traditional film processing vs inkjet papers..really confused?

[clay_rodman1]

Hi everyone, I thought I had this all figured out long ago, but the

more I read the more confused I become. I'm no stranger to the

darkroom, so when papers came out that people used on inkjet printers

to print their digital images that took some getting used to. I had to

accept that people called these papers that held ink "photo paper",

which to me was wrong. Anyway, now I read somewhere that when you take

your digital image, in whatever form, to a lab, they print on "real"

photo paper, but how can that be? So here are the questions:

 

1. When taking a digital image to a lab, what type of paper is used

and how does the image get onto the paper?

 

2. In regular traditional film photography, do labs transfer the image

to digital first by scanning the negative and then print, and if so,

how?(I had assumed that no lab used an enlarger anymore and always

processed the film, scanned the negatives, and then printed from a

digital image, but now when I think about this, how is this done? I'm

used to using an enlarger when I used to do BW photography?)

 

As you can tell I'm really confused. Any answers would really make my

day because this topic is driving me crazy. Thanks.

 

Clay R.

[roman_kuznetsov]

Hi!

 

It actually depends on which machine/technology the lab uses. Today, the most likely they have some kind of digital minilab, like Fuji Frontier, Noritsu QSS, or Agfa D-Lab. If so, image is still printed on color silver-based RA paper, but by first scanning (if film used) the original with CCD chip, then processing image by powerful digital DSP board, which quickly suppress dust, reduces grain etc, and next exposing and developing real photo paper with some kind of digital printer (color laser in most minilabs, or other weird elecro-optical things as digital micromirror devices, CRT tubes+fiber optics, LCD, etc). Other printing technologies may be used in low-volume machines, dye-syblimation, or just ink-jet printing. In that case, more or less plain paper is used.

 

Today, direct optical printing is still a possible option to order in some pro labs, by using older optical minilab machines for small prints, or hand printing with enlarger for bigger. In my opinion, optical printnig as pure analogue technology still gives the best tonality in color prints, but of course all powerful correction options of digital labs (dust/grain removal, contrast change) are not available here.

[edgar_njari]

The most popular lab in my town uses two machines, one old optical and a new digital minilab, so either you try and convince them to do it on the old machine or hope that your film gets to the optical machine my random choice of the people that work there.

 

The quality of optical minilab is much better than the digital one (D-lab) The tones are smooth and natural since they come directly from the negative, and the tones of the digital lab are a bit too contrasty and rough caused by crappy scanning and processing.

 

I think the best option for printing in a minilab is to scan the film yourself and record it by laser recorder like frontier.

[john_shriver]

Edgar, digital RA-4 prints are perfectly capable of being top-rate. But, in general mass-market commercial practice, they are configured to generate "NOW, BRIGHTER COLORS!", just like it says on the banner hanging on the outside wall at Walgreens. The mass market only knows "more" in buying things, the biggest TV screen with the brightest image, the loudest subwoofers, the biggest SUV, the most megapixels, etc. Never mind that these are not generally the best products.

 

So a typical consumer digital mini-lab is set for excessive dust removal (because the minumum wage employees don't keep clean), maximum over-shaprpening, maximum color saturation boost, maximum contrast, etc.

 

A professional lab can provide fully professional results with a digital printing system to RA-4 paper. They will be sharp corner to corner, which not all optical enlargements are.

 

I do my own scanning and editing, and either print on an Epson inkjet printer, or send the images to Mpix.com for printing on RA-4 paper. Both provide dandy results, and are digital.

[John Crowe]

Then there is the pro level LightJet prints made from digital files by a digital printer in a dark room no less! My understanding is that a computer controlled laser exposes the photopaper as an enlarger would but with pixel by pixel accuracy. This is apparently the closest thing to traditional darkroom methods but still much more expensive.

[karl_borowski]

Frankly, unless there is something really wrong with the original negative such as gross underexposure, color crossover, or damage to the film itself that would be too expensive and time-consuming to fix the analog way, I think that it is foolish getting negatives printed digitally. YOu have might as well just go digital if you find the results from your average Fuji Frontier acceptable. Sometimes the rows of pixels don't even line up properly, so you get an image that is in some ways reminiscent as the old "wire-photos" that they used to use in the '60s. Analog prints from analog film is the best way to go with a well-exposed, well-composed negative. Period.

[amelieeugene]

I find that "Period." conclusion disturbing. I own a traditional darkroom and I made wet prints up to 16x20. I have found out that doing dodging and burning all the time is no fun and sometimes just plain impossible without causing color shift, and spotting on the prints is also too time consuming.

I have come to accept that there is plenty of evidence that well adjusted digital prints can easily surpass analog prints at a much lower cost, but I don't see the opposite very often.

[sunil_gupta3]

Reason I was looking for these posts:

 

I just got printed two rolls of a little underexposed 400 ASA Kodak Gold film, at a consumer studio. Appreciating that I have used one of the worst films in the 400 ASA world, the results were horrible.

 

To test, I then printed well exposed 100ASA film, and was surprised that with the naked eye, color grain could be seen. For example, a white car had distinct specks of blue, like inkjets often show.

 

If I must go via digital for film photography, I wonder why it is worth to continue with film.. since regular photo labs seem to have vanished where I live.

[focalpablo]

digital or b and w darkroom. well if i was to set up a printer etc to produce 20 x 24 inch prints on quality black and white paper then i would probably need to sell all of my internal organs to afford it, oh and then two years later i would have to sell my partners internal organs to upgrade.then of course i would get a virus on my hardrive and extra hard drive space and dont forget the computer upgrades , the scanner and the digi cameras, and all you have at the end would be sore eyes from a computer screen and a image that will in no way be as valuable or desirable as a hand crafted darkroom print.PERIOD. thats just the way it is guys. a traditional print will allways be a more desirabe investment proposition and just better.

 

my darkroom cost me 100 euros to set up , and will print 20 x 24 inch and larger if i can find the paper sizes lol

 

the darkroom allows a equal and level playing field, digital is a money orientated corporate ripp off.

 

and of course digital guys will allways compare there work to tradional darkroom prints due to there green envy