Degradation of film during processing.

[Nikon 2]

As others have stated or asked, what sort of degeneration are you thinking about, loss of resolution, loss of apparent sharpness, increase in grain size? Then comparing digital to analog is sort of apples and oranges. With a high resolution digital sensor, low ISO, image taken in raw and viewed in raw on a properly calibrated monitor is going to have very highs resolution, at 11X14 good sharpness, and I doubt you see any pixilation. For detail work, hard to beat. On the other film, what film, B&W or color, what ISO, if color print or slide, if printed how, injet, R4? Then size, as this is a 35mm thread. In general using a ISO 100 speed film, properly developed, printed 11X14, camera on a tripod, remote or cable release good prime or high quality zoom, I don't think you could look at the negative and the print and say there was any loss. If using a slide film that is projected and compared to a 11 X 14 digital print made with a Fuji Frontier you would at least a subjective comparison.

All I’m saying is comparing the optical prints (flash drive) on my computer screen is not as realistic as those from the SD card using the MD 262…!

 

[chuckroast]

All I’m saying is comparing the optical prints (flash drive) on my computer screen is not as realistic as those from the SD card using the MD 262…!

If you're saying that the rendered image on the LCD of the camera looks better than that same image on a larger screen ... yup. The smaller image is going to tend to hide flaws and generally look snappier. Also, the comparison isn't really valid unless both the LCD and you larger monitor are fully calibrated. I'd guess (but do not know) that the Leica LCD is pretty close to correct (by some definition) but that your monitor is not.

If you're comparing viewing the image on a large screen directly from the SD card that was in the camera vs. a copy of that file on the flash drive and saying one is better than the other ... this makes no sense.

Digital does not have the generational degradation that analog does. Every time you copy/enlarge or even scan analog media, you loose some fidelity. A "perfect" 35mm negative, once enlarged will loose something in the process. By contrast, digital - absent a malfunction or bit rot - will faithfully and perfectly make generational copies of the original image file. Whether or not that file is as "good" as an equivalent analog image isn't for us to debate here...

 

[Nikon 2]

If you're saying that the rendered image on the LCD of the camera looks better than that same image on a larger screen ... yup. The smaller image is going to tend to hide flaws and generally look snappier. Also, the comparison isn't really valid unless both the LCD and you larger monitor are fully calibrated. I'd guess (but do not know) that the Leica LCD is pretty close to correct (by some definition) but that your monitor is not.

If you're comparing viewing the image on a large screen directly from the SD card that was in the camera vs. a copy of that file on the flash drive and saying one is better than the other ... this makes no sense.

Digital does not have the generational degradation that analog does. Every time you copy/enlarge or even scan analog media, you loose some fidelity. A "perfect" 35mm negative, once enlarged will loose something in the process. By contrast, digital - absent a malfunction or bit rot - will faithfully and perfectly make generational copies of the original image file. Whether or not that file is as "good" as an equivalent analog image isn't for us to debate here...

My guess is why the SD card to computer tends to be more faithful and realistic is it doesn’t suffer from generation loss…!
The Leica MD 262 does not have an LCD screen…!

 

[outrbrij]

Despite some of the replies on this thread sounding a little judgmental, you ask a very, very important question, and the answer is really layered. Per se, there is no degradation in processing - assuming it is ARCHIVALLY processed, film will not exhibit the usual problems after many years: bronzing, mold, fungus, residual chemical staining, etc. The other side of the question (the SD card) contains a hidden problem unique to the digital environment that no one talks about: Applications, OS's, file types, color spaces and other (vulnerable) digital artifices change very, very rapidly, and within 15 years these associated artifices become extinct (remember Photo CD? Burned to a gold-layered disc and had a physical lifetime of over 100 years (guaranteed by Kodak!), except that no one factored in the actual LIFE of the product. It was introduced in 1991, and was gone by 2004. I could rant for pages and pages, but remember that archivists and curators define an archival element as having two - and ONLY two - criteria: 1), It is something that can be held in the hand(s), and 2), incident light from the element (print) reflects to your eye or you hold the element (color slide) up to the light and light passes through it to your eye. Digital has not yet even begun to define a standard in this regard. I have the best of both worlds - I work the analog and digital photography worlds fluidly. But I feel so frightened for digital-only artists - they have no means, over time, by which they can reproduce what they did in 10 or 15 years, since much of the equipment and those "artifices" I mentioned previously will by then be extinct.

 

[Film-Niko]

My question is, during the film processing from negative to a 4x6 print, will result in a degradation otherwise absent from an SD card directly to the computer…!

If you are using an excellent enlarging lens, the loss in quality in the process of transferring the negative image to the positive image on the paper is negligibe.
You see that if you look at the negative with a 12-15 loupe or a microscope, and compare that to the positive on paper.
I have done that numerous times.

When you transfer your digital file to the computer and look at it on the computer monitor, you have of course the huge loss in quality caused by the extremely low resolution of the monitor.
Monitors have mostly only 2k (2MB) or 4k (8MB) resolution. Monitors are very low-resolving mediums.
So if you look at the file from your 24MB digital cam for example, you look at only an 8 MB picture on a 4k monitor, or only at an 2MB picture if you are using a 2k monitor.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some of you are basing this on what you see on a computer screen ??????!@%*&%*&^^%$WQ$#Q@ !!!! And who is going to spot a box of SD cards in an attic some day and bother to look at them? As it is, discs aren't good for much of anything anymore other than skeet shooting. And tapes before them? Just landfill. And the cloud? How secure do you think that will be if there's a serious e-War around the corner?

But the original question - loss of image content due to development? Well, I guess if you're sloppy enough and use sandpaper somewhere in the process. Otherwise, for all practical purposes, NO.

 

[Nikon 2]

If you are using an excellent enlarging lens, the loss in quality in the process of transferring the negative image to the positive image on the paper is negligibe.
You see that if you look at the negative with a 12-15 loupe or a microscope, and compare that to the positive on paper.
I have done that numerous times.

When you transfer your digital file to the computer and look at it on the computer monitor, you have of course the huge loss in quality caused by the extremely low resolution of the monitor.
Monitors have mostly only 2k (2MB) or 4k (8MB) resolution. Monitors are very low-resolving mediums.
So if you look at the file from your 24MB digital cam for example, you look at only an 8 MB picture on a 4k monitor, or only at an 2MB picture if you are using a 2k monitor.

Wow!
Not so bad from my 2K monitor…!

 

[Nikon 2]

I won’t use sandpaper anymore…!

 

[chuckroast]

If you are using an excellent enlarging lens, the loss in quality in the process of transferring the negative image to the positive image on the paper is negligibe.
You see that if you look at the negative with a 12-15 loupe or a microscope, and compare that to the positive on paper.
I have done that numerous times.

Weeeeelll, it depends on how much you magnify, your light source, whether the enlarger is aligned, and so forth. In theory your enlarging and printing process should be lossless, in reality, it never is.

Moreover, a well crafted negative can hold upwards of 15 stops of Subject Birightness Range, albeit the tonal relationships are not preserved faithfully. The best enlarging paper in the world is maybe good for 6 stops, if that. Carbon, Platinum, and Kallitype are perhaps a bit more but still nowhere near 15 stop.

So, enlarging or contact printing, there will always be some loss of fidelity to the negative.

When you transfer your digital file to the computer and look at it on the computer monitor, you have of course the huge loss in quality caused by the extremely low resolution of the monitor.
Monitors have mostly only 2k (2MB) or 4k (8MB) resolution. Monitors are very low-resolving mediums.
So if you look at the file from your 24MB digital cam for example, you look at only an 8 MB picture on a 4k monitor, or only at an 2MB picture if you are using a 2k monitor.

A fairer point of comparison would be a digital file printed on some reflected medium like digital to RA4 or inkjet on paper.

 

[Film-Niko]

Wow!
Not so bad from my 2K monitor…!

Are you kidding? That picture appears at very low resolution here on my monitor. Much much less quality than all my prints and transparencies.

You cannot fool physics: A 2k monitor has only 2 MB resolution, and that is a tiny fraction of what we get with optically enlarged prints and projected slides.

 

[Film-Niko]

Weeeeelll, it depends on how much you magnify, your light source, whether the enlarger is aligned, and so forth. In theory your enlarging and printing process should be lossless, in reality, it never is.

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

Moreover, a well crafted negative can hold upwards of 15 stops of Subject Birightness Range, albeit the tonal relationships are not preserved faithfully. The best enlarging paper in the world is maybe good for 6 stops, if that.

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.

A fairer point of comparison would be a digital file printed on some reflected medium like digital to RA4 or inkjet on paper.

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

I won’t use sandpaper anymore…!

Good as I still have a very good tape of Gloria Estevan and the Miami Sound Machine. It is not going to landfill and I vet every listener to it for sandpaper

pentaxuser

 

[Nikon 2]

Are you kidding? That picture appears at very low resolution here on my monitor. Much much less quality than all my prints and transparencies.

You cannot fool physics: A 2k monitor has only 2 MB resolution, and that is a tiny fraction of what we get with optically enlarged prints and projected slides.

It’s superb on mine…!

 

[Film-Niko]

It’s superb on mine…!

As stated above, when I click on it, the quality is very low and not acceptable to my standards.
Anyway, it doesn't matter at all how it looks on anyone's computer.
Physics and mathematics cannot be changed: A 2k monitor delivers only 2 MB resolution. Period.
And that is only a tiny fraction of an optical print or a slide.

When you are satisfied with that quality - fine for you.
I am not.

 

[Paul Howell]

Film has several characters, resolution, contrast, (tone), grain and apparent sharpness. Optical printing, enlarger, analog , from negative to print is one generation. With black and white film if the negative was developed to print on normal paper, (depending on the brand grade 2 or 3, most seem to use grade 2 as normal) a well made print should not lose much data. Resolution is all in the film, all papers can out resolve all films, grain size is dependent on the type of emulsion, Tgain or traditionally, developer and size of the print. R4 paper has only one printing grade, if properly printed and color corrected an optically printed negative should match the information contained in the negative. A minilab printed print is scanned then printed, either inkjet or R4, color, black and white, negative or slide film, so there is a scan between the negative and the print, the print is second generation. Is any information lost? I guess it depends on the quality of the scan.

 

[Nikon 2]

As stated above, when I click on it, the quality is very low and not acceptable to my standards.
Anyway, it doesn't matter at all how it looks on anyone's computer.
Physics and mathematics cannot be changed: A 2k monitor delivers only 2 MB resolution. Period.
And that is only a tiny fraction of an optical print or a slide.

When you are satisfied with that quality - fine for you.
I am not.

What I see from Airdrop on my phone and the monitor are completely different.
You probably got the jpeg and very low resolution of the RAW file sent by Airdrop…!

 

[Nikon 2]

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…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Film has several characters, resolution, contrast, (tone), grain and apparent sharpness. Optical printing, enlarger, analog , from negative to print is one generation. With black and white film if the negative was developed to print on normal paper, (depending on the brand grade 2 or 3, most seem to use grade 2 as normal) a well made print should not lose much data. Resolution is all in the film, all papers can out resolve all films, grain size is dependent on the type of emulsion, Tgain or traditionally, developer and size of the print. R4 paper has only one printing grade, if properly printed and color corrected an optically printed negative should match the information contained in the negative. A minilab printed print is scanned then printed, either inkjet or R4, color, black and white, negative or slide film, so there is a scan between the negative and the print, the print is second generation. Is any information lost? I guess it depends on the quality of the scan.

Good answer...!

 

[snusmumriken]

All I’m saying is comparing the optical prints (flash drive) on my computer screen is not as realistic as those from the SD card using the MD 262…!

I still don't understand. How can 'optical prints' = 'flash drive'? SD cards are flash memory too, are they not? Optical must mean there is a light path in the process. Do you mean 'optical prints' = image files obtained by scanning an analogue film negative? Because if so, then of course information is lost in the process of scanning. Even in professional labs the scanners have their limits. Read some of the threads on this forum about scanning, like this one. With care, the loss of information in making an enlargement on paper straight from a negative is negligible, as others have already stated. I'm sure the 262 must impress the pants off you if you only view the results on screen.

 

[koraks]

As stated above, when I click on it, the quality is very low and not acceptable to my standards.

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

the optical prints (flash drive)

Error. Statement doesn't compute.

 

[Nikon 2]

I still don't understand. How can 'optical prints' = 'flash drive'? SD cards are flash memory too, are they not? Optical must mean there is a light path in the process. Do you mean 'optical prints' = image files obtained by scanning an analogue film negative? Because if so, then of course information is lost in the process of scanning. Even in professional labs the scanners have their limits. Read some of the threads on this forum about scanning, like this one. With care, the loss of information in making an enlargement on paper straight from a negative is negligible, as others have already stated. I'm sure the 262 must impress the pants off you if you only view the results on screen.

So you’re not confused:
Flash Drive for the premium scans of the optical printing of film, by Blue Moon.
SD card for the digital file to computer!
Thanks for the link and yes, the MD 262 is a mind blower…!

 

[koraks]

Flash Drive for the premium scans of the optical printing of film.

Congratulations. You've found the first lab that routinely optically prints negatives and then scans the prints.

Or, more likely, you're confusing scans from negatives with optical prints.
The fact that your lab apparently gives you scans + optical prints doesn't mean the scans are scans from the prints. They're not.

 

[Nikon 2]

Congratulations. You've found the first lab that routinely optically prints negatives and then scans the prints.

Or, more likely, you're confusing scans from negatives with optical prints.
The fact that your lab apparently gives you scans + optical prints doesn't mean the scans are scans from the prints. They're not.

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

 

[FotoD]

If you make inkjet prints from your SD card and have them premium scanned, maybe you'll have a more apples to apples comparison?

Edit: Or an optical print from the SD card, premium scanned.

 

[Nikon 2]

If you make inkjet prints from your SD card and have them premium scanned, maybe you'll have a more apples to apples comparison?

Edit: Or an optical print from the SD card, premium scanned.

I’m only sending the data from the SD card to my computer.
And putting the flash drive containing premium scans of the optical prints to my computer…!