You can only wring so much out of a miniature negative. People who get amazing color landscapes get out there with large format Ektachrome or Fujichrome. It's a great feat to get a lovely shot.
And my point was a suggestion, not a command, nor even a "solution". And I was just showing how much testing he could do with 36 frames, not ordering him to do so, nor telling him it's the only way he'll learn.
He's an adult—I think—, he can use the amount of film he wants, 2, 3, 12 or all 36 frames, for his exposure test. Or he could roll the dices.
There is great magic in the golden hour. Maybe it's just that the scene is a bit contrasty... But I wouldn't look for color compensation
Can you discern the scanned print from the optical…?
They are of different scenes. It isn't the process that matters with a print this size, it is the person operating it.
The obviously look different. But both look like a muddy postage stamp being viewed through a smeared windshield. It's not like comparing them with one's own eyes in person. And to a certain extent, one gets what they paid for. Inexpensive prints are always a gamble (and sometimes expensive ones are too, but should be statistically better).
Just call it "Fine Art" and you can get away with anything!
This just in:
My prints arrived from Blue Moon labs!
Will share them we I get back home…!
I want to see the blurry cell phone images
So what I perceive the difference between a scanned digital print and an optical one is…
The scanned digital print is more upfront in your face and vibrant while the optical print is more laid back and unobtrusive, much like the comparisons of digital vs vinyl…!
Reason why I’m concentrating now on optical prints with no digital processing as this optical print. Practice makes perfect…!No - that is the comparison between just those prints you are looking at.
With the print that involves digital intermediate steps, the choices made by the operator could have resulted in much more muted and less vibrant colours, or much more in your face and obtrusive colours.
The optical prints have less options.
This is from a scan - the digital processing choices I made resulted in a 12" x 16" machine print (on to photographic paper) that has reasonably subtle colour - not unlike the facsimile on your screen - but that was intentional, not a function of the procedure.
View attachment 342876
With a couple of quick digital swipes, I could have it look like this instead:
View attachment 342877
Reason why I’m concentrating now on optical prints with no digital processing as this optical print. Practice makes perfect…!
How did you send your negatives to Blue Moon and get your prints back so fast?
it is because they are applying skill, attention, knowledge and experience to what they are doing.
I think Koraks will agree with me that getting the colour balance/exposure absolutely spot on will make all the difference between a superb print and one that is shall we say mediocre.
How did you send your negatives to Blue Moon and get your prints back so fast? You must be a pilot!
I have seen thousands and thousands of really crummy optical prints.
And many, many good ones. And even quite a lot of superb ones.
I've made a good number of quality optical colour prints myself, although not many recently.
It isn't the process or procedure - it is the operator.
If you are happy with prints from Blue Moon, that is good. But it isn't because they are printing optically, it is because they are applying skill, attention, knowledge and experience to what they are doing.
If they had to switch to printing from scans - perhaps due to the challenges of maintaining no longer available and difficult to service legacy equipment - most likely they would be able to give you similarly good results, because of that same skill, attention, knowledge and experience.
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?