Traditionally one could have film developed and printed. Today some people want film developed, printed and scanned to a CD so that they can put the scanned photographs directly on their computer and the internet. When one brings in film to be developed, one should ask if they will get the negatives back because some places such as Walgreens do not return the negatives. Getting the negatives back allows one to have prints made directly from the negatives, while reproducing prints from scans have the image go through and intermediate step. I recommend that you always get the negatives back and optionally, at your choice, get scanned copies of the negatives. That would give you the most flexibility: darkroom processing and/or computer processing.
Optical prints made with a excellent enlarger lens are better than minilab scans and prints IMHO. A high resolution scan and a high resolution digital C print is also amazing.Thank you so much for answering!
When you state "Getting the negatives back allows one to have prints made directly from the negatives", is there a difference between making prints made directly from the negatives (characteristics of photos)? Where and how would you get that process been done? I promise last question that I'll ask but just to clarify when you say "prints" meaning like actually physical paper prints correct?
Optical prints made with a excellent enlarger lens are better than minilab scans and prints IMHO. A high resolution scan and a high resolution digital C print is also amazing.
I like to make my own color enlargements. When my friend was running his shop I would have him develop my film. The lab had stickers for the envelope "Develop Only" and because I use Printfile negative page another sticker "Do Not Cut" was used as well. Very 20th century
Ask as many questions as you want
t I'll ask but just to clarify when you say "prints" meaning like actually physical paper prints correct?
Yes. Prints is a physical printed copy on paper that you can hold in your hand.
When mshchem says "digital c print." or "optical print" that is just a different way of making these physical prints. Optical printing shines light through the negative onto photosensetive paper, which is then developed. It's "wet" process, not like an inkjet printer.
Digital C prints are also a wet process, (C or C-tone means Continuous Tone. "Continuous" because It doesn't do microscopic pixels like an inkjet) but instead of shining light through the negative onto the photographic paper an image is projected from the digital file scanned from the negative.
When I drop off color film at a lab (there's a good one locally, I'm lucky) I will usually pay for the developing and get scans done right there. I scan at home now, but when I started with film that's always what I did. Then I'd look through the scans, prepare any I thought were worth printing, and send them back to be printed at a larger size. That way I always had digital copies to share places like here or with friends who only ever see pictures on their phones, and when I made "art" I could get a great wet print at a larger than 4x6 size cropped just how I liked it.
90% of my photos good enough to be seen are just seen online, but for the ones I really like the print is my ultimate goal. A really good print, in person, is almost always better looking than it is on a random computer monitor. I like the look of the digital c prints I get from that lab and still use them for that even on negatives I developed and scanned at home.
Many places like wal mart that still do developing use a "minilab", which is the sort of machine that does a lot of stuff for you, it's like what used to be in every drug store in the 90s. Modern ones are updated to do digital prints, but the technology for scanning film kind of died off a long time ago so they're digitally antiquated technology. They don't really do very good scans as the process is automated and as hands off as possible. They are OK, especially for small prints only, but only OK. So you'll get a pile of 4x6 prints to show your friends and then it's all done. If that's all you're doing then fine, but then you're limited in how much you'll grow as a photographer. So don't use a place where you won't get your negatives back.
If you spend time here you'll find these madmen who have darkrooms in their homes. or access to them elsewhere. A great many of the members print black and white at home directly from the negatives, old-school. A few do color as well, though B&W is more common. They are keeping the all-analog art alive and some make some pretty amazing prints. If you ever want to do this (or if you ever have friends who do it and will print for you, or a local community darkroom you can work in, or a local club, or a community college photography class that has a darkroom) you will definitely need your negatives. You might even decide to scan at home in the future, so you can get a really killer scan of a favorite picture you had scanned lower res at the lab... so a lab that returns negatives is a good thing.
and some try to use digital cameras for that purpose.
Lots of us now do some digitization of film. Some use lab scanning services, some have their own scanners, and some try to use digital cameras for that purpose.
There's a ton to learn, and it is fun learning, but sooner or later you'll be developing in your kitchen sink and the people here will just be a big bunch of enablers.
Perhaps I should have said "some people re-purpose digital cameras to digitize their film".No offense Matt, but I don't "try" to use a digital camera. I use a digital camera. Period. Many of us do this, with great results.
I can't believe it, I'm agreeing with Old Gregg about a digitization issue!100% agree. Camera scanning comes with much steeper learning curve, and is more expensive than a scanner. I don't think there are any "usability bugs" to iron out, the main problem is your scanning solution is a DIY kit of random components, and as far as I know nobody sells a "turn-key" solution that's ready to go, unless it's a $50K+ museum grade system.
Perhaps I should have said "some people re-purpose digital cameras to digitize their film".
And yes I know that some people have a lot of success, but all the descriptions I see of their efforts, plus my few half-baked experiments at it, tell me that someone new to all this should wait for a while for the usability bugs (at least) to be worked out.
Perhaps I should have said "some people re-purpose digital cameras to digitize their film".
And yes I know that some people have a lot of success, but all the descriptions I see of their efforts, plus my few half-baked experiments at it, tell me that someone new to all this should wait for a while for the usability bugs (at least) to be worked out.
100% agree. Camera scanning comes with much steeper learning curve, and is more expensive than a scanner. I don't think there are any "usability bugs" to iron out, the main problem is your scanning solution is a DIY kit of random components, and as far as I know nobody sells a "turn-key" solution that's ready to go, unless it's a $50K+ museum grade system.
I can't believe it, I'm agreeing with Old Gregg about a digitization issue!
But to the OP, don't despair. There are still options available for scanning your film that will give middling good results at reasonable cost. They aren't effortless, and they give far from ultimate quality, but they work.
Most of my scans are done on an old flatbed scanner that I bought used for less than $100.00. It just required a lot of time and effort to get it to behave.
You have that problem as well? I was without a darkroom for about 10 years, and they were incredibly productive years in terms of making new negatives. Now I average about 10-12 hours a week in my basement darkroom and I doubt I'll ever catch up.If I only printed, I'd have a huge backlog of negatives, B&W and color, that I'd never seen in positive form...
Now I average about 10-12 hours a week in my basement darkroom and I doubt I'll ever catch up.
I hear you. I have a full-time job, 2 teens, and a 1 year-old! My darkroom time typically consists of all-nighters after everyone else is asleep.Nice. My problem is I still work for a living, and commute an hour each way. And then there are "honey-do" items on the weekend.
Nice. My problem is I still work for a living, and commute an hour each way. And then there are "honey-do" items on the weekend.
Even is you decide to have your negatives scanned and printed from the digital scan I would keep the negatives. Computes and hard drives fail, non recoverable, storage devices are lost, cloud services are subject to a hack. Unless you keep your data on a number of back up devices keeping your negatives is another back up that if kept safe will be there.
@Paul Howell keeping the negatives is a good idea, but suggesting that cloud services are less reliable or less durable or less secure than someone's house is just absurd. The probabilities of of mice peeing on your negatives, or house fire/flood/earthquake are all higher than probability of your scans disappearing after clicking "backup to cloud" checkbox in your backup software. The biggest threat to digital assets is human error - forgetting the checkbox, or deleting your data by mistake (humans always manage!)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?