Share #3 Posted October 12, 2008 I agree, that is why I still have a fully functional darkroom. The reasons for this are (I think)... 1. The wet process has compresssed ends to the brightness range so whites can be whiter and blacks blacker still holding some detail. 2. Dodging and burning are a pain using a computer so you don't do it as much, really simple on a silver print. Probably got something to do with 1 above too. 3. You tend to spend loads of time on the minute imperfections using a computer, missing the whole point of the image. 4. It is so quick to produce a print in the darkroom, doing another is no problem. It is cheaper to print in the darkroom too, less worry over costs. 5. You can only print in the darkroom, no distractions. Well not quite true I do have Radio 4 on, sometimes I just stop an listen! 6. You see the whole picture at once at full resolution with a wet print, none of that zooming etc.. 7. The red light does something to your brain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted October 12, 2008 Author Share #4 Posted October 12, 2008 I was not talking about B&W, darkroom, etc. I was talking about plain commercial printing of Kodak Gold 100, 200 or 400 ISO. So the question is: are there labs that still print from the negatives? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 12, 2008 Share #5 Posted October 12, 2008 High street labs often add sharpening and saturation to suit the mass market. If you instruct them, and they follow, not to modify the files or prints in any way you can get excellent quality. The difficulty comes when the operator has no knowledge of the machine set-up. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted October 12, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted October 12, 2008 I am using the best lab in my town, that is not small, and it seems that there is no way to change things... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alifie Posted October 12, 2008 Share #7 Posted October 12, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some of that may apply, but have a look at a digital minilab print you will find the resolution is only just enough to veiw at 'normal' distances. Even a small magnification reveals the corseness of the laser dots. Just looked at a minilab print with a 1mm rule next to it and guess about 10 lp/mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alifie Posted October 12, 2008 Share #8 Posted October 12, 2008 And on the fridge are some old snaps of some of our cats, maginified they are much smoother, no digital artifacts at all. Comparing them side by side with newer digital minlab prints they do look better. Is there a lab you can post films to that does "real" prints. Given the closure of so many minilabs I would think you could get a whole (non digital) processing system for the price of picking it up, that might be viable if you shot 100's of films a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull40 Posted October 16, 2008 Share #9 Posted October 16, 2008 I've indeed noticed the same troubles. I managed to find one rep at a local lab that confirmed most now are scanning negs and printing digitally- lowering quality. I still have a near by pro lab that does it the old fashioned way, with good results. I actually sold a lens I had bought for my wife's Nikon thinking it was junk based on the test roll we shot. So if you can't find a local lab, you'll have to start mailing out. Or join the legions of digi-maniacs. Best, John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 17, 2008 Share #10 Posted October 17, 2008 There are so many variables in prints, and quality will always vary, even at the same lab. That's one reason I am sticking to slides in most cases. E6 = wysiwyg! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodaktrix Posted October 17, 2008 Share #11 Posted October 17, 2008 Alessandro, my wife shoots the same color negative film for years now and gives it for prints to one discounter. The quality was always that good and constant, that even professional friends of mine had their their colour films developed there rather than in pro labs. After this years holidays the prints came back ugly, a colour cast of yellow and the borders of any black looked like clouds. We had them do it for two more times, without getting the quality we were used to. The prints after the complaint were even done manual as the film was already cut. They blamed the film and said her exposing was bad, but I had done scans myself and prints before to proof that the negatives were alright. To my mind, they have personal now that does not have an idea what is doing and they do not enlarge the prints any longer, but scan them with a standard profile that does not match the different films. The results were that bad that my wife thinks seriously about going digital. Regards Oliver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. white Posted October 17, 2008 Share #12 Posted October 17, 2008 My favorite lab in San Francisco moved from optical printing to digital reproduction several years ago. Being a pro lab, they made a point to inform their customers of the change and their economic necessity for making it. While the results cannot be characterized as "bad" per se, the digital prints show noticeably less contrast. It's a disappointing transition, but one I've learned to live with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 17, 2008 Share #13 Posted October 17, 2008 Alessandro, Oliver may well have hit the nail on the head: If the people who operate the machines don't know what they are doing, then the results will be accordingly, accordingly bad that is. I do not believe your bad results come from a change in the process. At least here in Germany, negatives were not printed the usual way for several years now. Instead, the negatives are scanned and then printed. I have, however, received excellent results from this technique, almost better than I remember the results using the old printing technique. Especially large 40x60cm "prints" have come out superb. So try to find a different lab, maybe that will help. Cheers, Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share #14 Posted October 17, 2008 Thank you everybody. Maybe the point is that really people now don't know exactly what they are doing. Not only in the photo business, but in general (I am a manager that worked in several different companies). Now I will try to find a lab that still prints pictures in the olde way, OR I will shoot only slides. Question: where are all the old machines used to print from negatives? Is it possible to buy used one of them and start a new old style lab? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted October 17, 2008 Author Share #15 Posted October 17, 2008 Alessandro, Oliver may well have hit the nail on the head: If the people who operate the machines don't know what they are doing, then the results will be accordingly, accordingly bad that is. I do not believe your bad results come from a change in the process. At least here in Germany, negatives were not printed the usual way for several years now. Maybe I was using one of the few laboratories left that used the old technique until some months ago... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 17, 2008 Share #16 Posted October 17, 2008 Alessandro... I live not so far from you and can tell you by sure that in my town all labs print negs by scan&print and this is the rule for 10x15 ; but there are a pair which, IF ASKED and PAID FOR, can make you enlargements the old way: for 20x30 prints cost is easily 3x to 5x the standard enlargements (scan+printer). Quality is a lot better. 2 years ago I made my last 6x9 rollfilm : I waited many days... and they told me in advance that cost would have been higher for had to be printed "the old way". Some friends of mine, still devoted to film (I do not make negs for more than 1 year...), have finally decided to make only develop+scan and print home: decent Epsons or HP (I mean, A4 photo printers in the range of 2-300 Euros) often give better results than the vary outputs of labs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted October 18, 2008 Author Share #17 Posted October 18, 2008 Thank you very much Luigi. But the questions remains: where in the hell have gone all the old developing and printing machines, that for sure still work properly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted October 18, 2008 Share #18 Posted October 18, 2008 I have my BW film processed by a nationally known lab in Texas. Their prints just don't compare to what our 2400 with ImagePrint produces. We also had them print some Kodachrome prints and it was the same with them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 18, 2008 Share #19 Posted October 18, 2008 Thank you very much Luigi. But the questions remains: where in the hell have gone all the old developing and printing machines, that for sure still work properly? Who knows...but my idea is that most labs didn't OWN the machines... I think they were probably leased by the vendors (Kodak, Fuij...) with contracts including chemicals, paper, maintenance etc... (something like the coffee machines for offiices ... you don't buy the hardware, pay for the coffee ); contracts expire, machines substituted with new scan&print system leased on similar basis... I wouldn't be surprised if such is the business for standard photo labs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted October 18, 2008 Share #20 Posted October 18, 2008 The finishing industry has always been full of less than competent people, now more than ever. There is nothing wrong with the technology, just the people who use it who try to cut corners just like they always did with the old optical printing. Or they simply have not learned to use it. I get beautiful results with scanned film whether I print it or send it out to a pro lab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.