Newbie Question About Digital Prints

R

ruben

Guest
Kindly excuss me for my ignorancy, as I went technologically stucked at the analogue period and there before the AF uproar (*). So now you can adapt your language to my question.

My question is if there is any different feeling, aroma, bokeh, whatever you like, between a print comming from a digital camera, and a print comming from a negative after commercial scanning.

Thanks in advance,
Ruben

(*) But I do have an MP3 !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
Kindly excuss me for my ignorancy, as I went technologically stucked at the analogue period and there before the AF uproar (*). So now you can adapt your language to my question.

My question is if there is any different feeling, aroma, bokeh, whatever you like, between a print comming from a digital camera, and a print comming from a negative after commercial scanning.

Thanks in advance,
Ruben

(*) But I do have an MP3 !
Click to expand...
Ruben

You have bought an MP?
You wont any more help on Kiev's?

Noel
 
smells different, after that I guess it depends on the paper, etc. but I think near the same.
shalom
 
Yes, there is a difference. Just as there are differences between films. I wouldn't worry about it and just judge the print on its merits.
 
i think if you go to a professional lab and your pics are corectly post produced the results are very good .
the only difeerence is in the price.i know for a fact that in london a 11 x 14 print cost 20 pounds + VAT.so now imaging if you have lets say 100 to print.
i don't know but when i used to print in the darkroom it felt much cheaper and i am talking about colour.
or you can go and buy a relatively good printer and do it yourshelf but still i feel it is more expensive.
anyways that's my humle opinion
 
8x10 or smaller, you probably cannot tell. The chemicals, paper and all that, are exactly the same.
 
There are obvious differences, and depending on the film they are huge. Digital has no grain. Scanned Tri-X has visible grain in the image that shows up in the print. Highlights and shadows on a properly exposed negative retain detail, while often a digital exposure has either lost all detail in the shadows or blown out highlights. Scanning doesn't change that.

As has been stated, of course there are differences in prints based on the source. The differences might not be apparent to someone who doesn't see those things in images in the first place, but anyone can see them. For example, in some cases with certain films, grain isn't obvious until you start looking for it, but anyone can see it if you point it out.
 
First, you should precise, if you are only asking about the difference between a digital file from a DSLR and a digital file from a film scan, or if you also want to distinguish between a chemical print from a digital file and an inkjet print from a digital file.
So, suppose we consider the print will be done in the same technique (fuji crystal archive for example), this leaves us with the difference in the digital file.

Yes, the difference CAN be enormous, but it will depend on lots of factors. Digi files can have different gamuts, colour spaces, infinite processing variants, including artificial film grain, etc. On the other hand, film will mostly show a stronger signature through the grain and typical (for each emulsion) colour "signature", BUT it can also be colour managed, treated with grain smoothing programs, and reduced in size in a way which will generate a completely noiseless, "digital" like file. I get this sort of results when I scan and reduce 6x6 Astia shots.

Results on an inkjet will be different still from results on a chemical print.

To give you an opinion: to my mind, there's nothing like being able to control your printing process, so a pigment inkjet printer IS the way to go.
On the other hand, if you are mainly after shooting in colour, you should skip 35mm film right away and either go digital or shoot 6x... and scan. I have found, that the only DSLR's giving filmlike results today are the Fuji S3 and S5, but digital is improving very fast.
 
Last edited:
ruben said:
..............My question is if there is any different feeling, aroma, bokeh, whatever you like, between a print comming from a digital camera, and a print comming from a negative after commercial scanning.

Thanks in advance,
Ruben
Click to expand...

Thank you both 40oz and mfogiel for your insights. I feel the thread is starting to warm up.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom