Digital v. enlarger printing

[mark_heseltine1]

Hello,

 

I shoot film (colour, negative, 100 iso, kodak or fuji) using a Nikon

F3HP with 28mm f/2.8 E series or 50mm f/1.2 lens. I use a local high

street lab for processing and printing. The lab now uses a digital

printer. I do not like the print results. They are reminiscent of 3D

images - a double image but ever so slightly offset to each other. The

effect, say, on snowcapped mountains against a blue sky is to create a

red edge between the snow and the sky. White buildings show the same

effect. Dark hair against white has a peacock blue shimmer. Overall

the image appears sharp but blurred -> like a 3D image.

 

Has anyone experienced this effect? If digital printing is not up to

the standard of bulb printing, then I want out of film.

 

Any comments very much appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

Mark

[roger_smith4]

I've never seen anything like you are describing so don't give up on digital printing just yet.

[james_lai]

I know what you mean. A couple of years ago my local supermarket minilab (ok, I know that's not exactly "high street") switched to digital machines and I noticed the same effect, although yours sounds worse. Not so much on focussed objects, but more on backgound objects where the bokeh becomes distinctly dotty looking. Perhaps their machine needs some tweaking?

 

It did bother me for a while (and now that you reminded me...), but then I just take snapshots of the kids and family so I can live with it. If I was producing something more artistic, I'd be really p-o'd.

[jonathan_traupman]

It sounds as though the something is out of alignment in the minilab machine. Most of these machines use three colored lasers to expose paper, so I imagine it's possible for them to become misaligned. Properly maintained, digital minilabs can produce excellent prints, and I've never seen results like you describe. With a skilled operator, prints from a digital minilab will often exceed ones from an analog machine, because the printer can adjust constrast, sharpness, etc. that one can't control with an analog minilab.

 

I'd say it's a sign that the lab doesn't take machine maintainance seriously, and would suggest you try a more professional outfit. If they're not keeping their minilab tuned up, what else are they neglecting? (Chemicals, cleaning the rollers, etc.).

 

-Jon

[robert_martin5]

I think your lab has problems with their digital process. I use both digital and film. I have a film scanner and scan all my film. Prints are as good as enlarger prints and in most cases better. I supply the lab a digital file, do not let them scan anything - maybe the problem is with the lab scanner. High quality scans at a lab are expensice - cost varies by file size and can be $40 or more per image for a drum scan.

[John Crowe]

A really good lab that knows what it is doing will give you an old fashioned print done with an enlarger and wet processing. They know it will beat a digital print from a scan of your negative and at the same or less money. The only way to get close to the wet process involves an expensive scan and an expensive LightJet print, and I know that this method is suggested more for slides. As the others have said look for another lab. Good luck.

[wbowman]

Since you said "high street" I'll presume you live in the UK. I agree with everyone else that

you should first try a different lab. I'm in London and I'm lucky enough to have a couple of

Boots, Snappy Snaps, Colorama, and Jessop's all conveniently located within a short walk

from my home and/or work. I have tried them all and have found wildly varying results

with respect to color balance, contrast, etc. I generally have C41 color and black & white

processed and printed and then I scan them myself when I find a "proof" I really like. I've

learned that you can't really judge the negative by what you get from the mini-lab prints

and that the quality of each varies from day to day depending on the operator or the

maintenance of the machine. If you want consistent, repeatable results, your best option is

to pay the extra cost of a professional lab. At least you'll be able to complain to someone

who might be able to fix the issue you're seeing.

[steve_swinehart]

"If digital printing is not up to the standard of bulb printing, then I want out of film."

 

Very strange statement. Okay. Then what are you going to do? If you use a digital camera, then you'll either have the same place print the images, or you'll need to buy a printer.

 

If the same lab prints the digital images, chances are the results will be the same if their digital printer is out of adjustment.

 

As a digital print from film requires two steps (film scan then a print) either the scanner portion of their printer or the printing portion of the printer is out of adjustment.

 

You can diagnose this by asking them for a copy of the scan and looking at it on your computer. If the fringing shows up on the scan, then that's the problem with their digital printer. If the scan looks okay, then the problem is with the printing function in the digital printer.

 

Have you talked with them about the unacceptable quality of the prints?

 

This isn't a digital print problem, it's a poor quality lab problem - only you can solve that problem.

 

Either talk with them or find a better lab.

 

Or, buy a scanner and printer and do your own prints.

 

Good digital printing and good wet lab printing from 35mm film look the same up to about 11x14. With larger prints, a quality scan and a LightJet print will look better.

[mark_heseltine1]

Many thanks for the very constructive answers.

 

I have indeed spoken to the lab (its a specialist camera shop in Canada with a number of outlets and it does its own processing so it ought to have noticed a problem) who have taken some of my negatives for reprinting at one of their other outlets for comparison. As a control, I've asked a local kodak based lab to reprint some shots with their wet process to confirm my camera is not at fault. (Unfortunately, the kodak lab is due to close down in September!) If I learn anything useful I will pass it on. Thanks for the replies.

 

Mark

[robert goldstein]

"A really good lab that knows what it is doing will give you an old fashioned print done with an enlarger and wet processing. They know it will beat a digital print from a scan of your negative and at the same or less money. The only way to get close to the wet process involves an expensive scan and an expensive LightJet print..."

 

This does not match my experience at all. I get better prints from my lab's Noritsu digital printer than I every did from a traditional "pro" lab. Add in the editing of scanned film that I can do in Photoshop, and it isn't even close. Besides, you'll have an increasingly hard time finding wet chemistry labs nowadays, so I would suggest finding a digital lab that can produce high quality output.

[jtk]

Scan your negs at 4000ppi and print with a recent Epson printer. Better than an enlarger...sharper, more accurate, more subtle, more archival.

 

If you're serious about quality, do your own.

[scott_eaton]

The problem here, as we've discussed a billion times in the past, is the integrated scanners built into modern mini-labs. Has nothing to do with the printing because they are strictly garbage in - garbage out. Anyday you want to compare optically printed 16x20s from your film vs my properly scanned LightJet prints, be my guest. You'll lose.

 

A good solution is a compromise with the above; do your own scanning and use the labs for out-put. End of problem.

[john_shriver]

Mark, you may also be seeing artifacts from turning the software sharpening up too high. They think that your average bloke wants the sharpest picture, with the most saturated colors, and the highest contrast. "Wow, this minilab goes all the way up to 11!"

 

The digital minilabs are subject to awful abuse at the hands of idiots. Skiled operators can get a lot out of them. But you have to pay them a good bit more than "the dole" pays. (Or, as we would say on this side of the pond, "pay them more than minimum wage.")