Too much yellow on trees...'

[Nikon 2]

So diffraction limited, and therefore unable to discern fine detail
Just kidding - I'm sure you can see the difference between those prints. But it says nothing about the inherent characteristics (not even saying 'advantages'!) of digital vs. optical enlargements.

The optical prints reveal a laid back calming natural characteristic as opposed to the digitized scan prints that to me are more upfront and, well, digital…!

 

[koraks]

Yes, of course, of course...

 

[Don_ih]

The optical prints reveal a laid back calming natural characteristic

That's what I go for when I'm enlarging.... (this was sarcastic)

 

[BMbikerider]

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

Do you mean you prefer the lower image with no cloud detail and turquoise sky?

 

[BMbikerider]

That's what I go for when I'm enlarging....

My ex wife rarely made a statement that was worth remembering, but one stands out. "digital prints have no soul". It is difficult to define exactly what she meant, but I am sure someone will get the meaning.

 

[Nikon 2]

My ex wife rarely made a statement that was worth remembering, but one stands out. "digital prints have no soul". It is difficult to define exactly what she meant, but I am sure someone will get the meaning.

I would assume her definition as “no soul” being fake and unnatural.
My wife actually saw the difference in the optical and scanned prints…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Do you mean you prefer the lower image with no cloud detail and turquoise sky?

I agree, the upper image looked much more natural.
Also supports my comparisons of digital and optical prints. Optical being more laid back and natural whilst the scanned prints look brazen in your face with added fatigue. But in a more subtle and less apparent noticeable comparison between the two. In others words you would need to compare them side by side…!

 

[Don_ih]

Do you mean you prefer the lower image with no cloud detail and turquoise sky?

I'm completely certain Matt was just showing how you can digitally muck up a perfectly fine image.

 

[Nikon 2]

I'm completely certain Matt was just showing how you can digitally muck up a perfectly fine image.

He did an amazing job of it…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was just at the art store looking through an entire long aisle of brushes for exactly the right kind. Seems that those interested in artistic expression are understandably obsessed with technique,
not negligent of it. The two go hand in hand. It's like saying you want to perform guitar music, but don't care to learn how.

But I have no idea why one technical route would be called "laid back" versus another. Sounds like hogwash to me. I prefer optical printing, but have never thought of it in that manner. Once you master your chosen tool kit, you can do all kinds of things with it.

 

[Nikon 2]

I was just at the art store looking through an entire long aisle of brushes for exactly the right kind. Seems that those interested in artistic expression are understandably obsessed with technique,
not negligent of it. The two go hand in hand. It's like saying you want to perform guitar music, but don't care to learn how.

But I have no idea why one technical route would be called "laid back" versus another. Sounds like hogwash to me. I prefer optical printing, but have never thought of it in that manner. Once you master your chosen tool kit, you can do all kinds of things with it.

Laid back is opposite of digital hardness…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

What's "hard" about digital? - other than I don't like doing it that way, and the very thought of it irks me. In terms of print output, nearly everything digital looks soft and poorly-defined to me, unless expertly done. I attribute crispness of color and detail to optical printing instead.

Semantics. Like back when kids started calling good "coooool" things,"baaaaad" instead (even though James Brown beat them to that one). I guess each generation invents its own manner of torturing vocabulary.

 

[Nikon 2]

The

What's "hard" about digital? - other than I don't like doing it that way, and the very thought of it irks me. In terms of print output, nearly everything digital looks soft and poorly-defined to me, unless expertly done. I attribute crispness of color and detail to optical printing instead.

Semantics. Like back when kids started calling good "coooool" things,"baaaaad" instead (even though James Brown beat them to that one). I guess each generation invents its own manner of torturing vocabulary.

Digital has a harsher rendition that film has…!

 

[MattKing]

The


Digital has a harsher rendition that film has…!

Sigh.....
Only if you tell it to.

I'm completely certain Matt was just showing how you can digitally muck up a perfectly fine image.

No - just showing how the results are so easy to change - applies to both workflows, although the available adjustments are easier to make in the digital realm, and there are more available.

Don't get me wrong - a custom made optical print made by a trained and talented and experienced operator can be wonderful, but the same applies to the operators working in the digital realm.
It isn't the process.

And that image I shared up above is one that started out as film, was scanned, and then both displayed digitally and printed digitally from the scan after careful post-processing of the scan. The 12"x16" prints I have from that scan are very nice, and have excellent, subtle tones and colours - but they were not printed optically.

They are on digitally printed RA-4 paper, but that is a different issue.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Harsh" means what? - too much contrast? That's easily controlled digitally, but not if some rote machine program doesn't think it's necessary. One more reason to pay a little more for at least semi-custom prints, where a skilled human operator understands you own expectations and has his hand on the wheel.

 

[Nikon 2]

"Harsh" means what? - too much contrast? That's easily controlled digitally, but not if some rote machine program doesn't think it's necessary. One more reason to pay a little more for at least semi-custom prints, where a skilled human operator understands you own expectations and has his hand on the wheel.

Harsh or unpleasantness, not smooth or natural.
Not blending together to make a whole…!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Again, you're describing something which is an artifact of substandard technique, related to the kind of rapid automation involved. But I do understand what you mean, and often heard friends complain about it back when their snapshots starting arriving unpleasantly different than before, much like you describe it, though with some expletives added. But that need not be the case if you are willing to spend enough to get custom printing on actual RA4 paper, even digitally exposed (versus inkjet prints). I personally prefer the more seamless look of optical printing using an actual enlarger; but that's takes too much time nowadays for commercial labs dependent upon rapid workflow and high volume. If they do a quantity of big prints all the same, that's a different story, and they can afford to fine-tune the image more. In your case, you'll obviously have to fish around awhile until you find an affordable lab which can provide the level of quality you desire.

 

[Nikon 2]

Again, you're describing something which is an artifact of substandard technique, related to the kind of rapid automation involved. But I do understand what you mean, and often heard friends complain about it back when their snapshots starting arriving unpleasantly different than before, much like you describe it, though with some expletives added. But that need not be the case if you are willing to spend enough to get custom printing on actual RA4 paper, even digitally exposed (versus inkjet prints). I personally prefer the more seamless look of optical printing using an actual enlarger; but that's takes too much time nowadays for commercial labs dependent upon rapid workflow and high volume. If they do a quantity of big prints all the same, that's a different story, and they can afford to fine-tune the image more. In your case, you'll obviously have to fish around awhile until you find an affordable lab which can provide the level of quality you desire.

Actually I’m getting optical printing done by Blue Moon Labs using RA4 paper that I compare to the digitally scanned prints from Process One Labs...!

 

[BMbikerider]

I would assume her definition as “no soul” being fake and unnatural.
My wife actually saw the difference in the optical and scanned prints…!

Do you know I don't think you are far off the mark.

 

[BMbikerider]

That's what I go for when I'm enlarging.... when I want to take something different

I do use a digital camera Nikon D300) but if I go out to get something a little different, I will use my Nikon F2 or even older Minolta XM. The prints seem to have a more 'rounded' presentation by this I mean - natural, and not in your face razor sharpness which rarely exists in real life.

 

[BMbikerider]

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!

Just to illustrate what I mean by getting the balance right can mean the difference between two prints The one 'Blencathra 1' was the one I judged using the 6500 degrees Kelvin LED Bulb and looked at in daylight was too warm and underexposed. The one 'Blencathra 2' was judged on the test strips as being the most accurate.
The exposures were a little different with Blencathra 1 being given 7 seconds and the Blencathra 2 being given 8.5 seconds for the base and 1.5 seconds less for the sky and snow area at the top. The main difference being I added 7.5 units (Kodak) of Magenta and yellow to alter the balance.
I know I said you usually have to alter the filtration if you alter the exposure but in this case I was able to get away with it because the change was so slight. The final filtration was 65M/70Y (LPL7700). The developer was Fuji CPRA Digital Pro @ 35C I also remember it was a bitterly cold day with a NE wind and temp of around -6c While the eye may like the 1st image, reproduced from scan of a print approx A4 size, here the 2nd was the most accurate

 

[koraks]

Good example; yes, artificial light can throw one off pretty badly. I vastly prefer the more cyan one, btw. Very nice.

 

[Don_ih]

No - just showing how the results are so easy to change - applies to both workflows, although the available adjustments are easier to make in the digital realm, and there are more available.

In what way is that not what I said?

I get some things digitally printed, because it's convenient. If you are careful with how you adjust the images prior to sending them to print, you can get very good result. Of course, you're not likely to get great results at Walmart. But any of the dedicated online printing retailers (those ones that offer prints, photobooks, blankets with photos on them, whatever you can think of) will return reasonably acceptable results. If they look harsh or garish or too sharp, blame yourself.
Digital printing will continue to improve, just as digital imagery will continue to improve. It's naive to think otherwise. There won't be any further advancement of RA4 printing.

 

[Nikon 2]

Do you know I don't think you are far off the mark.

Thanks for the support…!

 

[koraks]

I think the people at BlueMoon are very courteous and patient.