Printing color negatives: is digitalization good or bad?

[ilya_khotimsky]

<p>I am thinking about getting back to film photography. Back in my high school years in 1990s, I could develop my own B&W film and make traditional optical prints using an enlarger at home. For the color film, I just took pictures, then brought the film to the lab to develop and make prints. I have never knew for sure how those color prints were made, but I assumed there was a printing machine passing the light through the color negative (using the color correction if necessary) exposing the color photographic paper, then the prints went thought the developer and fixer, were washed, dried and then the prints were ready. Correct me if i am wrong. As of today, to my knowledge this process is not available anymore. At least, I don't know any commercial lab in the US that does that kind of "wet optical printing". Nowadays, they will develop the film, then scan the negatives and then either print them on an inkjet printer as digital files, or use the LightJet or the <a title="Durst" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durst#Lambda_and_Theta_photographic_printers">Lambda</a> <a title="RGB" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB">RGB</a> lasers to expose light-sensitive paper, which then gets developed. Even though the labs keep on calling the second process "traditional optical printing", it is not quite traditional, because it's not the negative itself, but its scanned digital copy is printed. So, does that mean that we no longer have a true analog color printing available? Does that mean the scanning is an inevitable step between the color negative and the print? My understanding is that in such a case the quality of the scanning determines the quality of your final print. Do we loose something, like the dynamic range, colors or the unique "film look" because of the scanning? Or maybe scanning is actually an advantage, because now we can color-correct the film scan in the Lightroom or Photoshop? Please, share your thoughts.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I don't know if there is no lab that does true printing or not but I know it's hard to find. Up to 2 years ago I did all my own color printing in my darkroom but I now have given up. The cost of things is sky high and it's difficult to get supplies. There are a good number of people pick up the darkroom again but mostly B&W. I tend to think color true analog prints will be extinct before their B&W counterpart does. </p>

[Bill C]

"Even though tt labs keep on calling the second process "traditional optical printing", it is not quite traditional, because it's not the negative

itself, but its scanned digital copy is printed. "

 

To me, "traditional optical printing" means that an image of the negative is projected directly onto the light-sensitive paper. If a lab told me

otherwise, I'd ask why do they call it that? I'm pretty certain there are still labs doing optical printing.

 

I've got quite a lot of lab experience, and to get the best optical prints, you should probably use a professional film with an appropriate

professional paper as recommended by the manufacturer. The chemical processing should be well-controlled, as measured from "process

control strips." Where I come from we did portrait work on the Kodak professional portrait films of the time. The only corrections one can

do normally are to adjust printing exposure, meaning the overall lightness/darkness of the print, as well as the overall color adjustment. If

conditions are not just right, you are liable to end up with what they call a color cross, where highlights may have one color, but shadows

have the opposite. Such a thing is basically uncorrectable, at least without (expensive) special means.

 

If they do things digitally, all of the color issues are potentially correctable, depending on the skill of the technicians. And, as you

mentioned, the quality of the original scan can set a limit on the quality of the final print. The greater the degree of enlargement, the more

this comes into play.

 

The only real deficiency I would say digital has is that printing machines are mostly limited in the fineness of detail they can print. Optical

printing at relatively low enlargement can deliver much finer detail to the paper. But this is largely beyond the ability of the unaided human

eye to see, so mostly doesn't matter.

[ilya_khotimsky]

<p>Actually I found ONE link to a lab that claims they do true optical prints. They say: "your images are projected through a lens directly onto photo paper, providing a unique analog quality that's hard to find in the digital world". Here is the link: http://www.bluemooncamera.com/120DevIH.php<br>

Has anyone tried their services?</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>If you're sure you want traditional analog printing keep trying, because certainly here in the UK I can find this product still available at a few pro labs. Not cheaply though, and I think you'll find larger prints easier to find than analog develop & print packages for small, proof-sized prints.</p>

<p>My experience, though its mainly with having large prints made from slides not negs, tells me that I could get better, where necessary bigger more controllable prints by printing from a LightJet or Chromira using a drum scan than by using the labs enlargers. Bear in mind too that the papers used for that type of digital printing are very similar indeed to the papers used for traditional C type colour prints. May not be any cheaper though since quality drum scans continue to be rather expensive, and I'm not guaranteeing that I'd have drawn the same conclusions from cheaper scans. It does help to be able to be able to adjust colours when preparing the print files. </p>

<p>Unless you're just talking about proof sized prints ( which I think might well be quite hard to find as traditional analog since they're made in mini labs that in essence have been digital for many years now) the use of an analogue route will require you to consider which negs you want to print . </p>

[glen_h]

<p>When audio CDs first came out, there were many who didn't like the digital sound, and kept vinyl disks going for some years more.</p>

<p>Still, I prefer digital optical prints over inkjet. Digital optical is more affordable, as the labor costs are lower. Also, digital optical is as easy from slides, no internegative and no reversal paper needed. <br>

In the pre-digital days, prints from slides were much more expensive than prints from negatives.<br>

For many years, I had two cameras, one for slides, one for negatives. It was easier to do that, than to get prints from slides. </p>

<p>In quantity, 4x6 prints are easy to find for USD0.10 or so. I believe shutterfly still does digital optical printing, some others use dye sublimation, which I don't like as much.</p>

<p>For larger prints, the cost of the labor might be small enough compared to the print, but most often I get digital optical prints. I have gotten 16x20 prints from Shutterfly, but never analog optical prints that size. </p>

<p>If you look up Fuji crystal archive you find it designed for exposures down to the microsecond range. I believe this is also used for type C prints with an enlarger. <br>

While there are cheap scanners around, it isn't so hard to get most of the resolution out of a 35mm negative or slide. I have a ScanDual IV which gets about 24MP from a 35mm frame, no interpolated pixels or Bayer filters. And that isn't all that high as scanners go. It isn't hard to resolve the grain on a Tri-X negative. </p>

<p>Overall, I find the reduction in price a big advantage, and if done right, a reasonable choice.</p>

 

[rossb]

<p> I guess I do not know if the digitization thing is good or bad. Camera stores and labs are mostly gone these days especially if you live in a rural area. The small business is gone and the jobs are gone. However from my world I would just like to complete the entire process myself as I feel like it's my photo afterwards. Currently I develop B/W film at home and then scan, clean up a few dust spots if I have any and adjust the tones in photoshop and print on my inkjet. I seem to get excited by about 20% of my photos and I print them out. </p>

<p> I wanted a Domke F6 camera bag last week. It's a made in America product and I like them. My wife and I made a day out of it and drove to Keeble and Schuchatt in Palo Alto, Ca to pick one up and they said they do not like Domke bags and are going to drop the line because they cost to much. I looked around a bit and realized there is no reason for me to go to the camera store again as they have nothing that I want. I purchased the bag from BHPhoto for $80.00 and it's great. Glad to have it. It holds my F100, my 28mm and 50mm lens and room for film and other stuff if I had any. </p>

<p>I guess to the point I do not know of a place that does true optical printing. I imagine anything is possible if you look for it and are willing to pay the price. I watched a video a couple days ago and this guy has a van with a darkroom in it. He coats his own large format plates on site and takes photos with his much larger then normal sized large format camera. It was awesome but way out of my price range. His artwork is his creation from start to finish and different then anyone I have known.</p>

<p> I guess something is up at Illford which may be bad for B/W film photography. Rumors of huge price increases floating around to make the B/W film guys wonder what is coming down the pipe. Fuji just announced another price increase also. </p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>Ilya - I've used Blue Moon for developing, but not printing. Their developing has been great, if not the cheapest, and I would suspect they do as good a job as possible on printing. Most professional level labs that still do film are the better ones, imo, because the lesser ones have been weeded out by the market. Another lab (if you're closer to the East coast) is Prauss - http://www.4photolab.com/about-us/ I'm not completely sure they make optical prints, but they might. </p>

[ilya_khotimsky]

<p>Thank you everybody for your recommendations!<br>

I see there are a lot of options today regarding the image capture and subsequent printing. I see at least 5: digital image to inkjet print, digital to laser optical print, film-scan to inkjet, film-scan to laser optical and the last, but not least-film straight to the paper without scanning. <br>

Regarding the scanner: I am thinking of getting one. Goal number one is to scan a bunch of my old 35mm negatives, some B&W, some color, some slides. Goal number two is to scan medium format film which I am planning to start shooting. So, a scanner with 35mm and medium format capabilities will be needed. </p>

 

[rob_calhoun]

<p>Labs may not make wet optical prints anymore, but materials are still available to make them in a home darkroom as I routinely do, as I shoot film and also develop it.</p>

[ilya_khotimsky]

<p>Rob, are you talking about wet prints in B&W or color? I have done B&W, but have no experience of printing color. Do you have to do a lot of color correction? On average, how many prints do you need to make from one negative to get it right in terms of exposure and color? I heard some people saying they spend the whole night in the darkroom and have 6-8 keepers at the end. I'd appreciate your input.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>If you want museum, or art studio, quality then it might take some tries.</p>

<p>The old favorite method is to balance for the average color. There are meters to do that, and it is what I believe that automated printing systems do. </p>

<p>Unicolor used to have a device that you would put on top of a small piece of color paper, put a diffuser over the lens, and it would expose through an array of different color filters, with the scene average. They you select the one closest to white, and read off the filters needed.</p>

<p>I believe the origin of the name Unicolor came from the filtering system. Because a full set of filters was expensive, they instead had a wheel with red, green, and blue filters. You expose each for the appropriate time, that is one (uni) color at a time. Later, a box of filters wasn't all that expensive, though they need to be above the lens. The filter wheel could be below the lens.</p>

<p>Each batch of paper has a starting filter pack suggestion. A whole roll, exposed with the same type of light source (such as daylight) should use the same filter pack. Then you only need to get exposure. Because of the low gamma for C41 film, the printing exposure needs to be more accurate than for black and white. </p>

[Bill C]

[Glen] "The old favorite method is to balance for the average color. There are meters to do that, and it is what I believe that automated

printing systems do."

 

Hi, for amateur printing beyond about 25 (?) years ago, an "average" (or "integrate to gray") was pretty common; most of the early 1 hour

minilab systems worked this way (yep, I have first-hand knowledge). Agfa's MSC series of mini-labs where the first to use scanners, and

this allowed "smart" corrections. In the years following, many machines were retrofitted with some sort of scanner (these were lo-res scanners for index print quality). But "serious" pro labs have never worked that way in my experience. (By serious, I mean doing enough volume to justify video color analyzers of the day, which cost about as much as a small house).

 

[ilya] "Do you have to do a lot of color correction? On average, how many prints do you need to make from one negative to get it right in terms of exposure and color? I heard some people saying they spend the whole night in the darkroom and have 6-8 keepers at the end. "

 

It just depends. If you don't have much experience, you might have to make 6 or 8 test adjustments to get a decent print. This is mainly because you misread the color error (perhaps it's too cyan, but you "read" it as blue) or don't know how large a correction to make. Or halfway through, your brain slips up and you go the wrong direction. A professional color corrector can probably do the same thing in one attempt. This is assuming a stable process; if you don't get consistent processing, you'll be chasing a moving target. There are a lot of fine details beyond this, for example you need a proper light to evaluate the test prints. Otherwise you may be surprised when you look at the prints in daylight the next morning.

 

There is a guy who goes by the name of Ctein who has written an advanced book on printing. He's made it available for free download; you might want to download and look through it. It's a pretty good book if you can follow it. I've worked in photography my entire adult life, and don't have any sense of how hard it is to read for the typical enthusiast (it was a long one night skim for me, but I'm already familiar with the great majority of topics).

[rob_calhoun]

<p>Ilya, I do both, but was talking about color wet prints. The number of test prints it takes generally depends on your experience. Understanding color theory helps when you are a beginner. So does working with properly exposed and processed negatives.<br>

<br /> I have established starting color enlarger settings for different types of films I work with (as different types of film have different inherent color balances), then make a small test print with the appropriate starting setting for a new negative of a given type. With a little luck I can get good color balance and density on the first print, but on average it might take 2-3 tries to get it to my preference. 6-8 prints to me means lack of experience or bad technique. The number of tries is reduced if your negatives are shot consistantly.<br>

<br /> Most home color printers use drums to develop in, but I use trays and solutions at room temperature and it makes making test prints fast, and developing in general is as easy as b&w. </p>

 

[Bill C]

Rob, as a point of interest, when you first learned to print color did it take you drastically more test prints? And did you learn on your own, or

did someone guide you? This might be useful information to Ilya. (For myself, I learned so long ago, I don't really remember how difficult it

was, plus I learned in a large lab.)

[donbright]

<p>The scan is important as the in camera technique providing the optimum negative or positive for the scan. When the target is lightjet printing and post processing a true luxury to the issue, its now once again a matter of knowing or seeing your result onscreen, I.E screen calibration and beyond that the proper color space and the knowing of what tonality lightjet printers are sensitive to. Meaning for my taste, warming the image for the screen and how it interprets on paper through lightjet, IMO lightjet presents warming to warm for a print, so I'm wary of that and compensate. Otherwise, a strong piece of film, properly scanned for example with a Tango scanner, printed via lightjet, is a beautiful thing. Expensive? Yes, but incubate the image in question as to whether or not it warrants a lightjet process. These qualified images are few and far between. Also good scanning not only means a clean look, but the best scans dig out information in the shadows.</p>

[rob_calhoun]

<p>Bill, I learned on my own. I don't remember it taking me much longer to arrive at a good print than it does now. Maybe I just learned quicker than most. It is also true that some people just can't see color as well as some so that could be a factor with others. As I alluded to earlier, changing film types was my biggest problem. A lot of the learning, though, is knowing the basics of color theory (which I learned before beginning printing) and paying close attention to what is happening in your prints when you change exposure and color settings. For beginners it may be helpful to record settings on test prints and keep them for study as they are learning.<br /><br /></p>

[Bill C]

Thanks Rob. One thing I remember doing as a kid was to periodically go the wrong direction - if it was too blue, I would

sometimes end up making the print even more blue. At that time it was pretty helpful to have notes on all my adjustments

so I could clearly see where I went wrong. (In those days we were putting together a stack of Kodak CP filters) The thing

that really cured me of that (wrong direction) was a magazine article; the author said the rule of color-correcting is to

"Always do the wrong thing." I found this to be foolproof as a rule.

[glen_h]

<p>For color negative printing, you want half the value of the opposite color that makes it look right.</p>

<p>The half is due to the large gamma of color print paper, that makes up for the small gamma of film.</p>

<p>My first color printing was with Ektachrome 1993 paper, which doesn't have that problem. Once you get the filters right, and assuming the slides are close to right color balance, it isn't so hard to get right.</p>

<p>And yes, I was thinking about 25 years ago. </p>

[Bill C]

[Glen] "For color negative printing, you want half the value of the opposite color that makes it look right.

 

The half is due to the large gamma of color print paper, that makes up for the small gamma of film."

 

Glen, that's not quite right. If one uses the "viewing filters," the normal method is to hold the filter roughly midway between the print and eye,

flipping it in and out of the viewing path. The correction should be roughly the SAME value (but opposite direction) as the viewing filter. You

DON'T double it.

 

It's true that the paper gamma (roughly contrast) is pretty steep, but this is already compensated by the viewing method. If you were to lay the viewing filter down on top of the test print, THEN you would (roughly) halve the value.

[barry_r]

<p>"Do we loose something, like the dynamic range, colors or the unique "film look" because of the scanning? Or maybe scanning is actually an advantage, because now we can color-correct the film scan in the Lightroom or Photoshop?"</p>

<p>As someone just starting out with a medium format film camera, this is what I am trying to understand. I would want to use film to improve upon what I can get with digital mainly in color gamut, which I am assuming is better in film compared to digital. But if you scan the film, either with a flat bed scanner or a digital camera, aren't you again limited to the color gamut of digital and so defeating the very purpose for using film? (I am not considering high end photomultiplier type scanners for economy reasons).</p>