Optical Prints from Film?

All the local labs are scanning negs and then outputting digital prints. The down side of this is that the image

quality is terrible. No color correction or white balancing, limited tonal range. To put it mildly this stuff

looks like crap. Does anybody have a list of labs that are still using optical printing machinery? I noticed

today that 3" prints sent out from Walmart have no CD option. Does this mean the labs using optical on the 3" or

just that they want to sell you bigger prints to get a CD?

Most likely the biggest problem you are encountering is poor knowledge of the operator rather than an equipment issue. Even using optical equipment, if the person at the controls has no idea what they are doing the results will look poor. On the back of the prints do you see any information? If so, please post it here so that we can tell if any corrections were done in the printing process or not.

 

- Randy

I also cringe when I see the results of one hour printing, from Wal Mart, Target, CVS, etc. For rolls of any importance I pay the extra and have them professionally developed and optically proof printed by The Icon on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles. I am pleasantly reminded how well my Nikkor lenses perform every time I see prints from this lab. I don't work for them or anything, but I have been very pleased at their customer service and results in the past two years I've been taking and mailing film there.

Dale Labs still have the option of optical printing. If you have them send you some of their mailers, the service you get from the mailers is optical. It is a bit expensive. I have only sent them a few rolls as I have just started using them but I have gotten good results so far. www.dalelabs.com

There is nothing wrong with scanning and printing. I get beautiful prints from a pro lab that does this.

Their enlargers have been gone for years.

 

I can scan negs and make a dye sub print that looks the same as what i can do in my darkroom.

 

The first problem is the cheap high contrast paper that is used . The second is untrained people.

Unfortunately this is a job that can be done by any rummy and 99% of the people will not complain.

Rather extensive training is required for consistent good prints and you don`t get them for minimum wage.

 

BTW, these same people used to do optical printing with the same poor results.

You don't need specifically a lab that offers optical prints. Most optical machine prints were terrible, and there are few tears about the demise of this technology in favour of scan and print. What you need is a good lab. And also you need to decide whether you are prepared to pay for the tweaks to the scanned file you need, or whether to do it yourself and have printed a file you are happy with.

 

The weakest link in the process tends to be the scanning. If I wanted a lot of cheap decent quality small prints, I would probably start with a digital original to miss out this step. My daughter showed me her prints from a recent trip to Mexico at the weekend , printed herself on a machine at a chain store here in the UK. I have to say they were extremely good, with no manipulations whatsoever and starting from a mid-range compact.

 

If what you wanted was a few large and top quality prints, then its worth paying for quality scanning and human intervention in the process. But I'm not sure thats what you're talking of here.

My local Costco actually does a pretty nice job of developing and printing. The people there keep the machine clean and seem to know what they are doing. Most importantly, they seem to care about getting good quality.

 

They use a typical automated processing and printing machine; probably the same as used in many one-hour developers. I'm not sure of the brand.

 

I asked the girl once, what the resolution of their negative scanner was. She looked in a manual that she had handy and told me it was about 3k x 2k, or 6 MP. That's definitely less than any good 35mm camera and film is capable of. So, you are losing resolution, right off the bat. This is probably typical for this type of processor. A pro lab may have a higher resolution scanner.

 

That said, I've had them print my negatives (mostly Fuji 400 negative film) at 8 x 12 inches and the quality is quite good. I suspect that a good optical enlarger could do better, though.

 

Paul Noble

I remember that operators at a printing machine at a one hour place used to sit in front of a fairly complex keyboard that

scaled color and tonal corrections in increments +/- 5 steps for tone, and hue (magenta, cyan and yellow (?)). The

negative would fit in a holder. The operator would look at that negative, and in a moment have to evaluate what its

exposure would be. 36 frames to a typical roll; stacks of rolls that needed to be run; customers will return in less than

an hour; in order to get things done within a promise-able time, really, you had to get the whole roll processed in half the

time you tell them; add in cannister cracking, negative drag through the baths, and post-print packaging; the operator at

a printing machine will have about three seconds to print each frame.

 

At least that's about how it would go, years ago, with the optical machines. I think that's the kind of thing we're talking

about when we say, Do they care about quality at the one hour place? Of course, most people want to do a good job at

work. At the same time, one hour or all day or two weeks, there's a massive amount of prints do be made.

 

If you're really going to do a good job, you're either going to have to pay someone else a steep fee so that they can

shrug off massive demand and devote more time to your stuff (custom printing), or do it yourself.

 

No doubt, commercial labs can do a great job. But, you know, look at the massive task we're asking of them. J.

We still make optical enlargements using enlargers but we had to dispose of all of our optical printers because

the companies that made them were all out of that business and there were no parts or service. These are complex

machines with proprietary parts and without support they're worthless.

 

Frankly, on prints up to 12x18 our digital lab produces prints that look just as good as direct optical printing

ever did. The issue most people have with digital printing from film is operator inexperience and operating

constraints due to cost considerations.

 

Face facts, you can't go to a place offering prints for pennies and still expect them to have an experienced lab

tech make individual adjustments for every shot then analyze the results and do remakes if better results can be

had. In spite of what you may think of digital machine specs, most of today's equipment is very capable, but

quality costs money, same as it ever did.

Ok on the text on the back of the prints:

 

1. Worst roll (CVS) no text.

2. "Best" roll (Walgreens) 3536 02 N N N N-16 GR05 Z103.0/100.0 (neg looks slightly over exposed)

3. Pink Tones (Different CVS) 025 NA E0NA0N2 NNN 0 6236 718563 (next line shot number and 1110); was shot with a CP, sky is gone white late day sun is pink, exposure on the neg doesn't look bad.

 

All shots 100UC

I'm about 95% sure that the 3 inch Walmart prints are still optical, because they have a distinctive look and because Walmart medium format prints are also on 3 inch paper. The quality seems better than the average 1 hour Walmart prints but inferior to the best that optical prints had to offer.

I can't believe that any prints produced from a WalMart in-store lab are optical, except perhaps in the remotest parts of lower Mongolia. WalMart was Fuji''s major customer for scan-print machines, and did full conversions of all US stores years ago. There was a time when it was impossible to get prompt delivery of a Frontier as Fuji was backed up with WalMart orders.

 

Prints from medium format are sent out, and could be another story.

 

There's nothing quite like a good optical print.

 

Bill Pearce