Digital prints from negatives
I live in a city with two recognized, well-established, "real" photo shops,
which sell cameras, lenses, darkroom chemicals etc, have apparently
knowledgeable staff and do processing. Both have good reputations, founded
in pre-digital days, but neither seems capable of producing a simple, decent
4x6 print from a scanned negative, despite endless publicity hype about
their levels of skill and service.
On first glance, at arm's length, prints seem bright and sharp. But just a
cursory closer examination, even without a loupe, shows a complete lack of
detail ,especially in shadows (e.g. you can't read a street sign in the
middle distance), unnatural and inaccurate colours, thick sharpening lines
that provide only an illusion of sharpness, and a noticible overall
fuzziness. I don't think this is down to my photo technique since I've been
into photography for 30+ years, including darkroom work, and have hundreds
of sharp prints made optically. (One of the stores can still produce optical
prints, which are certainly of a higher quality than their digital. But
they seem reluctant to do this and are phasing the service out). I've tried
going further afield - mailing film to approved "Kodak Labs" through
drugstores etc. Same outcome - lousy prints. (BTW both labs do produce good
enough digital prints from original digital images).
So what's the problem? I know from reading this and other discussion groups
that very good prints from scanned negs are possible. If amateurs can do it
on relatively downmarket equipment, why can't professionals on top of the
line equipment? Do they lack technical knowledge, do they simply not care,
do they scan at the lowest possible resolution to save time and effort, or
what? Or are my experiences unique (doubt it!) I can't be bothered getting
into home scanning and I still like to use color negative film for handiness
and its exposure latitute. But I'm frustrated in trying to find good quality
prints.
An additional downside - over the years I've built up a nice collection of
35mm gear (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus). But what's the point in selecting your
favourite Nikkor or Takumar lens, and preferred film for some particular
project, if it's all going wind up as a lowest-common-denominator poor
quality print. Might as well use a plastic lens Kodak disposable camera!
This is not a film v. digital rant , but a genuine query on the difficulty
in getting good commercial prints from scanned negs.
Norm Fleming
|
|
