Too much yellow on trees...'

[mshchem]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... or large format Ektar these days, like me. But I shoot it in smaller formats too.

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

I think I’m an adult, sometimes…!

 

[Nikon 2]

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

Actually the yellowing doesn’t bother me, but because the scene appeared to be green to my eyes I questioned it…!

 

[Nikon 2]

This just in:

My prints arrived from Blue Moon labs!
Will share them we I get back home…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

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).

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Nikon 2]

They are of different scenes. It isn't the process that matters with a print this size, it is the person operating it.

Same scene different focal length lens…!

 

[Nikon 2]

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).

It’s called mud in the eye…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just call it "Fine Art" and you can get away with anything!

 

[Nikon 2]

Just call it "Fine Art" and you can get away with anything!

 

[Nikon 2]

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…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, you get the idea. But digital engineers are outpacing us, and not only including fuzzy brushstroke simulation apps in their camera software, but no doubt, soon also cobwebs in the lens apps,
muddy bootprint on the print apps, etc. Now anyone can be a great artiste.

 

[mshchem]

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

 

[Nikon 2]

I want to see the blurry cell phone images

Under construction…!

 

[Nikon 2]

But I quite like this rendition of an optical print.
The original print that was photographed and posted here by an iPhone is much sharper with more saturation than what is shown here...!

 

[MattKing]

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…!

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.

With a couple of quick digital swipes, I could have it look like this instead:

 

[Nikon 2]

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…!

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[mshchem]

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? You must be a pilot!

 

[koraks]

How did you send your negatives to Blue Moon and get your prints back so fast?

He had already sent them last week or so. It's in another thread where he mentioned it.

it is because they are applying skill, attention, knowledge and experience to what they are doing.

It is because the person operating the optical printer happens to make decisions that OP would make himself, too, when printing. It's not even necessarily skill, attention etc. They might be yanking out the prints as fast as they go through the machine with only minimal attention to color balancing for all we know.

I couldn't say anything useful about the photos of the prints; there's so much lost in the digital rendition that it doesn't make sense to try and interpret it. The colors look exceptionally muddy to me and absolutely nothing like what an optical print from Ektar looks like when I make it - but that may be due to the iPhone snap.

 

[BMbikerider]

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.

I am fortunate that I have A1 colour vision or should I say perception. (Tested) but I made a print last night and judged the balance by the 6500 degree Kelvin LED bulb which is broadly speaking just about noon daylight in UK on a sunny day. By the sunlight this morning at 9am I looked at it and it was obviously too warm and will need some yellow and possibly red removing to get it up to the standard I want.

 

[koraks]

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.

No contest

I hear you on the difficulty of balancing under one light source and then judging under another. If it's critical, I actually prefer to print on an overcast day so I can judge the color under diffuse, natural light. And even then it will balance differently depending on exact weather conditions. Perfection isn't possible - the best you can do is match closely to the intended display conditions. Which of course you often can't determine unless they're intended to be framed and placed in a very specific spot!

 

[Nikon 2]

How did you send your negatives to Blue Moon and get your prints back so fast? You must be a pilot!

By mail…?

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

As I see it, having prints done by an optical process makes one reliant of making oneself to become a better photographer only since the final work can not be photoshopped to erase mistakes made beforehand…!