lrochfort
Well-known
Hello,
Around 15 years ago I worked at a Kodak Photo Express mini-lab in the UK. We used a Noritsu machine and printed on to Kodak Royal 8 paper.
I really really don't like Fuji Crystal archive; I find it far too contrasty for my liking. To this end I tried to find a company that prints onto Kodak and successfully found Palm Labs in the north of the UK.
However, after talking with them it turns out that they, like every other lab I talked to, don't optically print on their mini-lab but instead scan the image and then "print" it onto paper via laser or LED which is then processed in the same way an optical print would be.
Personally, I find I don't like the end result; it has a distinct digital look to me. What's the point of using film if there's going to be a digital intermediate? I know that the industrial scanner will have very high DPI, wide contrast range etc, but that doesn't alter the fact that there's a conversion happening.
Now, I know that for small prints it probably isn't noticeable, and that if I care so much I should print myself, but let's put that aside.
What do people think? Optically or laser/LED printed? What are the pros and cons of each?
Thanks!
EDIT: I should point out that Palm Labs do a cracking job and I'm happy with their prints and service every time I use them. However, after digging out prints that I made optically 15 years ago, they definitely look different, hence the question.
Around 15 years ago I worked at a Kodak Photo Express mini-lab in the UK. We used a Noritsu machine and printed on to Kodak Royal 8 paper.
I really really don't like Fuji Crystal archive; I find it far too contrasty for my liking. To this end I tried to find a company that prints onto Kodak and successfully found Palm Labs in the north of the UK.
However, after talking with them it turns out that they, like every other lab I talked to, don't optically print on their mini-lab but instead scan the image and then "print" it onto paper via laser or LED which is then processed in the same way an optical print would be.
Personally, I find I don't like the end result; it has a distinct digital look to me. What's the point of using film if there's going to be a digital intermediate? I know that the industrial scanner will have very high DPI, wide contrast range etc, but that doesn't alter the fact that there's a conversion happening.
Now, I know that for small prints it probably isn't noticeable, and that if I care so much I should print myself, but let's put that aside.
What do people think? Optically or laser/LED printed? What are the pros and cons of each?
Thanks!
EDIT: I should point out that Palm Labs do a cracking job and I'm happy with their prints and service every time I use them. However, after digging out prints that I made optically 15 years ago, they definitely look different, hence the question.
mijosc
Established
A while ago I noticed the prints I was getting back from my local lab looked oddly "digital". There was some odd pixilation on high contrast edges and the shadows looked noisy (in a very digital way.) This happened mostly on 35mm, higher ISO, film. I haven't noticed the same issues with slower films or 120 film. It was only after I looked into this that I realized most labs aren't printing optically anymore.
There is a place called Blue Moon Camera (http://www.bluemooncamera.com/) that processes and prints C-41 negatives optically. I haven't used them myself, but am curious if anyone else here has.
There is a place called Blue Moon Camera (http://www.bluemooncamera.com/) that processes and prints C-41 negatives optically. I haven't used them myself, but am curious if anyone else here has.
lrochfort
Well-known
Thanks for the link, but unfortunately that's in the US and I'm in the UK :-(
EDIT: Ah, seems they do international
But shipping to them from the UK is expensive :-(
Dwig
Well-known
That's an apples vs motorcycles comparison.
"Type C print" refers to the print material and its related processing. It specifies a light sensitive chromagenic material that produces a positive print from a negative image and is processed chemically. Back in the day, there was also "Type R" prints which were direct positive prints that produced positive prints from positive originals (slides, transparencies). They were chemically similar to Type C prints, differing primarily in their reversal processing.
The Kodak Royal papers produced "type C" prints just as Fuji Crystal does. Both could/can use the same RA-4 type chemistry. Both can/could be exposed by optical projection (enlarger, optical printer, ...) or by digitally driven laser (older "extinct" equipment) or LED printers.
lrochfort
Well-known
That's what I recall too, however lots of mini-lab websites seem to just use "type-c" to mean laser printed now.
I've updated my post.
That aside, what's your opinion on laser/LED vs optical printing?
Dwig
Well-known
As I said in my post, "type C" has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are printing optically or digitally via laser/LED. Both can be "type C". The "type C" just means it is a chromagenic chemically processed print material as opposed to some other process such as ink jet or dye sublimation.
I don't have much experience comparing the two. There are no laser based printers currently being made and the last company to make them no longer services them. They are all dinosaurs using older "obsolete" tech. The currently available printers are LED based. I don't believe that there is a significant difference, given properly maintained and adjusted machines. There is likely a much larger difference in the print material used than in the light source tech, other than the maintenance issues.
The gallery that I work for makes inkjet prints primarily, mostly on canvas and mostly very large. We did do some comparisons this past spring when we were approached by a group (to be unnamed) wanting to distribute some of our images. They were using LightJet printers (laser based older equipment) with Fuji Crystal Archime print material. We ran tests with them and with two commercial printers using newer Chromira printers (LED based) and Fuji Crystal Glossy and Archive materials. We sent out our own digital files and inkjet "match prints". The group using the LightJets totally failed to deliver decent results while the two commercial printers (Griffin Editions in Brooklyn NY and FinePrint in CO) produced excellent prints from the same files on their first try. After discussing the issues with the group wanting to distribute the images we concluded that their problems related to inexperience with their equipment more than its capabilities if it had be well adjusted and maintained. With "type C" printed, optical or digital, you need to know the RA-4 chemical process and how to properly maintain the chemical processor in addition to knowing digital image color management.