• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Scanning Color Film Negatives for Printing

mattsw

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 4, 2024
Messages
3
Location
United States
Format
35mm
Hi everyone. I am new to the forum. I grew up with film, and have recently gotten back into film photography (Color and B&W). I have a very basic question about my color film processing.

I use Ektar 100 and Portra 400. I take my negatives to a local camera shop to be developed and printed. Apparently the equipment they use scans the film to a digital file, and then from that digital file the photo is printed. My question is this: does the transfer of film to digital cause the loss of any detail/color, etc., that film has but digital may not have?

Thanks,
Matthew
 
Welcome to Photrio, @mattsw!

The question you ask seems so simple, but it's ultimately unanswerable.

If you want to see how an answer might develop, have a look at this (long) thread, where someone asks a rather similar question: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/degradation-of-film-during-processing.202669/ (They have a couple of more threads along similar lines).

Knowing that my answer will be incomplete and very debatable, I'll try to cut a complex matter short and give an answer that I feel covers the essence.

mattsw said:
does the transfer of film to digital cause the loss of any detail/color, etc., that film has but digital may not have?
Click to expand...

A good scan and digital print from a good color negative will be faithful to the reality captured, and it will be of similar quality quantitatively speaking as a well-made optical enlargement from the same negative. Whatever is lost will likely go unnoticed by virtually everyone looking at the prints. They will in practice look different, but neither one will necessarily be better or worse than the other. With color prints, this is especially the case, since the output material can often be the exact same type of chromogenic ('RA4') paper for an optical/analog enlargement or a digital (e.g. minilab) print.

Metaphysically speaking, it's probably (in my view at least) a different story. The fact that some people still go through the pains of making darkroom prints from negatives suggests that there's some inherent property to those prints and this fully 'analog' workflow that we (at least some of us) deem valuable. Part of that is in the hands-on aspect of the process, that we can do every step of it with our own pair of hands, and the image never quite disappears into a 'magic black box' where we can't actually touch it or directly observe what transformation it goes through. Given that it's so process-related, this value is (I believe) mostly experienced by the makers of these full-analog images - but not exclusively so. Some people appreciate hand-made items without crafting them, enjoy 'artisanal' breads baked by others, etc. - and there are undoubtedly people who value a 'full analog' print more, or at least differently, than a digital print.

You can ask all manner of questions about this, for instance to what extent it makes a difference what we know about a print apart from what we can see with our own eyes, or feel with our hands. Do we still appreciate the difference between the 'artisanal' print and the digital print if we don't know which is which? And should this matter, in the first place?

You'll find that any attempt at answering your question will meander across both of these areas: the question about objective, technical differences on the one hand, and a more philosophical, metaphysical debate on the other hand. I'm afraid that neither of these debates will ever reach a firm conclusion. Or perhaps that's actually a nice thing.
 
Much depends on the quality of the scan, and how much resolution is used in the scan. I suspect that for most of us, this is how color prints have happened for several years now. It's certainly the case for me, my local lab went to this hybrid approach many years ago.
For most film, especially 35mm there will be apparent grain in the scanned image, so the print won't look like digital, but a good original coupled with a good scan will produce a detailed print.
 
Thank you for the replies, and the link to the other detailed thread. I do have an enlarger for B&W prints. I enjoy making my own prints, and I do take care to make them exactly as I want with split grade printing plus D&B in certain areas. The lab that I use for my color prints does a good job, and from what I have read above I am not losing much from the transfer to digital. Some time in the future I might take the plunge and begin to print my own color film at home.

Matthew
 
A color negative scanned and printed with an ink jet, or similar technology, a scan printed with Frontier or similar technology with laser or led printer on silver halide paper, and an optical print will all look different. What is the best - I have no simple answer. Personally, I like to print my negatives in my own darkroom. and I don't normally scan my pictures. If this is needed, I use the services of commercial labs with good quality scanners. I started to print in the late 1980's when digital was not invented, and even the minilabs used optical systems. I did it mostly at home with a schoolboy budget, but I was also helping in a photo store with a Konica minilab, and have some experience of this technology of the EP-2 era with optical printers using additive (RGB( technology with three subsequent exposures through quite dense filters. I have never really been interested in the digital technology, although I must (reluctantly) admit it has some advantages over analog technology - especially in photofinishing industry.

For printing RA-4 at home, I can all but warmly recommend. I find it very rewarding. It will take some time to learn to read the pictures - what is wrong, but when you get it, it is not very hard. Just use good quality materials and don´t compromise your process (times, temperature, etc.)
 
I have been scanning film since the 90s and I can say scanning is an art form in itself. In the 90s i had a Scanmate 5000 drum scanner and now I use a Hasselblad Flextight 646 scanner. The art is in e.g. how you determine the neutral grey - where do you sample from the preview image and then where do you place your black and white points as another variable. Give 10 people the same negative and if they have to do it without profiles you will get 10 interpretations.....i have found profiles to be at best good starting points for scans......high end scanners are fantastic
 
Similar to sperera above, I've been scanning film for a very long time. I love the results I am getting now, but sadly I will never say that scanning is rewarding. My last scanning batch was 18 rolls that I was dreading to touch.
 

Aree you happy with 646? I have an opportunity to get one from a friend for EUR2500 including charts, computer with it etc. All working fine as he is about fisnihing up to scan his entire Kodachrome and other Chrome archieve and want to sell it.
 
I've always said that there is nothing better than real home cooking (in the darkroom), because you can take your time and use all the ingredients you wish. Quickie machine shapshot prints are more like fast food. ... But let's face it - not
everyone is good home chef or has an adequate kitchen. So it all depends. And color labs are not all the same; but many of them do offer different levels of scan quality based on price.

But learning the basics of RA4 printing from color negs isn't very difficult if you have a colorhead on your enlarger. Like anything else, it takes patience and practice to get right; but for many of us, it's quite rewarding. Plus you get complete control over the result.
 
Scanned and LED printed onto RA4 paper is the standard now for commercial lab prints I think, gives good results and produces what most people what -- bright saturated images (like cell phones). Not natural, but who wants accurate reproduction anyway, lol? "Art prints", don't get me started....

You won't notice a huge difference between digially printed and projection printed images until the base film gets larger than 35mm with standard films. Specialty film like microfilms or the long departed Tech Pan will have detail smaller than a standard scan can resolve at say 8x10. Once you move up to medium format, projected resolution will exceed most digital printer resolution (300 to 1200 dpi) and it's possible to see more difference. At "normal viewing distance" -- picture on a wall 4 ft away -- it's hard to see anything different other than what I would describe as "depth" in silver prints. Almost a 3D effect.

I have a laser printer print of one of my photographs on the wall in my office at work in 11x17 paper, just walking past it looks great. A sliver print of the same image in 11x14 is spetacular. Huge pain to print (over exposed and overdeveloped, lol, and a low contrast day on top of that) and very annoying to scan and adjust.

That said I've printed quite a few large prints on my Epson 1400 and been quite pleased.
 
The worst thing is that some labs use a grain reduction filter on film scans that removes tons of detail.

Epson home flatbeds resolve less than 2400 true dpi, about enough for a 10 inch print from 35mm. If you go up to 15 inches it will start to look fuzzy.

Lab scanners vary in their dpi a lot. Based on their settings and the quality of their equipment. It's usually on the lower end but there are some that do very high quality as well.
 
LED printing machines are for small "snapshot" prints. For more serious scanned images, the appropriately equipped labs use very expensive big laser printers instead. In good hands, and for a significant price, those can mimic the results of competent optical RA4 enlargements. The most significant difference is in workflow and the requirements of rapid output - things like contrast and color saturation are more easily controlled via scanning and software manipulations than in traditional all-darkroom workflow. Commercial labs are on the clock, and need to process a lot of images to make a good income and cover their expenses, so the scanning route now prevails. But you tend to get what you pay for.

If you like a 3D look, you should order up a laser print on Fuji Supergloss medium while it's still extant. I optically print on that.

Inkjet is an entirely different category of look and process.
 
psfred said:
Not natural
Click to expand...

That's not accurate. Chromogenic prints are as natural as you want them to be. Fact is that most people prefer to print highly saturated and contrasty stuff; I was at an amateur ohoto exhibition today and while it was really nice to see so many enthusiastic people having lots of fun and learning things, after about an hour the enamel on my teeth began to crumble due to the overblown colors everywhere. That's not inherent to the technology or the material, however. It's a choice that's made by the person who sends out the file to the printer. If you want to make a neutral, subdued print, it's just as easy. There's nothing "baked into" the nature of digitally exposed RA4 prints that makes them oversaturated etc.
 
No, what I was saying is that oversaturated prints is what a lot of people ask for, and that's what will get produced. I suspect a lot of the low wage operators of package units (drug store, Walmart) type operations don't adjust anything. If the equipment is set up to produce high saturation, it's not gonna get changed by the operator!
 
Gotcha, sorry for misreading your post!

psfred said:
I suspect a lot of the low wage operators of package units (drug store, Walmart) type operations don't adjust anything.
Click to expand...

Indeed; 99.98% of the prints go through without any manual adjustment whatsoever. There's just no time for that.
I was visiting a largish lab last year; several RA4 lines with paper coming out about as fast as you can run. Mostly 4x6". There's no chance any of those prints is ever adjusted or even seen on an individual basis by an operator. Minilabs are much the same; you don't want to have manual labor involved in the process more than strictly necessary to keep things going.
 

Even inkjet printing at home is not cheap these days. The cheapest yet good quality inkjet printer that I recommend is Canon Pro-100 and the newer Pro-200. They will cost around $500 plus all the expensive OEM ink and quality larger format up to 14"X17" for this printer. You may find it too much to plunge into. But I think that's still the way to go considering the time it saves you to make a print. I simply don't have the time to do the traditional wet printing any more.
 
There is a disadvantage to having your lab scan the film and then print it digitally to RA4 paper or even expensive inkjet paper and that's the fact that your prints will generally be limited to a resolution of 300dpi.

This is usually not a problem and most people won't be able to see how limited the resolution is, but it can become a problem if you need to scan the print. A print made directly from the film will contain significantly more information than a print made digitally at 300dpi.

This may not matter to you now, or even at any point in the future, but it's possible that one day someone will want to scan your print for archival purposes or to digitally repair damage and they might find the resolution of your digital prints quite limiting.

All of this said as someone who restores old prints and frequently has problems with prints produced post digital revolution.
 
I have found that most process+scan jobs result in a digital file resolution which is OK for 4x6, maybe even 8x10, but not a really big enlargement...1-2Mpixel typical file size...
Inquire about pixel count in scanned files!!! You need at least 2.54Mpixels for 100dpi for sufficient quality in a 13x19" print.
 
Last edited:
_T_ said:
it's possible that one day someone will want to scan your print for archival purposes
Click to expand...

Ok, but you'd preferably use the original negative for this purpose to begin with.

I get it though; maybe the negatives are long lost and only the prints have survived. But to take that as a reason to only having optical prints made, at potentially vast expense and with exceedingly limited choice in printmakers...

Besides, if the original is limited to 300dpi, then well, too bad, the restored version will also be limited to this. It's still better than nothing, and for its primary purpose (i.e. being a print as such) 300dpi is really good enough.

wiltw said:
I have found that most process+scan jobs result in a digital file resolution which is OK for 4x6, maybe even 8x10, but not a really big enlargement...
Click to expand...

This is correct; many of the in-line scanning systems stem from the early 2000s and were limited resolution-wise; like you said, often 2Mpix. I think a 'modern' Frontier is still limited to around 6MPix for a 35mm frame. Which is enough for the vast majority of print sizes being requested in reality, but still, the one time you really want to go big, you'll have to have that frame re-scanned at higher resolution.
 

Even today, 1.5MPixel images are often 'standard' and you pay extra for any higher res. Two randomly chosen labs
Admittedly a third lab had 'Pro' in its name and its JPG scan of film was 6MPixel. The consumer should ASK before using any lab.
 
The default for Frontiers was 300dpi for all print sizes. At normal viewing distance you won't see any difference in say, a 12x16inch/30x40cm at 300dpi and one at higher dpi.

I think people can get hung up on resolution and megapixels rather than the quality of the image.
 
Fatih Ayoglu said:
Aree you happy with 646? I have an opportunity to get one from a friend for EUR2500 including charts, computer with it etc. All working fine as he is about fisnihing up to scan his entire Kodachrome and other Chrome archieve and want to sell it.
Click to expand...
It's a fantastic scanner yes have no doubts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register