When film is digital.

[Nikon 2]

You start out shooting film and feel good about it.
Send the negatives to Blue Moon and they scan them to put on a flash drive.
What is the final result seeing them, film or digital…

 

[Paul Howell]

In most cases when you have prints made by a photo lab they are scanned and printed on R4 paper. Fuji and Nortusi (sp?) last models are digital, you might find a lab that still has an older analog model minilab, but parts and so on, not sure how many are in still in operation. From my experience prints that optical printed by enlarger are a bit softer, more stubal. Depending on the film both a scanned negative and a printed negative might have greater dynamic range that a digital file. I think Blue Moon will print custom print a color negative with an enlarger, so you can a negative printed then scanned and printed and compare to see which you prefer. I still prefer color film, but with price of film, processing and printing I no longer shoot color film.

 

[Ian Grant]

This is an old question. Remember Kodak's Picture CD that's over 20 years ago, you got prints and a CD with digital images at 3 different resolutions.

Ian

 

[Nikon 2]

If I want Optical prints the same size of my computer screen, 30 x 36 @ $2,000 a roll to achieve better images than the Leica MD 262 from SD card straight to computer…

 

[koraks]

I think Blue Moon will print custom print a color negative with an enlarger

Maybe, but mostly they offer analog minilab prints. They're one of the few who do this.
Enlarging is time consuming; expect to pay $20 per print and upwards.

30 x 36 @ $2,000 a roll

Not necessarily. You can easily print as large as your computer monitor from a scan made with a $1k film scanner. You could even reuse the scanner for future rolls. Imagine that!

 

[MattKing]

Another film vs. digital argument.
Which is not in accord with the Photrio rules.
I've moved it to "Ethics and Philosophy", and will now lock it.