Shoot Digital and Print Optically?

Is there a way to shoot with digital and print optically? I know this idea may

sound ridiculous to some but I am concerned with output in the paper print. I

have yet to see a laser, injet or other device that does not yield some

significant flaws in the outcome. Using an enlarger would probably eliminate

those awful print lines from the end paper result. I have seen some services

that will transfer a digital file to slide which could I guess in theory be

printed optically but the fees to this are outrageous. Does any one know of a

better way or am I dreaming? All in all I don't think it would be a bad idea

if it could be done cheaply or at least at reasonable prices.

I don't think you are going to be very happy having your digital files turned into film again. Expensive and you lose quality even with the best of the processes.

 

If you don't like the look of digital images, then you should probably shoot film. Sad to say.

Josh

 

Why is that sad to say? It made me smile.

 

Larry<div></div>

Yes it is posible. Found a laboratory that uses something like<a href="http://www.variochromat.de/index_E.html?gclid=CJrJ5I7A2okCFUBeMAodnWD3zQ"> this enlarger.

</a>

These things print optically:

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/photofinishing/dmlab_frontier590.html

 

yes, a laser scans the paper, but a digital image needs to be converted back from a long thin stream of numbers to a 2d image somewhere along the line.

It might help a bit if you say whether you're working in colour or b&w; which labs and types of digital output you've tried and what you mean by "awful print lines".

 

Are you sure the problem lies with the printing rather than the files you're sending to print?

 

Having switched totally from optical to LightJet/Chromira printing after extensive comparative testing several years ago, I've been delighted with the improvement in the quality and consistency of prints I've had since; and I certainly would be more than surprised if you were to see significant flaws in them. I suspect it will be a lot easier to find a digital process/labs to achieve the print quality you desire than to follow the route you're enquiring about.

I didn't intend to botch this up but after searching last night for similar threads I posted a similar thread to this, that I wrote last night, this morning.

see http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JUMN&tag=

What is the probability of that? Sorry

 

I asked the same thing, but I listed the prossibilities as I thought of them, for a limited budget.

Geez, all you have to do is send your digital file to place like Mpix and you do get REAL COLOR PRINTS on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I have has 12x18 prints made by them from my Nikon D70 that are incredible.

The "sad to say" only refered to the fact that the original poster seemed to WANT to shoot digital, but was unhappy with the printed output.

 

I have no problem with film at all. I just don't shoot much of it myself anymore.

Many photo processors can print digi-prints on the same archival paper as they print film prints.

 

My daughter and I just did a "shoot out" at the zoo, her shooting with a Nikon D50 and I shot with a Nikon EL2 and Fujicolor ISO 200. I dropped my roll off at the local Walgreens and she uploaded her best images to the Walgreens server, for printing at the same location. When we got both sets of prints back, we couldn't tell the difference in quality.

Posting low grade photos of a toilet has a pretty immediate effect on credibility. I'm not sure why Josh bothered to respond.

<p>

It sounds like you haven't dealt with any good digital printing outfits, or haven't mastered it yourself. Plenty of people are doing digital prints that work well. Lauren Greenfield sells her prints from digital for the same prices (somewhere around $5,000 the last time I looked) and you really can't tell. I was in a show recently with the likes of <a href="http://www.jimmarshallvault.com/">Jim Marshall</a> and <a href="http://www.bradelterman.com/">Brad Elterman.</a> They had vintage prints and I had digital prints (from digital originals.) Everyone checked the stuff out and not one comment indicated that people could tell mine weren't the same as theirs, except that Elterman is an amazing printer. I think Marshall sends his work out. So you must not be doing something right, if my prints can stand next to theirs and not be seen as inferior.

<I>[A]ll you have to do is send your digital file to place like Mpix and you do get REAL COLOR PRINTS on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.</I><P>

 

Mpix uses Kodak paper for color and Ilford paper for B&W.<P>

 

You can argue the merits of Kodak and Fuji color papers in terms of color rendition, surface, longevity, etc. But if you want the Fuji paper, try Shutterfly. That said, on the whole I've been happy with both printing services and all three papers, depending on what you want for a given print.

I have to agree with the toilet theory

 

First, if you transfer a digital file to slide, you have to pay for the film and processing one way or another (price of service includes it), so you are already not saving any money by shooting digital.

Which is one less reason to use digital in this process at all.

 

Then of course, by printing a digital imago onto a slide, you are neither getting a perfect digital image nor a perfect slide, you loose quality on both fields. In other words, you'd both get better results if you just printed from your digital file, or just shot a slide in camera.

Again, one less reason to use digital, or to do it all anyway.

 

I hope you realize that what you would be doing is photographic your digital picture onto film, so why not just photograph the source image onto film, it ends on film anyway.

 

And finally, if you want to do all of this, why on earth are you shooting digital in the first place?

 

If it's just for having a little LCD on the back to see what you are doing, well if you have to rely on such things, you are probably not confortable with the basic ways of operating a film camera, and every digital camera works on same principles.

If you want to be the master of your DSLR, you better know the principles of exposure by heart. And if you know them, handling a film camera is like eating ice-cream, specially with neg-film

If you've not seen inkjet prints that beat optical prints, especially in color, you've not been looking. Scan and inkjet is far superior to optical printing when done with minimal skill.

 

"Print lines" are not seen in anything done properly, with or without a loupe. That particular flaw proves inadequate skill, often involving printer clogging (which is the fault of the operator).