Which has higher resolution: film/lens or commercial print machine?

[julianphotoart]

Something's nagging me. Let's say I'm using print colour film and I take it to be processed -- to an actual decent quality photo-developer. That store, like every other store, uses some kind of digital machine to print the photos.

Now, those digital print machines, no matter how hi-end they might be, are not going to be able to make a print with as much detail as my "analog" lens and film, right? In other words, isn't it true that the "resolution" (for lack of a better word) of my camera lens and film together will always be higher than the "resolution" of the digital printer that's inherently limited by the density of colour droplets it can put on a sheet of paper?

Those who know about such things might say that this is no different than the old pre-digital print machine limitations. I myself don't know. I've always assumed that chemical-based commercial photo print machines had higher resolution than the film/lens grain so that the film or lens was the limitation. But I just have this fear that nowadays it's the other way around.

What is the answer to this please? Thanks.

 

[bmattock]

Most of the one-hour places I know of are still using mini-lab machines that do non-digital optical enlarging and printing on standard photo paper and using standard chemical methods to develop them. Digital photos taken to the one-hour place get the 'old-fashioned' print methods, too.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[sf]

well, the lens has higher resolution than the film is able to capture, in most all cases with modern glass. And, that film has higher resolution than most inkjets will be able to faithfull show . . .though my Canon IP5000 prints with 1 picoliter droplets, small enough to create some pretty impressive prints in terms of resolution from a 4800dpi 35mm or 3200dpi 120 frame.

You have to also consider this : the human eye is only capable of a limited resolution, and that resolution is generally less than most very high end printers are capable of (at arms length or viewing distance). There is no sense is prints that have loupe-quality resolution because you can't see those details anyway without magnification.

A neg will not necessarily have higher resolution than the digital printer's capture image. For instance, there is no useful resolution beyond the grain, and my scanner gets way down into the grain. The print will very rarely ever have as much resolution as a perfect negative or slide when you're talking about prints up to 8x10 on slow film.

Basically, if you can't see the grain, you are probably not getting 100% of the negative resolution.

But really, who cares? No one but the viewer with the loupe that cares more for counting the hairs on the head than for the composition as a whole.

I am a resolution freak - why I own the RF645/Multi pro instead of a 35mm/flatbed. But, I have realized lately, that I have to really study my prints in good light to be able to say they are any less good than those from traditional wet process.

 

[ch1]

I'm not sure that most development labs are digitally printing film negatives? Why wouldn't they still be using the analog equipment for such processing?

I think it is true that if you go from digital media to digital printing you are adding in a layer of compression. This is why I only shoot RAW (or TIFF) in digital media so as to at least start with zero compression.

Perhaps you (I) should ask the lab how they process film prints?

 

[Finder]

Digtial is quicker and better for mini labs even when they print out on normal photo paper. Since scanning a roll of 35mm film takes about 10 seconds, it is a lot faster than having the operator run a roll though an aperture gate and expose every frame. It also lets the developer offer mini index sheets as well.

 

[ch1]

Digtial is quicker and better for mini labs even when they print out on normal photo paper. Since scanning a roll of 35mm film takes about 10 seconds, it is a lot faster than having the operator run a roll though an aperture gate and expose every frame. It also lets the developer offer mini index sheets as well.

Thanks for the info.

 

[jan normandale]

Hmmm... I don't think Julian's question has been answered. I know I cannot but I don't think these responses give the clarification he is looking for. Anyone else have some insights? I'm interested too.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

If you want actual figures go to the film printer website and look at the manual/specs. Around here Fuji Frontier seems to be the machine of choice.

I read the Fuji manual and found that the scans I was getting could be much higher resolution if the operator dialled in they were using max size paper even though they were not making any prints at all, just scans. When I told him I wanted higher resolution he didn't believe me until I printed the manual and took it to him.

But the machine does take longer to do a higher resolution scan and the operator may prefer to lores and print a load of films rather than hires just yours. You need to get the operator on your side and perhaps agree that they'll do your scan during a quiet time of day.

These machines are digital, but they are not inkjet like we have at home. They use a point light source, photographic paper and developer and fixer. It just all comes in a neat box. When I win the lottery I want one of my own.

 

[sf]

I've gotten Lightjet prints that looked pretty nice - as good as my homemade chemical prints. Of course, I was printing with an ancient, dirty, cheap Kodak lens.

 

[mike_j]

I often have my colour film put onto CD by the minilab and the picture resolution is 1895 x 1272. I'm told this is standard and the resolution they use for printing.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you want actual figures go to the film printer website and look at the manual/specs. Around here Fuji Frontier seems to be the machine of choice.

I read the Fuji manual and found that the scans I was getting could be much higher resolution if the operator dialled in they were using max size paper even though they were not making any prints at all, just scans. When I told him I wanted higher resolution he didn't believe me until I printed the manual and took it to him.
(snip)

At least your lab guy knows how to read. Not long ago I asked the kid at Walgreen's what the resolution of the files are when they scan negs to disc. He said "what do you mean... 'resolution." I said "how may dots-per-inch". to which he responded "I'll personally make sure there are no dots in your files."

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Try this and get better quality scans.