Degradation of film during processing.

[MattKing]

I do understand Blue Moon to be nursing along old minilab machinery that still prints optically.
That sort of machinery was of course typical for much of the market for many years, and when used carefully by knowledgeable people could produce decent volumes of very good quality results. That quality was/is of course not close to what a really good custom printing optical workflow could produce.
A high quality digital intermediary custom line can also produce higher quality than Blue Moon's machine - so much turns on the operators.
However all of those quality approaches to print quality make far more use of the information in a negative than a standard 2K or 4K monitor or projector shows - but as they produce reflective media, they don't produce output with as much "presence". That "presence" tends to make up in impact for the real degradation that does occur due to having to discard so much data in order for an image to display on a monitor or through digital projection. That and the fact that the human eye has limits in what information can actually be perceived - both on a print, and on a screen.

 

[Nikon 2]

I do understand Blue Moon to be nursing along old minilab machinery that still prints optically.
That sort of machinery was of course typical for much of the market for many years, and when used carefully by knowledgeable people could produce decent volumes of very good quality results. That quality was/is of course not close to what a really good custom printing optical workflow could produce.
A high quality digital intermediary custom line can also produce higher quality than Blue Moon's machine - so much turns on the operators.
However all of those quality approaches to print quality make far more use of the information in a negative than a standard 2K or 4K monitor or projector shows - but as they produce reflective media, they don't produce output with as much "presence". That "presence" tends to make up in impact for the real degradation that does occur due to having to discard so much data in order for an image to display on a monitor or through digital projection. That and the fact that the human eye has limits in what information can actually be perceived - both on a print, and on a screen.

My brain also has limitations to understanding all this…!

 

[Bill Burk]

@Nikon 2 ,

After reading a hundred posts, I still don’t know what you’re trying to figure out.

If you have a Leica M 262, and you are comparing its photos with something shot on, 35mm film, say Kodak Gold 200, in a Nikon F2… sent to Blue Moon for them to optically print. You will find the Leica M 262 images to seem superior. You won’t bother taking the Nikon F2 on your next vacation.

Now if you were to shoot larger film, say 120 film (even if it’s still Kodak Gold 200) shot in a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. Send that film to Blue Moon and have them do their optical prints.

Now you are going to see something interesting in the prints from film that will make you think of leaving the Leica at home.

Don’t bother with the JPEG images from Blue Moon. Unless you like the color and brightness. Some people do prefer the color rendition of lab grade scanners, like a Pakon. The lab techs sometimes do better color correction because they have so much more experience in the lab than you as the original photographer can ever have yourself.

But you do not necessarily lose detail. One trick is to use the pretty (but low quality) JPEG from an experienced lab tech…as an adjustment layer over a much higher quality scan that you can do yourself from the same negative but scanned on a better scanner.

The result is a do-it-yourself high quality scan that has all the resolution and detail that the best scanner can make but adjusted to look as nice as a great lab tech’s JPEG.

 

[Nikon 2]

@Nikon 2 ,

After reading a hundred posts, I still don’t know what you’re trying to figure out.

If you have a Leica M 262, and you are comparing its photos with something shot on, 35mm film, say Kodak Gold 200, in a Nikon F2… sent to Blue Moon for them to optically print. You will find the Leica M 262 images to seem superior. You won’t bother taking the Nikon F2 on your next vacation.

Now if you were to shoot larger film, say 120 film (even if it’s still Kodak Gold 200) shot in a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. Send that film to Blue Moon and have them do their optical prints.

Now you are going to see something interesting in the prints from film that will make you think of leaving the Leica at home.

Don’t bother with the JPEG images from Blue Moon. Unless you like the color and brightness. Some people do prefer the color rendition of lab grade scanners, like a Pakon. The lab techs sometimes do better color correction because they have so much more experience in the lab than you as the original photographer can ever have yourself.

But you do not necessarily lose detail. One trick is to use the pretty (but low quality) JPEG from an experienced lab tech…as an adjustment layer over a much higher quality scan that you can do yourself from the same negative but scanned on a better scanner.

The result is a do-it-yourself high quality scan that has all the resolution and detail that the best scanner can make but adjusted to look as nice as a great lab tech’s JPEG.

1. I have a Leica MD 262.
2. The film I use is Kodak Ektar 100.
3. My Nikon F2 is my vacation camera.
4. The 4x6 prints from Blue Moon are optical
prints.
5. The MD shoots only RAW.
6. My question is does film have any degradation from processing since it isn’t as realistic as the photos from the MD.
7. But still love the look of film.
8. Flash drives from Blue Moon are JPEG.
9. They are premium scans, for my orders.

Thank all for your help is this discussion…!

 

[250swb]

I'm pretty much baffled by @Nikon 2 's use of the word 'degradation' but if we switch that word out for 'change' then both the film and digital process change the image between pressing the shutter and the final print .

The choice of film and developer changes the outcome, the choice of scanning or darkroom then changes that outcome, how it's printed changes that outcome....

With digital the camera firmware changes the outcome against another make of camera, the processing software (ACR tec.) changes that outcome, the make of printer you use changes that outcome....

Photography is about the management of processes, negative associations in using words like 'degrade' are meaningless and unhelpful given entropy is as much a part of photography as a part of life. By the time you've made a digital print you can't then reverse process the image because everything has been changed along the way, just as you can't un-develop film. But either way the idea that a digital camera is true to the subject is absurd, it's only true to the ideas of the guy who programmed the cameras software.

 

[koraks]

6. My question is does film have any degradation from processing since it isn’t as realistic as the photos from the MD.

Can you specify, perhaps with a visual example, what aspects of your prints make them look less 'realistic' than your digital images?

For instance, if you take a color negative and print it optically, you'll have to work very hard indeed to get a color rendition that is close to the real scene. And even if you get there, you might find that it's relatively easy to get something even more accurate to the real scene with a digital camera. But that's not related to 'processing' the film - it's an inherent characteristic of the combination of a film-based capture and optical printing process: it'll leave its unique 'signature' in the color balance of the final print. If you work really hard, it's possible to minimize such differences between a film-based workflow and a digital one. However, with your level of expertise in processing digital files and the comparison with consumer-grade 4x6 prints from a minilab, you'll find that it's just a lot easier to get closer to an accurate representation of a real scene, color-wise, with a digital camera than with your analog kit.

However, in the entire complex of mechanisms underlying the overall tendency outlined above, the phrase "degradation from processing" does not occur as such, and by continuing to cling onto it, you're making it impossible for yourself to grasp the basics of what's going on. So either you keep asking the same question, but you're not going to get anywhere with it, or you're going to rephrase the question into a set of more specific ones that make more sense. Choice is yours.

 

[Nikon 2]

Can you specify, perhaps with a visual example, what aspects of your prints make them look less 'realistic' than your digital images?

For instance, if you take a color negative and print it optically, you'll have to work very hard indeed to get a color rendition that is close to the real scene. And even if you get there, you might find that it's relatively easy to get something even more accurate to the real scene with a digital camera. But that's not related to 'processing' the film - it's an inherent characteristic of the combination of a film-based capture and optical printing process: it'll leave its unique 'signature' in the color balance of the final print. If you work really hard, it's possible to minimize such differences between a film-based workflow and a digital one. However, with your level of expertise in processing digital files and the comparison with consumer-grade 4x6 prints from a minilab, you'll find that it's just a lot easier to get closer to an accurate representation of a real scene, color-wise, with a digital camera than with your analog kit.

However, in the entire complex of mechanisms underlying the overall tendency outlined above, the phrase "degradation from processing" does not occur as such, and by continuing to cling onto it, you're making it impossible for yourself to grasp the basics of what's going on. So either you keep asking the same question, but you're not going to get anywhere with it, or you're going to rephrase the question into a set of more specific ones that make more sense. Choice is yours.

1. I’ve been using Blue Moon Camera to develop and print my photos recently.
2. Just started to shoot digital a few months ago.
3. I’m new to all of this and why I needed to ask questions about this situation…!

 

[koraks]

1: We know.
2: Great; digital is lots of fun. So is film. Enjoy both, or either.
3: Yes, I understand.

Nothing of the above changes anything about my suggestion to rephrase your question.


...!

 

[Nikon 2]

I agree that film doesn’t have the accuracy of color of a real scene but it will not stop me from shooting that format…!

 

[FotoD]

1. I have a Leica MD 262.
2. The film I use is Kodak Ektar 100.
3. My Nikon F2 is my vacation camera.
4. The 4x6 prints from Blue Moon are optical
prints.
5. The MD shoots only RAW.
6. My question is does film have any degradation from processing since it isn’t as realistic as the photos from the MD.
7. But still love the look of film.
8. Flash drives from Blue Moon are JPEG.
9. They are premium scans, for my orders.

Thank all for your help is this discussion…!

6:
You are comparing film scans from the Noritsu S-1800 to images from your digicam on the computer screen.

A good film scan will be low in contrast, slightly desaturated and a bit unsharp. That leaves room for your processing it the way you like it.

A digisnap on the other hand will usually have some sharpening and optimization built into the file, even if you look at the RAW file.

Maybe this accounts for the difference you are seeing.

 

[Nikon 2]

6:
You are comparing film scans from the Noritsu S-1800 to images from your digicam on the computer screen.

A good film scan will be low in contrast, slightly desaturated and a bit unsharp. That leaves room for your processing it the way you like it.

A digisnap on the other hand will usually have some sharpening and optimization built into the file, even if you look at the RAW file.

Maybe this accounts for the difference you are seeing.

Are you implying a flash drive vs SD card direct to a computer is an unfair comparison…?

 

[FotoD]

I wasn't trying to imply anything.

The flash drive vs SD-card question is fascinating, but I'm not sure I can answer that. I think it's the data on the drives that matters.

 

[chuckroast]

Are you implying a flash drive vs SD card direct to a computer is an unfair comparison…?

Imagine you create a spreadsheet using Excel on your phone. Then you connect the phone to a computer and copy that spreadsheet to a computer. Then you plug in an sd and a flash drive to the computer and copy that file to those devices.

All four copies - phone, computer, flash drive, sd card - should be identical. In properly functioning computer systems, copying or moving a file (which is all a digital image is) will not change its content.

So plugging in a flash drive direct to computer should produce identical results. Your question makes no sense unless there is some defect in your system that modifies file content when you connect one of the devices.

Taking that same file and sending to an optical printer yields a reflective print which will never look the same as a transmissive monitor. The primary colors are different (CMYK or C41 printing vs. RGB monitors, the resolution is different, and unless you've calibrated everything - the color temps and profiles will be different.

 

[Nikon 2]

Imagine you create a spreadsheet using Excel on your phone. Then you connect the phone to a computer and copy that spreadsheet to a computer. Then you plug in an sd and a flash drive to the computer and copy that file to those devices.

All four copies - phone, computer, flash drive, sd card - should be identical. In properly functioning computer systems, copying or moving a file (which is all a digital image is) will not change its content.

So plugging in a flash drive direct to computer should produce identical results. Your question makes no sense unless there is some defect in your system that modifies file content when you connect one of the devices.

Taking that same file and sending to an optical printer yields a reflective print which will never look the same as a transmissive monitor. The primary colors are different (CMYK or C41 printing vs. RGB monitors, the resolution is different, and unless you've calibrated everything - the color temps and profiles will be different.

I like to keep things simple, Leica MD 262 for example, and will compare the flash drive of the negatives with the SD card’s digital rendering.
It seems on my computer, that is too old to download LR, it’s much easier to photoshop the digital SD card than the flash drive images...!

 

[snusmumriken]

I like to keep things simple, Leica MD 262 for example, and will compare the flash drive of the optical prints with the SD card’s digital rendering.

I thought we’d established that the flash drive images are scans from the negatives, not from the prints?

 

[grain elevator]

One first step in your understanding should be realising that memory media, capture media and display media are completely different domains. Digital memory media have zero effect on the data stored on the, as long as they work. SD card, flash drive, CD, hard disk, doesn't matter.
Then, it appears you're only using one display medium for all the pictures your talking about: Your computer screen. So no prints are in the equation at all.

 

[Nikon 2]

I thought we’d established that the flash drive images are scans from the negatives, not from the prints?

I thought we established that I being new to this format results in errors made quite often by me…!

 

[Nikon 2]

One first step in your understanding should be realising that memory media, capture media and display media are completely different domains. Digital memory media have zero effect on the data stored on the, as long as they work. SD card, flash drive, CD, hard disk, doesn't matter.
Then, it appears you're only using one display medium for all the pictures your talking about: Your computer screen. So no prints are in the equation at all.

I think I understand…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, a step at a time. I suspect Blue Moon's equipment is very similar to some of the older equipment still in use in this area. But they offer different levels of scanning, at significantly different price levels, for a reason. And once scanning is involved, you're no longer dealing with a straight optical print, but an interpolated "lossy" one via digital workflow, even if the exposing lightsource is relatively simple compared to newer options.

 

[Nikon 2]

Well, a step at a time. I suspect Blue Moon's equipment is very similar to some of the older equipment still in use in this area. But they offer different levels of scanning, at significantly different price levels, for a reason. And once scanning is involved, you're no longer dealing with a straight optical print, but an interpolated "lossy" one via digital workflow, even if the exposing lightsource is relatively simple compared to newer options.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, now we're getting there. But direct exposure means a color negative is in place; they can't do that with a color slide positive, which has to be scanned these days, at least in terms of commercial workflow. The whole point when dealing with a lab is to find that sweet spot where your own quality expectations and realistic budget constraints happen to coincide.

 

[Nikon 2]

Well, now we're getting there. But direct exposure means a color negative is in place; they can't do that with a color slide positive, which has to be scanned these days, at least in terms of commercial workflow. The whole point when dealing with a lab is to find that sweet spot where your own quality expectations and realistic budget constraints happen to coincide.

You must be right because I certainly don’t know...!

 

[Chan Tran]

If the lab has the negative they would never scan the print. It makes no sense to make the prints to scan when you can scan the negatives.

 

[koraks]

• 
  

Ok, that's about drum scans, which is not what we're talking about here unless you're routinely drum scanning your 36 exp rolls of film at a cost of nearly $2k per roll.
The comparison we're talking about here is likely the regular scans, which are done in all likelihood on something like a Noritsu scanner that eats up an entire roll and then spits out a bunch of jpegs. They're quick & easy to use and therefore are the basic option for consumer-oriented scan jobs. Yes, they offer drum scans, too. Depending on the operator, those are likely technically better than the Noritsu scans, but like a digital camera RAW file, should be regarded as the starting point for work towards an end result. A drum scan as you get it from the lab will generally look flat and somewhat lifeless.

That's about your optical 4x6" prints which as we have established many times now, these are unrelated to the scans you're looking at. So Nora and Ray don't come into play. If you're looking at scans vs. digital captures, just forget about your prints. They're a different story.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks @Nikon 2 for your direct answers to my question.

Now if you would, hold an optical print next to your monitor while you look at the comparable photo from your Leica.

Zoom scale to match size. Adjust the lighting on the print to be even and reduce reflections - if you have a 5000 K light source use that. For the picture on the computer screen surround it with one inch white border.

How do the images look side by side in this way?

Now in Photoshop change the color space of your Leica image to CMYK.

Did the computer image get more muted?

Now you would see how your Leica image might look if it were printed, the comparison may be more fair.

For our enjoyment, if you like, take a photo of your screen and print displayed side by side to share with us and describe what you are seeing because all the colors won’t come across to us.