Degradation of film during processing.

[DREW WILEY]

To do any of this is a fair objective manner, you'd need to OPTIMIZE any two competing options. The mere mention of an inkjet print means you're going to be knocked out in the first round compared to a well enlarged optical print.

Nikon 2 - you don't have an optical print in any manner whatsoever in what you described, once you have ANY kind of intervening digital workflow involved, which scanning implies. And a tiny cheap 4x6 snapshot sized print sure isn't going to tell you much.

 

[Nikon 2]

To do any of this is a fair objective manner, you'd need to OPTIMIZE any two competing options. The mere mention of an inkjet print means you're going to be knocked out in the first round compared to a well enlarged optical print.

Nikon 2 - you don't have an optical print in any manner whatsoever in what you described, once you have ANY kind of intervening digital workflow involved, which scanning implies. And a tiny cheap 4x6 snapshot sized print sure isn't going to tell you much.

The only optical print is the 4x6 photos.
I agree, once they’re scanned, they are digitized…!

 

[Film-Niko]

Very big images are compressed automatically when uploaded to the forum to save space.

O.k., thanks for the info.

 

[koraks]

Right, the flash drive is a premium scan of the optical print.

I don't think so. Ask Blue Moon whether they scan your prints or your negatives. They'll tell you that the scans you receive are made from your negatives. Don't take my word for it; ask them. Their website has a live chat you can use for this.

Anyway, your original question is a bit like "is there any quality loss when a painter applies the paint to the canvas compared to a pencil drawing". Evidently, there are many differences, and there are many places where materials and process choices will affect the final outcome. Focusing on 'development' or 'file transfer' isn't sensible. If you want a reasonable answer to your question, you'll end up rephrasing it into some form of the question whether analog is better than digital or not, and you can then rely on the vast number of publications that have taken a spin on this. To save you the time: it's a dead-end street. If there were a clear cut answer, either option would have vanished by now. Since they're both still around, apparently there's something to both of them that keeps people throwing money at it.

 

[Film-Niko]

You are unable to see the quality of the image on my monitor. I had to send it Airdrop with much lower resolution to you…!

No need to as it will not change anything.
I am doing photography for decades, film and digital.
I know how a high megapixel image is looking on a 2k or 4k monitor. I've had 50 MP digital medium format images on my computer screens.

Again: You cannot change mathematics and physics: The 50 MP digital medium format image on a 2k monitor is just a 2 MB resolution image. Period.
And the same file on 4k monitor is only a 8 MB image. Period.

The truth no digital photographer wants to hear is that if you are only using your computer monitor to see your pictures (and not doing big prints) using more than 12 MP cameras is just not needed and a waste of money. Technological overkill which just costs you lots of money as a photographer.
But as the majority is brainwashed by marketing and pushed into the "megapixel upgrading rat race" they are buying regularly new cameras which are in the end total overkill concerning the amount of megapixels.

With a 12 MP 35mm DSLR like the former Canon 5D or Nikon D700 you can make excellent 30x40cm prints.
And very good 40x60cm prints.
And still good 50x75cm prints.
But honestly, when I am talking at photographer meetings to those photographers who praise their newest megapixel monster cam how big they are printing.......then in 99% of the replies I hear "I don't print" or "max. 30x40 centimeter".
So honestly, they have wasted lots of money on a feature (high megapixel number) which they are simply not needing and using at all.

 

[Nikon 2]

I don't think so. Ask Blue Moon whether they scan your prints or your negatives. They'll tell you that the scans you receive are made from your negatives. Don't take my word for it; ask them. Their website has a live chat you can use for this.

Anyway, your original question is a bit like "is there any quality loss when a painter applies the paint to the canvas compared to a pencil drawing". Evidently, there are many differences, and there are many places where materials and process choices will affect the final outcome. Focusing on 'development' or 'file transfer' isn't sensible. If you want a reasonable answer to your question, you'll end up rephrasing it into some form of the question whether analog is better than digital or not, and you can then rely on the vast number of publications that have taken a spin on this. To save you the time: it's a dead-end street. If there were a clear cut answer, either option would have vanished by now. Since they're both still around, apparently there's something to both of them that keeps people throwing money at it.

I will…!

 

[snusmumriken]

This is from the Blue Moon website:

 

[Nikon 2]

No need to as it will not change anything.
I am doing photography for decades, film and digital.
I know how a high megapixel image is looking on a 2k or 4k monitor. I've had 50 MP digital medium format images on my computer screens.

Again: You cannot change mathematics and physics: The 50 MP digital medium format image on a 2k monitor is just a 2 MB resolution image. Period.
And the same file on 4k monitor is only a 8 MB image. Period.

The truth no digital photographer wants to hear is that if you are only using your computer monitor to see your pictures (and not doing big prints) using more than 12 MP cameras is just not needed and a waste of money. Technological overkill which just costs you lots of money as a photographer.
But as the majority is brainwashed by marketing and pushed into the "megapixel upgrading rat race" they are buying regularly new cameras which are in the end total overkill concerning the amount of megapixels.

With a 12 MP 35mm DSLR like the former Canon 5D or Nikon D700 you can make excellent 30x40cm prints.
And very good 40x60cm prints.
And still good 50x75cm prints.
But honestly, when I am talking at photographer meetings to those photographers who praise their newest megapixel monster cam how big they are printing.......then in 99% of the replies I hear "I don't print" or "max. 30x40 centimeter".
So honestly, they have wasted lots of money on a feature (high megapixel number) which they are simply not needing and using at all.

What’s amazing is I’m only getting a glimpse of what the MD 262 can do…!

 

[Nikon 2]

This is from the Blue Moon website:
View attachment 352273

What do you think about that…?

 

[snusmumriken]

What do you think about that…?

It's a film scanner, not a print scanner.

 

[Paul Howell]

Right, the flash drive is a premium scan of the optical print.
The 4x6 prints are optional printed…!

Are you sure the 4X6 are optical printed with an enlarger and not on a Frontier minilab? All of the late model minilabs, Fuji, Agfa and Nurtishnue sp?) scanned the negative then used a laser to print. Some of the older Agfa and Frontier scanners were refitted with inkjet printers. Older models used a high output halogen bulb and are printed optically. With a Frontier the customer can have prints and a CD or other storage device, made at the same time. If you take film to Walgreens or Walmart the film is sent off to be developed then scanned and emailed back to the store who prints on a inkjet and makes a CD, the negatives are destroyed, well sent to reclaim the sliver where it is destroyed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

This is boiling down to which is the lesser evil when one demands a dirt cheap little snapshot from an automated printing device, and has almost nothing to do with quality of capture, and certainly not with the original question. And why on earth is it still on the "analog" forum section?

 

[Nikon 2]

Are you sure the 4X6 are optical printed with an enlarger and not on a Frontier minilab? All of the late model minilabs, Fuji, Agfa and Nurtishnue sp?) scanned the negative then used a laser to print. Some of the older Agfa and Frontier scanners were refitted with inkjet printers. Older models used a high output halogen bulb and are printed optically. With a Frontier the customer can have prints and a CD or other storage device, made at the same time. If you take film to Walgreens or Walmart the film is sent off to be developed then scanned and emailed back to the store who prints on a inkjet and makes a CD, the negatives are destroyed, well sent to reclaim the sliver where it is destroyed.

Blue Moon is charging me for the optical printing done on the 4x6 prints…!

 

[Nikon 2]

It's a film scanner, not a print scanner.

Thanks for the correction…!

 

[chuckroast]

Please read what I have written. I am not talking about theory. I have made these comparisons using my normal equipment.

That notwithstanding, you are absolutely enduring transmission loss in the process. It's analogous to all mechanical systems having friction. There is no such thing as a lossless optical/mechanical/electrical/hydraulic ... system.

Whether its to an objectionable degree or not is an entirely different matter. It sounds like you are satisfied that that your losses are acceptable.

And that's the reason why we are using dodging and burning. To get the surplus information from the negative to the positive in those cases when needed.

Yes, we can adjust the tonal relationships with dodging and burning, but nothing we do can give us more than 5-6 stops of dynamic range on the final silver print. Again, this is an innate physical property of the material. No equipment or technique can overcome this. All we can change is which part of the tonal scale we will "place" within those notional 6 stops of range.

1) That was not the question of the OP.
2) In real world 99.999% of digital pictures are never printed, but only looked at on monitors. Meanwhile even mostly not on computer monitors anymore, but only on smartphones. That is just the bitter reality, whether we photo enthusiasts like it or not.
3) Almost all digital prints are done at max. 300dpi. That is less than what I get with optical enlargement of TMX, PanF+, Delta 100, HR-50, Acros.......negatives. I've been there, done these comparisons.
I have my reasons why I prefer traditional optical printing.

Agreed. The problem with digital isn't capture. It's getting high fidelity reproduction. That said, there are digital output media that are stunning and every bit the equal of an optically produced print, but they are nosebleed expensive. I'll stick with my very old Omega D II pushup and Componons

 

[DREW WILEY]

Film Niko - By the Blue Moon link even mentioning DPI, even outputted onto a chemical RA4 print medium, it's still a digital print, in this case, based on scanning and then tiny little LED dots - hardly a real continuous tone optical enlargement via a focused enlarger lens based on the original piece of film. Just another fashion of "machine print". Yes, they might charge a little more because there is an actual human stationed at a dedicated computer screen monitoring the intended output, but it's a still a far cry from a real custom print by a skilled craftsman.

Now it's time to roast Chuck : Yeah, I actually know an outfit which can equal or exceed typical darkroom enlarging results using high-end scanning and very high end industrial printing techniques. And how about this nose-bleed of a price? : a 40K minimum set-up charge per image. They'll even invent a new printing process if that is what is called for, or revive a long-gone one. Quite a few novel things can be done when a million dollar final sales tag is involved. But I happen to be perfectly content with my souped-up Durst enlargers and basic silver-gelatin printing papers, and am not the least bit worried about the possibility of digital alternatives intruding on their quality edge anytime soon. Different crowd, different expectations. The easier it gets, the rarer optimal quality is even considered anymore.

 

[chuckroast]

By the Blue Moon link even mentioning DPI, even outputted onto a chemical RA4 print medium, it's still a digital print, in this case, based on scanning and then tiny little LED dots - hardly a real continuous tone optical enlargement via a focused enlarger lens based on the original piece of film. Just another fashion of "machine print". Yes, they might charge a little more because there is an actual human stationed at a dedicated computer screen monitoring the intended output, but it's a still a far cry from a real custom print by a skilled craftsman.

In some sense, an analog negative is also just a bunch of "little dots" .. of grain. The continuous tone of such media is also just an apparent thing, albeit by different means.

Does anyone know or can they point to what the grain density of film (grain per inch) is for modern films? I'd be curious to understand what the boundary of resolution for modern film vs. modern sensors is, neglecting the limitation of the taking optics.

As to digitally sourced but RA4 printed prints. Before they shut down, I used Costco for print production. They took my digifiles and made chemically based prints from them. I used them because they had excellent process control, published their color profiles for every machine in the system, and were dirt cheap. I rarely shoot color and when I do, I don't want to be bothered with profiling every single device in the reproduction chain.

I can categorically say that for commercial purposes - weddings, portraits, industrial ... - they were every bit as good as the best color labs I've used over the years up to the limit of print size dictated by original sensor resolution. Because they were RA4 prints (or the equivalent) you got a "real" photo look from them that didn't have metamerism, ink stacking and all the rest that plagues ink jet prints.

I have no question that film, especially in larger formats, can deliver considerably better output at large print sizes than the digital->analog print chain can. That's why I still use it. But taking your favorite 4x5 neg and blowing it up to 20x24 to hang on the wall is of interest to a really tiny demographic of people. It's no accident that wedding, event, and commercial shooters are all using digital and their customers cannot tell the difference. At the sizes in question, I doubt most of us here could either.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have used Blue Moon in the past and was pleased with the prints, saying that I did not ask what a optical print means. Anyone know if they are using an enlarger, old school minilab, or a Frontier on R4 paper?

 

[Nikon 2]

I have used Blue Moon in the past and was pleased with the prints, saying that I did not ask what a optical print means. Anyone know if they are using an enlarger, old school minilab, or a Frontier on R4 paper?

They use very old and outdated equipment which they service regularly for optical printing…!

 

[Paul Howell]

Either a package printer or first generation minilab. I worked part time for a local Motophoto, the owner started with a standard optical minilab, it did a really good job, once calibrated it printed excellent up to 5X7. When the store upgraded to a Frontier, color seemed to me be a bit harsher, but it was so easy to use. Motophoto adjusted color and density for each print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nikon 2, it's perfectly obvious that you don't know the real difference. What does "really old" equipment mean in the present context? If color slides are submitted, scanning is mandatory to output onto RA4 media.

Chuck - you talk like a lawyer. NO. Film grain is not a bunch of little dots. Nor are color film dye clouds. Halftone is. Laser platens produce evident dots. And just because this particular thread is about 35mm work, why does it have to be limited to bottom feeder quality? If someone gets results they like at bargain pricing, that's commendable. But it hardly spells out the film potential of many a 35mm original, much less some bigger format. Do wedding photographers still exist? (now that everyone with a cell phone thinks they're one). Even wedding albums are getting scarcer than Ivory Billed Woodpeckers in striped pajamas.

 

[Nikon 2]

Nikon 2, it's perfectly obvious that you don't know the real difference. What does "really old" equipment mean in the present context? If color slides are submitted, scanning is mandatory to output onto RA4 media.

Chuck - you talk like a lawyer. NO. Film grain is not a bunch of little dots. Nor are color film dye clouds. Halftone is. Laser platens produce evident dots. And just because this particular thread is about 35mm work, why does it have to be limited to bottom feeder quality? If someone gets results they like at bargain pricing, that's commendable. But it hardly spells out the film potential of many a 35mm original, much less some bigger format. Do wedding photographers still exist? (now that everyone with a cell phone thinks they're one). Even wedding albums are getting scarcer than Ivory Billed Woodpeckers in striped pajamas.

All I know is Blue Moon does optical printing for my 4x6 prints…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you don't know how they do it, how can you state it's optical? What are we talking about here to begin with? - color slides? 35mm color negative film? Black and white film?

But I did check Blue Moon's website. Very similar to lab services available around here. RA4 color prints area available only up to 12X18 inches, which indicates an automated machine printer of some kind; bigger than that, they only offer inkjet. The fact that E6 shots (color slides, chromes) require mandatory scanning at a distinct upcharge tells us that those are being digitally printed. Black and white prints, however, appear to still be done with an enlarger. It's nice that they offer a range of services, and can develop many sizes of film.

 

[Nikon 2]

If you don't know how they do it, how can you state it's optical? What are we talking about here to begin with? - color slides? 35mm color negative film? Black and white film?

But I did check Blue Moon's website. Very similar to lab services available around here. RA4 color prints area available only up to 12X18 inches, which indicates an automated machine printer of some kind; bigger than that, they only offer inkjet. The fact that E6 shots (color slides, chromes) require mandatory scanning at a distinct upcharge tells us that those are being digitally printed. Black and white prints, however, appear to still be done with an enlarger. It's nice that they offer a range of services, and can develop many sizes of film.

Does this answer your questions…?

 

[Nikon 2]

Drew, tomorrow I’ll try to post the model names of the equipment used for their optical printing…!