# FILM + DIGITAL = PISSED



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

(let me preface this by saying "i know, i should dev and print my own film")

but help me out here.

i took a color 400 35mm roll in to my local super awesome pro photo finishing/dev company. got the prints back. it was expensive. not a prob. but when i scrutinized the pics... i saw the telltale crappy pixelated digital grain on the print. how could this be?! the whole point in shooting 35mm is the resolution and quality. found out a friend recently started working there in dev and he said they process your 35mm roll, scan the neg, and print that image/file ON AN INKJET.

am i crazy? or just oldschool?! what is the point in doing that?!

is this just how the industry is now? is it just more cost effective for the company to print this way? i'm a little pissed. i shoot digital and loooove pshop, so i'm not anti-tech by any means haha... i just love 35mm too.

thoughts?


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 11, 2008)

I do think that the vast majority of labs do use a digital process now.  The film is developed, then scanned then printed from that digital file.  I'm not sure what the print type is though...I didn't think it was inkjet though.

Most labs will reprint if you are not happy.  Maybe their main printer was down so they tried to sneak some poor ones by you...maybe something was set incorrectly...maybe your shots were exposed poorly and their 'fix' resulted in bad image quality.

Examine your negatives and ask for reprints.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 11, 2008)

you certainly mean you are *pissed off*, mate, right? 

Just getting *pissed *from combining film and digital only, would make my life much cheaper


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 11, 2008)

if you want high quality large scale prints from your film negatives, you will have to pay more I guess. Most labs these days do this via digital, which might result in poor quality for larger prints if it is purely done on "auto".

I would complain if the prints appear pixelated.


----------



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

(off) haha yeah, i'm not drunk... but with the way my workday is going... i will be after 5 lol!!

bigmike: true. i'll look into it more. as i recall (they're not in front of me) the negs were alright. maybe it is that printer... i wonder if their other 35mm customers see that too...


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 11, 2008)

gsga said:


> bigmike: true. i'll look into it more. as i recall (they're not in front of me) the negs were alright. maybe it is that printer... i wonder if their other 35mm customers see that too...



If the negatives were pixelated, then that would be a wonder indeed  For the negatives they have to use chemistry only, no digital step involved.


----------



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

alex thanks for your input! maybe i should just get a high end neg scanner, so i can control the quality myself in pshop? i was just a little suprised b/c the prints are the standard 3x5" and i can see the pixels... to the extent if i printed a similar tif file at home, i'd say it looks like it was 275 dpi or under. def not 300!


----------



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

lol i guess what bigmike was getting at is that if i had ****ty negs, they may have tried to 'shop them to make the print look better (and possibly not saving a high res file of that "adjustment")


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 11, 2008)

gsga said:


> alex thanks for your input! maybe i should just get a high end neg scanner, so i can control the quality myself in pshop? i was just a little suprised b/c the prints are the standard 3x5" and i can see the pixels... to the extent if i printed a tif file at home, i'd say it looks like it was 275 dpi or under. def not 300!



Something about their printing must be odd. I had several images printed by labs, sending them digital files (scanned from 35mm negative and slides) ... and I never saw pixelation, not even in larger scale printing.

scanning yourself and digital postprocessing takes quite some time per image. even with a fast scanner and fast computer.


----------



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

that's what i would think! if anything, they would have the BEST scanners and printing system... this co has been around forever and does a great business... so i was suprised. maybe it was a trainee that scanned them. (maybe it was my newly hired friend hahaha).

and yeah, even scanning prints at home 1200dpi... takes a million years.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 11, 2008)

They should have drum scanners, you cannot get better by scanning at home.

I suspect it is the printing ... just complain and tell them what you got is not acceptable.


----------



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

hell yes! power to the people!


----------



## OverlordXenu (Mar 11, 2008)

You shoot negs?


----------



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

35mm film, not slide


----------



## Double H (Mar 11, 2008)

I agree on the drum-scanner comment. If you are seeing pixelation, I'd wonder about the quality of either the printer, or the operator. I am getting wonderful prints from Epson Pro printers, and even at re-sampled sizes.


----------



## gsga (Mar 11, 2008)

hmm. wow. i have to call them and get the low down. go in and show them my prints...


----------



## Battou (Mar 11, 2008)

gsga said:


> that's what i would think! if anything, they would have the BEST scanners and printing system... this co has been around forever and does a great business... so i was suprised. maybe it was a trainee that scanned them. (maybe it was my newly hired friend hahaha).
> 
> and yeah, even scanning prints at home 1200dpi... takes a million years.



I would have to say you ended up with a noobie my self, I use a lack luster lab and yet never see this ( I see every other error possible but that is beside the point).

I scan my negs at home for digital display, scanning at 2710dpi takes but a few seconds for me....what preytell are you using???

*EDIT*
Scratch that, I misread your scanning comment, I saw prints and read negs lol


----------



## nealjpage (Mar 12, 2008)

And ask them if they know of any labs that still do optical enlargements.  I don't think you can beat the old fashioned way of doing things.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Mar 12, 2008)

I think laser light jet printers are the most commonly used machines today at less in my part of the US. And they usually have a scanner as past of the setup. But not sure if it is drum scanner.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 12, 2008)

Prints 5 x 3 and pixellated, I reckon they've been improperly scanned by some div they just took on, take them back n kick up. H


----------



## OverlordXenu (Mar 12, 2008)

nealjpage said:


> And ask them if they know of any labs that still do optical enlargements.  I don't think you can beat the old fashioned way of doing things.



I would love to find a lab like that. Anyone know of one where you can mail in slides and they'll do prints? What about huge wall-sized blow-ups?


----------



## Irminsul (Mar 13, 2008)

I recently had a batch developed and printec by the Kodak services offered via a BJ's in West Kendall (Miami), Florida.  Not only were the images sh***y, at least one of the images came out inverted!  I don't know how they managed that!  A park sign that should read "nature trail" actually read "liart erutan" instead.  I took the negatives to a more professional place (Wolf's) and had them correctly developed, then took both batches back to BJ's and demanded a refund for the lousy job done by the Kodak services.  This is the first time something remotely like this has happened to me.  Must be a sign of the times.  :x


----------



## gsga (Mar 13, 2008)

thanks everyone for your input... haven't gotten there yet. more pressing things to do... but i'll post the results

battou- a crap scanner! hahaha. its a cheap flatbed. i don't have the ability to scan negs. really. (but i still throw em on there if i want to design something in pshop and i don't care about the orig pic haha)

nealp- true. gotta find someone that goes to art school and has access to the color darkroom. my old school ID doesn't cut it anymore there 

flash- school me on the words DIV and KICK UP i'm american, we're not so good at the English language, lol

irminsul- that... is nuts! were the colors inverted, like a neg?! or just the image (mirrored)? maybe somebody hit Apple I instead of Apple S hahaha. that type of stuff blows your mind.


----------



## selmerdave (Mar 13, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> They should have drum scanners, you cannot get better by scanning at home.
> 
> I suspect it is the printing ... just complain and tell them what you got is not acceptable.



Drum scans are (in this city anyway) typically $35-$70 per frame, so I doubt they are doing that for general printing.

I would second the OP complaint, even though the quality is often "acceptable" I find it very frustrating to get digital artifacts in a print from film.  I've had the same results from Adorama, Duggal and other pro labs.  The only option is to get a custom optical print done, which BTW most pro places cannot/will not do with positive film.

Dave


----------



## Helen B (Mar 14, 2008)

selmerdave said:


> ...
> 
> I would second the OP complaint, even though the quality is often "acceptable" I find it very frustrating to get digital artifacts in a print from film.  I've had the same results from Adorama, Duggal and other pro labs.  The only option is to get a custom optical print done, which BTW most pro places cannot/will not do with positive film.
> 
> Dave



You should be able to get digital prints from scanned film that show no digital artefacts whatsoever.

Best,
Helen


----------



## selmerdave (Mar 15, 2008)

Hi Helen,

That's what I think too, but thus far my experience does not back that up.  As I said I am being picky and I'm not saying that they are bad prints or that most people would notice the digital artifacts, but they are there and I find that annoying.  I don't doubt people's accounts of getting better, but if I can't get it with a $45 8x10 I'm not exactly sure what it takes to get it.  In this case, I'm speaking of a print from transparency, for B&W or neg I would get an optical print made.

Dave


----------



## Alpha (Mar 15, 2008)

Last month I took a few rolls of 120 color neg (Fuji 160C if it matters) to my trusted local lab. All I wanted was contact sheets. Turns out the RA4 processor had died so I couldn't get a traditional contact sheet. They offered "digital" contact sheets, i.e. scan and laser RA4 print from their Noritsu. The images were pixelated. I repeat, the contact sheet was pixelated. I was flabbergasted.


----------



## Helen B (Mar 15, 2008)

selmerdave said:


> Hi Helen,
> 
> That's what I think too, but thus far my experience does not back that up.  As I said I am being picky and I'm not saying that they are bad prints or that most people would notice the digital artifacts, but they are there and I find that annoying.  I don't doubt people's accounts of getting better, but if I can't get it with a $45 8x10 I'm not exactly sure what it takes to get it.  In this case, I'm speaking of a print from transparency, for B&W or neg I would get an optical print made.



What sort of digital artifacts are you seeing? When you say a $45 8x10, how was it originated and how was it printed? If you want, I can show you or send you a 20 x 30 that was scanned from a 35 mm Kodachrome slide and digitally printed, all for less than $45 in total, and you can judge whether or not it shows digital artifacts.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 15, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Last month I took a few rolls of 120 color neg (Fuji 160C if it matters) to my trusted local lab. All I wanted was contact sheets. Turns out the RA4 processor had died so I couldn't get a traditional contact sheet. They offered "digital" contact sheets, i.e. scan and laser RA4 print from their Noritsu. The images were pixelated. I repeat, the contact sheet was pixelated. I was flabbergasted.



they should not be pixelated.

with 120 the resolution of even lower-end scanners is high enough to produce non-pixelated images even with some magnification.

Also today's printers are good enough.

so it must have been a problem of the people operating all this. maybe even the software.


----------



## Alpha (Mar 15, 2008)

Of course they shouldn't be pixelated. That's one reason why I like working with local labs/printers. If they screw up, it's much easier to deny payment.

Once I dropped a few rolls off at a different lab. I asked for contact sheets of each. One of them I had accidentally mis-set my shutter speed and so there was shutter drag on the whole roll. They printed the contact sheet anyway and then charged me for it. So I laughed at them.


----------



## Early (Mar 15, 2008)

gsga said:


> (let me preface this by saying "i know, i should dev and print my own film")
> 
> but help me out here.
> 
> ...


I'm not understanding this.  In order to get a pixelated print, they would have had to drastically reduce the original resolution of the neg to almost a postage size file and then printed from that.


----------



## nealjpage (Mar 15, 2008)

I guess it also begs a larger question:  if what you end up with is a digitally enhanced image anyway, why not just shoot digital?  That's in now way what I advocate, and one of the reasons I use the lab I do:  their work is still optical.

I dunno, man.  I understand your frustration.


----------



## Battou (Mar 15, 2008)

nealjpage said:


> I guess it also begs a larger question:  if what you end up with is a digitally enhanced image anyway, why not just shoot digital?  That's in now way what I advocate, and one of the reasons I use the lab I do:  their work is still optical.
> 
> I dunno, man.  I understand your frustration.



As far as getting digital printouts of our film shots that is a comprimise many are forced to make to keep film going, many with out knowing it. 

There are still a great many people using the cheap disposable film cameras who literally want nothing but pictures. I saw some of those disposable cameras on the a store shelf for as little as 1 USD (non-reduced price), for the price of a roll of film you can get three or four of these things, It should come as no surprise that labs all over the world are cutting costs and doing things in the easiest way possible to keep up with them.


----------



## Helen B (Mar 16, 2008)

Battou said:


> As far as getting digital printouts of our film shots that is a comprimise many are forced to make to keep film going...



Though it may be seen as a compromise when comparing the results of mini-labs, digital post-processing of film is not a compromise at all for some of us - in fact it increases the versatility of film as far as I'm concerned. With colour negative film, for example, it makes it much easier to use the full dynamic range of the film. 

The ability to apply different colour corrections to different film densities makes it possible to correct for lighting mismatch (eg daylight negative film in tungsten lighting) and for colour crossover to an extent that would be impracticable using purely optical means.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Battou (Mar 16, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Though it may be seen as a compromise when comparing the results of mini-labs, digital post-processing of film is not a compromise at all for some of us - in fact it increases the versatility of film as far as I'm concerned. With colour negative film, for example, it makes it much easier to use the full dynamic range of the film.
> 
> The ability to apply different colour corrections to different film densities makes it possible to correct for lighting mismatch (eg daylight negative film in tungsten lighting) and for colour crossover to an extent that would be impracticable using purely optical means.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I understand that, I am talking on a more general usage standpoint. I reprocess everything I do digitally at home simply because my lab sucks, Here is the truth of the compromise. The results of the common mini-labs won't hold a candle to what pro labs and skilled home labs can do and not everyone has quick access to the better labs. That is why I strongly discourage people from doing the "Photo CD" thing from wal-mart and the like, because they don't do "digital post-processing" They do some half baked color correction done by people who are happy having a job and not by people who actually care what goes out the door. Adequate film enabled scanning equipment can be bought on the cheap and and with some practice will have far superior results than anything you would get from a standard issue lab for the most part. Printing at home may not be spectacular with some of the higher end equipment but there is a way around that, but I won't endorse it until I have tried it and have seen the results for my self so. I'll look more into in on Monday when I go pick up some film I sent out the other day.





What caught my eye about this thread originally was the fact the lab used in this occasion was not your standard issue half baked processor, then Max's issue only engraved my original sentiment further, that being a trainee error.

and last but not least, you know me well enough by now. I can't just let a "why not just shoot digital" comment go unpunished despite being disclaimed ......even if it is from some one more known for film shooting than my self


----------



## nealjpage (Mar 16, 2008)

Battou said:


> and last but not least, you know me well enough by now. I can't just let a "why not just shoot digital" comment go unpunished despite being disclaimed ......even if it is from some one more known for film shooting than my self



Hey, I was having a bad day! 

But seriously, for me, I always know that when I process my black and white film that I can make the enlargements I want.  And when I send my color film out to the lab, I know I'm going to get some good negatives back and, if I choose, can get quality enlargements, too.  The main reason I scan my negatives and slides is to share them, not to digitally enhance them.  I don't have Photoshop or any other sort of pro software to work with.  I use the crap that comes with my Epsom scanner and Microsoft picture crap (whatever it is that comes with Office).

I'm not sure about the point of my rant here--I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet.  But I think my point is this:  I work with film and optical enlargements because I like them and feel that I get a different result, as crazy as that sounds.  And to have the work hybridized undermines what I want to do.  Not sure if that's the OP's point or not.  So, like I said, if all we film users end up with is some sort of half-assed digitally enhanced cyborg thing, why not just put the K1000 or the FE or the Hassy on the bookshelf for a conversation piece and accept our fates?

Wow.  I thought I was in a better mood today!  I'll have my coffee and I'll feel better.


----------



## Battou (Mar 17, 2008)

nealjpage said:


> So, like I said, if all we film users end up with is some sort of half-assed digitally enhanced cyborg thing, why not just put the K1000 or the FE or the Hassy on the bookshelf for a conversation piece and accept our fates?



Because destiny is what you make of it, If we just shelve the the Hassies, Leicas and AE-1s Digital will become our destiny and we will be left with no chioce but to accept it. It's because of Dedicated film shooters that you do still have the option to get optical enlargements with out having to do it your self.





Battou said:


> Adequate film enabled scanning equipment can be bought on the cheap and and with some practice will have far superior results than anything you would get from a standard issue lab for the most part. Printing at home may not be spectacular with some of the higher end equipment but there is a way around that, but I won't endorse it until I have tried it and have seen the results for my self so. I'll look more into in on Monday when I go pick up some film I sent out the other day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I looked into this way around theroy today, I have to say the results where acceptable given the half hearted effort I put into it. 

What I did was took a non-processed image directly out of my scanner down to Rite-aid and had an 8x10 printed off my flash drive with their mini-lab equipment. The results wher far superior to the 4x6 I got from the sendout lab, so it works, the process needs to be honed a little but it can be done with out problems, for under 5 dollars.


----------



## gsga (Mar 18, 2008)

the moral of this story might be that we can all make a nice wage in our respective towns... if we all opened up home based (low overhead) optical labs/service!


----------



## Battou (Mar 18, 2008)

gsga said:


> the moral of this story might be that we can all make a nice wage in our respective towns... if we all opened up home based (low overhead) optical labs/service!



Incorrect, the moral of this story is, "It's not the equipment used, it's the idiot behind the equipment"

I used a discontinued film scanner and scanned my negitive at less than a quarter of it's potential (some where around 400-500 dpi I think) and then went down and used the drugstores minilab (witch is constantly breaking down) and printed a sharp 8x10 that far surpassed the 4x6 I recieved from the send out lab.

Old film scanner + unrelyable mini-lab machinery + half hearted effort by me = acceptable results. Why....Because I have half an idea as to what I am doing and actually care how the print comes out. I am sure that if I sat down and did some math I could get a perfect print out of that machine right there at the drug store.

unrelyable labtechs are to blame for what happened to you not the process. If you get bad prints like that again you can refuse it and demand it be done right or redo it your self the same way they do it, or even just quit paying $45 for an 8X10 entirely. 

Another thing you could do is take nealjpage's rout and look specifically for an optical lab.


Both Alpha and Helen B have extencive knowledge in film processing, they'll tell you the same thing.


----------



## Early (Mar 22, 2008)

Battou said:


> I used a discontinued film scanner and scanned my negitive at less than a quarter of it's potential (some where around 400-500 dpi I think) and then went down and used the drugstores minilab (witch is constantly breaking down) and printed a sharp 8x10 that far surpassed the 4x6 I recieved from the send out lab.


I used the HP 20s, and scanning at the optical max of 300 dpi made me wonder why anyone would even opt for digital.  Unfortunately, it became obsolete when I bought a new computer.


----------



## Irminsul (Mar 23, 2008)

gsga said:


> irminsul- that... is nuts! were the colors inverted, like a neg?! or just the image (mirrored)? maybe somebody hit Apple I instead of Apple S hahaha. that type of stuff blows your mind.


 
I haven't figured out yet what they did or how it could have been done. I guess it took some doing.  The guy at the other lab couldn't believe it until he took a loupe and read the inverted sign!  The Kodak?BJ prints were all crappy big time - lousy quality.  But how theymanaged to invert the image I just don't know.


----------



## Battou (Mar 23, 2008)

gsga said:


> battou- a crap scanner! hahaha. its a cheap flatbed. i don't have the ability to scan negs. really. (but i still throw em on there if i want to design something in pshop and i don't care about the orig pic haha)



Go to Staples, Office Depot or the like, You should be able to get a film enabled Canon LiDE for around a hundred (UDS)



Early said:


> I used the HP 20s, and scanning at the optical max of 300 dpi made me wonder why anyone would even opt for digital.  Unfortunately, it became obsolete when I bought a new computer.



I use a Canon Canoscan FS2710 dedicated, I used to scan everything at maximum but it was taking up too much space on my computer, So I have been scanning at around 400 and 500 dpi and it's more than enough for most of my applications.


----------

