Degradation of film during processing.

[brbo]

Agreed; they often come in JPG or TIFF format scanned on Noritsu's, which is already lossy in detail, and 24-bit color depth only (16.7M colors)
Too bad they don't offer them in RAW format so you can do it yourself (maybe some do?)

If they are smart they should offer RAW files from Noritsu. It would save them some time when scanning. But files are big. Maybe labs could take your USB key and copy the raw files on it when you come to pick up your negatives.

Home 35mm scanners are capable of 48-bit color, even RAW. allowing more capability to adjust to your liking, just like your digital camera RAW files.
I would never trust a lab scan's color accuracy.

Here, a Noritsu raw file (135 format at highest resolution). Have a go and tell us how many users would you trust to come up with better colours than this:

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't think I've EVER printed color that mediocre! Blaah in a minilab voice. And how did the highlights get so miserably washed out?

 

[Nikon 2]

I don't think I've EVER printed color that mediocre! Blaah in a minilab voice. And how did the highlights get so miserably washed out?

I have an extra unused umbrage in mint condition if anyone needs it…!

 

[brbo]

The above example was meant to show what a Noritsu lab scanner with zero input from operator would typically produce. In a couple of seconds.

I've seen enough horrible home scans to know that, in general, I'd rather trust a lab than a random maverick with a shiny 64bit-RAW-capable scanner. Noritsus are 12-bit scanners, but they do output raw scans by design. I've posted one raw file so people can have a stab at inverting it manually. Do you need help to get you started?

 

[TomR55]

Is it true when developing film there is some degradation by processing whereas it’s avoided from a SD card directly to your computer…?

This question is ambiguous and can not be shown to be "true" or "false." For instance, "processing" has two different meanings: digital transformations are not directly related to chemical reactions. The term "degradation" means different things in each domain, as well. (For instance, I could imagine that a chemist might describe development as "degrading" or "reducing" silver compounds, etc.) Continuing in this manner, "SD cards" are not equivalent to "celluloid films." Finally, the end product of a digital photograph is a collection of bits that persists only in the presence of associated computing machinery, whereas the end product of a film photograph is an etching on celluloid that persists as long as it is maintained in an acceptable environment---for instance, away from fire and other hazards.

 

[grain elevator]

This question is ambiguous and can not be shown to be "true" or "false." For instance, "processing" has two different meanings: digital transformations are not directly related to chemical reactions. The term "degradation" means different things in each domain, as well. (For instance, I could imagine that a chemist might describe development as "degrading" or "reducing" silver compounds, etc.) Continuing in this manner, "SD cards" are not equivalent to "celluloid films." Finally, the end product of a digital photograph is a collection of bits that persists only in the presence of associated computing machinery, whereas the end product of a film photograph is an etching on celluloid that persists as long as it is maintained in an acceptable environment---for instance, away from fire and other hazards.

IMHO the more important problem with the question is that "degradation by processing" implies (beside the explicit film-digital comparison) a comparison of un-processed and processed film. But un-processed film that remains unprocessed has no value to image making, the thing that's supposed to be degraded, I assume it's the image, does not exist until processed. It's a false premise.

 

[TomR55]

IMHO the more important problem with the question is that "degradation by processing" implies (beside the explicit film-digital comparison) a comparison of un-processed and processed film. But un-processed film that remains unprocessed has no value to image making, the thing that's supposed to be degraded, I assume it's the image, does not exist until processed. It's a false premise.

Critical observation, thank you. I'd considered including some discussion of "process," but in the interest of brevity did not include your important observation in my post.

Digital and analogue photographs are products of their respective "processes" and these processes are not obviously related. To the (your) point: the photograph does not exist outside of its associated process, and that process begins with the photographer's vision, continues through the capture and (for want of a better term) "essential" process--which is chemical (and physical) in the case of an analogue photograph, electronic and algorithmic in the case of a digital image

For any interested readers: in contemporary philosophical texts on photography (in particular, see "On Photography," Diarmuid Costello, Routeledge, 2018), we find exhaustive analyses of these and other elements.

 

[Nikon 2]

IMHO the more important problem with the question is that "degradation by processing" implies (beside the explicit film-digital comparison) a comparison of un-processed and processed film. But un-processed film that remains unprocessed has no value to image making, the thing that's supposed to be degraded, I assume it's the image, does not exist until processed. It's a false premise.

Give me time to process that…!

 

[Axelwik]

As a "system" there's no degradation. It's not a photograph until the latent image on the film (which cannot be seen) is processed (to where it can be seen). Think about it. Of course there are many ways to develop film, depending on one's goals.

 

[brbo]

Give me time to process that…!

Don't process longer than 3:15s.

Or there WILL be degradation...!

 

[FotoD]

It's not a photograph until the latent image on the film (which cannot be seen) is processed (to where it can be seen). Think about it.

Really? Thats interesting.

If I take a digital photo but never display it, would it not be a photograph?

Or if I develop a film negative in complete darkness and then put it in a dark box. Is there no photograph?

I tried to think about it, but I don't know...

 

[TomR55]

When you "take" a digital photograph, at least in my limited understanding, a process of collecting data onto a substrate (the sensor) is performed and the camera's software processes these data points into a "raw image," which is augmented data that can then be processed (displayed) by visualization and editing software, such as Capture One, Lightroom, etc.

I suppose in some sense this arrangement of bits on a metal substrate, i.e., encoding image data onto the sensor, is similar to creating a "latent image" on film? Couldn't say because I'm not a chemist nor am I familiar with demosiacing algorithms.

As far as your question about the film negative, you could certainly expose film in a totally dark room, process that film and expect to see an image of a "dark room." And putting any photograph in a dark box does not change its property of "being a photograph." it's just a photograph that you put in a dark box.

Any photograph (digital or analog) of something in the world is counterfactual: meaning that if the thing photographed was "different" in some way, then its photographic image would be different in the same way. The same is NOT necessarily true of a painting: when I look at a portrait on a canvas I have no assurances that the model who posed for that portrait resembles the painting ... or, for that matter, if any model ever existed.

Now, it might be an interesting question to ask if an image that had been totally generated by an algorithm, i.e., having no counterfactual analog in the outside world, is more like a photograph or a painting?

 

[George Mann]

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.

And my D2x will blow them all into the weeds!

 

[George Mann]

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

The quality of the prints is the issue, not the film.

 

[George Mann]

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…!

Try Ektachrome next time with your Nikkor 50mm f/2 (with lens hood) and the proper high quality warming filter, then view it directly with a 4x film loupe using the sun-lit sky as your light source.

 

[Nikon 2]

When you "take" a digital photograph, at least in my limited understanding, a process of collecting data onto a substrate (the sensor) is performed and the camera's software processes these data points into a "raw image," which is augmented data that can then be processed (displayed) by visualization and editing software, such as Capture One, Lightroom, etc.

I suppose in some sense this arrangement of bits on a metal substrate, i.e., encoding image data onto the sensor, is similar to creating a "latent image" on film? Couldn't say because I'm not a chemist nor am I familiar with demosiacing algorithms.

As far as your question about the film negative, you could certainly expose film in a totally dark room, process that film and expect to see an image of a "dark room." And putting any photograph in a dark box does not change its property of "being a photograph." it's just a photograph that you put in a dark box.

Any photograph (digital or analog) of something in the world is counterfactual: meaning that if the thing photographed was "different" in some way, then its photographic image would be different in the same way. The same is NOT necessarily true of a painting: when I look at a portrait on a canvas I have no assurances that the model who posed for that portrait resembles the painting ... or, for that matter, if any model ever existed.

Now, it might be an interesting question to ask if an image that had been totally generated by an algorithm, i.e., having no counterfactual analog in the outside world, is more like a photograph or a painting?

Through photoshop, one could get both…!

 

[George Mann]

I suppose in some sense this arrangement of bits on a metal substrate, i.e., encoding image data onto the sensor, is similar to creating a "latent image" on film?

It actually works a bit different than that. An exposure on film is a direct capture of what the lens provides it, which then has to be subjected to a chemical process in order for it to be visible to the naked eye.

A digital sensor is more of an antenna which detects the wavelengths of light, which is then recorded as values which go thru several stages of "conditioning", which is then used to construct the raw image data using a separate process.

It then goes thru a final conversion process which produces the complete, recognisable image.

 

[TomR55]

It actually works a bit different than that. An exposure on film is a direct capture of what the lens provides it, which then has to be subjected to a chemical process in order for it to be visible to the naked eye.

A digital sensor is more of an antenna which detects the wavelengths of light, which is then recorded as values which go thru several stages of "conditioning", which is then used to construct the raw image data using a separate process.

It then goes thru a final conversion process which produces the complete, recognisable image.

Thank you for the clarification! I assume that once the electro-chemical process completes, an algorithm (or several algorithms) implements the "final conversion process?"

 

[TomR55]

Through photoshop, one could get both…!

That's true. But, both are "photographs," no? And this suggests that any "photograph of things in the world " (independent of its process) is necessarily a "reduction."

Now, what happens in the case where one uses some software to transform a photograph of a particular thing in the world into something else? Is this new "thing" a photograph or is it something else?

 

[Nikon 2]

Thank you for the clarification! I assume that once the electro-chemical process completes, an algorithm (or several algorithms) implements the "final conversion process?"

My question is, what format is more accurate in its processing forming the final image…?

 

[TomR55]

My question is, what format is more accurate in its processing forming the final image…?

My question in response is how "accurate" does the process need to be in order for the photographer to create "the image"? The history of photography is replete with many essential images that are far from "accurate" if we measure accuracy by information loss between what was at the moment of the photograph's creation and the final product. I suspect that the answer to this question depends entirely upon the photographer's imagination first and process, etc., in any particular order.

These kinds of questions have been part and parcel of the discussion since the invention of photography. Improvements in technology are important, but not tantamount to the many other elements, some outside of the photographer's control, that come into play in the fate of the image.

 

[Nikon 2]

My question in response is how "accurate" does the process need to be in order for the photographer to create "the image"? The history of photography is replete with many essential images that are far from "accurate" if we measure accuracy by information loss between what was at the moment of the photograph's creation and the final product. I suspect that the answer to this question depends entirely upon the photographer's imagination first and process, etc., in any particular order.

These kinds of questions have been part and parcel of the discussion since the invention of photography. Improvements in technology are important, but not tantamount to the many other elements, some outside of the photographer's control, that come into play in the fate of the image.

Good answer…!

 

[TomR55]

Well, thanks! But answers are only as good as questions.

 

[MattKing]

My question is, what format is more accurate in its processing forming the final image…?

The process that is used by those best equipped to use it well.

 

[George Mann]

My question is, what format is more accurate in its processing forming the final image…?

Film is a directly created fascimile. Digital is an artificial construct.