lawnpotter
Well-known
If I take my colour film to my lab, I can choose to have it processed either analog or digital. If I choose to process my film with a digital enlarger, The prints I get back are really digital prints arnt they? Does it make sense to have a film camera that gives you digital prints? forgive me if this question is far too simple? It is a genuine question. Thanks
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
It depends what kind of machinery the lab uses. Some machines use a chemical print while some machines scans the film and prints from it.
It couldn't hurt to ask the lab operator, if you lucky they can answer the question. If you really want a traditional print a pro lab might be able to deliver the results you want.
It couldn't hurt to ask the lab operator, if you lucky they can answer the question. If you really want a traditional print a pro lab might be able to deliver the results you want.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Take your film in and have them develop it, make prints (from the negs) and at the same time have them scan the negs to a CD so you can view them on your computer or send them to friends and family via the Internet...
If you do this you can now choose to make prints from either the neg or from the CD using a digital printer...
If you do this you can now choose to make prints from either the neg or from the CD using a digital printer...
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
The lab hasn't made it clear what they're offering.
'Analog' most likely means developing the film, then making prints using a traditional enlarger, and then dipping the paper in trays of chemicals. A largely outdated process, and nowadays really only used for fine art prints.
'Digital' most likely means developing the film, then putting it in a minilab machine which will scan it and print it on photographic paper using tiny beams of light (a bit like your TV) and then passing the paper through chemicals to develop the image.
Look out for a minilab in a photo shop, not a supermarket. And talk to the operator about just scanning your negatives at high resolution onto a CD, no prints. This is an economical solution, and you can easily look at the CD on your computer and pick out the keepers.
Tell us what you decide.
'Analog' most likely means developing the film, then making prints using a traditional enlarger, and then dipping the paper in trays of chemicals. A largely outdated process, and nowadays really only used for fine art prints.
'Digital' most likely means developing the film, then putting it in a minilab machine which will scan it and print it on photographic paper using tiny beams of light (a bit like your TV) and then passing the paper through chemicals to develop the image.
Look out for a minilab in a photo shop, not a supermarket. And talk to the operator about just scanning your negatives at high resolution onto a CD, no prints. This is an economical solution, and you can easily look at the CD on your computer and pick out the keepers.
Tell us what you decide.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Increasing numbers of minilabs nowadays scan the film and use a paper writer to output a silver halide print from the scan. This may be what they mean by 'digital'.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Yes, what we're saying is don't think that 'digital' means the same as 'inkjet'.
If you can see the machine when you're standing at the counter, and if it's about the same shape and size as the counter, that's a minilab.
If you can see the machine when you're standing at the counter, and if it's about the same shape and size as the counter, that's a minilab.
Last edited:
craygc
Well-known
Leaving aside the issues of getting good prints from minilabs, Im assuming this question is more of a digicam vs film cam if Im only getting digital prints question.
If it is, then there are still reasons to use film. Think of film as a combination of curves and filters that are applied to the image as you capture it. A film's response curve allows you to compress a scenes dynamic range into the available range of the film before you print. Digital sensors are linear and dont have that inherent ability to compress and modify the tonal range.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Whether the print is digital or analogic makes no difference. It is all a matter of convenience and price. Which lab you choose has to depend on how good the prints are and how they adjust to your budget.
I'm an amateur, and for me using film cameras is great because I love them.
I like the constrain of only having 24/36 exposures and the fact that after it is done I do not have to sit in front of a computer (which I do for 8-10h a day already)
I'm an amateur, and for me using film cameras is great because I love them.
I like the constrain of only having 24/36 exposures and the fact that after it is done I do not have to sit in front of a computer (which I do for 8-10h a day already)
Sparrow
Veteran
these are the chaps, digital but still a “silver” print, this place run three that are calibrated twice a day and will print a 12x18 for £1.20 if you have done the pre-press and assigned their profiles
lawnpotter
Well-known
Thanks for the replies
Thanks for the replies
I still am wondering though. I gave my negative to london drugs( they did the digital process) and I took the same neg to a pro lab and they did %100 analog. I looked at both prints with a loupe and the lady said that the analog print shows grain and the digital print shows noise, they did look different, so I still wonder why shoot film if you are not going to print analog? I guess film digitaly processed still must look different than a digital camera.
Thanks for the replies
I still am wondering though. I gave my negative to london drugs( they did the digital process) and I took the same neg to a pro lab and they did %100 analog. I looked at both prints with a loupe and the lady said that the analog print shows grain and the digital print shows noise, they did look different, so I still wonder why shoot film if you are not going to print analog? I guess film digitaly processed still must look different than a digital camera.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
You would shoot film and print digital for the same reason that albums to be released on CD are often recorded on analog tape. The end product may be created digitally, but the analog process leaves a distinctive fingerprint that people find pleasing.
For my part, I shoot film a lot of the time even though I don't print analog (yet!), mostly because I like to handle film and film cameras, and like old things, and enjoy the process of developing.
For my part, I shoot film a lot of the time even though I don't print analog (yet!), mostly because I like to handle film and film cameras, and like old things, and enjoy the process of developing.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Many labs (I don't know how many) are still using traditional color processes for making prints, even if you bring in a JPG or TIFF.
The reason: Color photo chemicals are much cheaper than replacement cartridges for industrial ink printers or dye-sublimation processes.
I don't find chroma noise in digital photos to be equivalent to film grain. Chroma noise (especially in color prints) is unattractive.
The reason: Color photo chemicals are much cheaper than replacement cartridges for industrial ink printers or dye-sublimation processes.
I don't find chroma noise in digital photos to be equivalent to film grain. Chroma noise (especially in color prints) is unattractive.
Prosaic
Well-known
Of course it does.
retro
Well-known
You understand that film is not literally processed digitally, right?
Film can only be processed via chemistry though it may be digitally
printed after processing.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Good question, what is the point of shooting using film if the end result is scanned into a digital file?
One of many answer is this. Because a digital sensor -- be it on a scanner or in a digital camera -- does one thing and did it very well: creating a clean, high resolution replica/impression of whatever it's exposed to.
So, when a digital sensor on a scanner is exposed to a developed film, guess what! it'll faithfully replicate all the textures, grains, color-shifts, imperfections, everything that we call film "character" (which comes from the fact that film is chemical-based).
Contrast this with the same kind of digital sensor on a digital camera, it's exposed to the actual scene instead, so it too, will do what it does best, replicate the actual scene without flaws.
This is why people who appreciates the "characters" of film will continue to use film even though the pictures end up digitized.
Make sense?
One of many answer is this. Because a digital sensor -- be it on a scanner or in a digital camera -- does one thing and did it very well: creating a clean, high resolution replica/impression of whatever it's exposed to.
So, when a digital sensor on a scanner is exposed to a developed film, guess what! it'll faithfully replicate all the textures, grains, color-shifts, imperfections, everything that we call film "character" (which comes from the fact that film is chemical-based).
Contrast this with the same kind of digital sensor on a digital camera, it's exposed to the actual scene instead, so it too, will do what it does best, replicate the actual scene without flaws.
This is why people who appreciates the "characters" of film will continue to use film even though the pictures end up digitized.
Make sense?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
When digital audio recording was new, people all called it "cold" or "harsh." They were used to pumping all manner of high-end transients onto analog tape, because the medium naturally smoothed the edges, and introduced the mild harmonic distortion that we call "warmth" when we hear it.
But nobody says digital recording is "cold" now, because we know how to record things to prevent them from sounding that way. We might use analog input devices, or microphones that roll off some high end, or equalizers that temper the sound, or plugins that replicate the analog effects we like.
A time will come when nobody complains anymore about the impersonality of digital photography. We'll still like film, but there will be far fewer film enthusiasts who shun digital photography.
But nobody says digital recording is "cold" now, because we know how to record things to prevent them from sounding that way. We might use analog input devices, or microphones that roll off some high end, or equalizers that temper the sound, or plugins that replicate the analog effects we like.
A time will come when nobody complains anymore about the impersonality of digital photography. We'll still like film, but there will be far fewer film enthusiasts who shun digital photography.
jagarch
Member
Maybe the question should be,
Is there a substantial difference between prints made digitally from scanned negatives and analog prints made with an enlarger?
If you are going to use film, should you then try and seek out a lab that does analog prints, or does it not matter?
Pablito
coco frío
many of the digitally produced 4x6 prints are "corrected" in ways that are not always pleasing. They machine figures out how to dodge and burn electronically but it often seems fake. On the other hand most photofinishing is done like this now, from what I can tell.