James75
newbie
Reged: 21/03/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
Howdy.
Up until now I tend to send my film for developing at Bonusprint. Alas, my most recent order has come back looking suspiciousLY 'digital' in effect. Can anybody explain the methods used by companies such as Bonusprint to develop film? Indeed, am I correct in assuming that such a 'new generation' of film developing technology exists or am I barking up the wrong tree? If my assumptions are correct can anybody point me in the direction of a company that won't send me back pictures wherein the people featured look liked they've been touched up with foundation, the key flaw to digital imaging in my book?
Help!
Cheers
James
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4493
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Can anybody explain the methods used by companies such as Bonusprint to develop film? Indeed, am I correct in assuming that such a 'new generation' of film developing technology exists or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I suspect the development has not cheanged; your negs should be all right.
However I guess that they may be scanning the negs and printing them digitally rather than making traditional wet process prints.
Try Peak Imaging; they may be more expensive but they generally turn out a product which is way ahead of bulk processors in quality.
|
James75
newbie
Reged: 21/03/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
This is sort of what I thought. Can anybody confirm this to be true? Seriously, some of the low-light stuff I took came back looking hideous. I can't see myself using Bonusprint ever again.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1066
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I'm sure beejaybee is right (he usually is  ). I don't know about Bonusprint but gather others do. The whole production line is geared to digital and they have fast scanners to produce CDs for people so it's easier to scan the film and then run it through the same process as everything else.
|
James75
newbie
Reged: 21/03/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
Bummer... it negates the whole point of shooting on film really doesn't it.
|
Rhys_Hardwick
enthusiast
Reged: 12/04/2007
Posts: 212
Loc: Cardiff, Wales, UK
|
|
Actually, if you believe the technical staff at AP, the way to get best prints is to shoot on film, scan with a dedicated scanner, and then print digitally. All this assumes the best quality gear, of course, which is where bulk looses out.
--------------------
Rhys Hardwick
www.rhyshardwick.co.uk
|
James75
newbie
Reged: 21/03/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
Surely it would take on a different look though? I'm not ant-digital but film has a different texture to it and if I shoot on film I want my prints to reflect that - otherwise I may as well go digital
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1066
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
Actually, if you believe the technical staff at AP,
Of course we all do! all the time
|
Rhys_Hardwick
enthusiast
Reged: 12/04/2007
Posts: 212
Loc: Cardiff, Wales, UK
|
|
What you are talking about is very subjective, and a subject that people argue about day and night. The only way I think you can be sure is to try it to the best of your ability and budget, and see what you think. And, of course, see what other people's opinions are around here.
I'm not that experienced with film myself, so can't really comment, sorry.
--------------------
Rhys Hardwick
www.rhyshardwick.co.uk
|
PeteE
enthusiast
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 396
Loc: BRENTWOOD,Essex
|
|
I have used BonusPrint, BonusPhoto, DoublePrint, TriplePrint (all the SAME company, Grunwick Laboratories of Borehamwood, Herts) for many years. Recently I suspected the prints were being done digitally but on standard RA4 colour paper process. I have NOT seen the effect you describe, and all of the films I send are well out of date!
--------------------
Got COMPUTERISED at last and now Digitised but FILM still RULES!
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2964
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
I think you'll find that most commercial processers have scanned negs dgitally for about ten years now.
Commercially it makes a lot of sense as it is much easier to adjust exposure, colour balance and sharpness digitally rather than in wet processing. It is also easier to recover lost shadow and highlight details this way, as there are very few labs who will 'dodge and burn' as we used to. Added to which, most labs are now set up primarily to print from digital files rather than from negs.
In fairness most labs do a reasonable job, but some are appalling. But assuming that your negs have been exposed and processed properly you should be able to get them scanned again. Better still, get yourself a decent film scanner and do it yourself! 
Home developins is also quick and easy, and much more fun than filling in forms for mail order processers.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
AJUK
Reged: 22/03/2005
Posts: 2656
Loc: UK
|
|
ASDA, yes I said ASDA!
--------------------
Al
[Insert clever comment here]
|
James75
newbie
Reged: 21/03/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
Bonusprint have got back to me and they have indeed changed their method in what must have been within the last couple of months because the films I sent away in January came back ok.
But I completely disagree with what you say about this process being of a higher standard. I use film because I like the texture of a print made from a negative. What's more I prefer the colours. Digital imaging can often appear brutally sharp and colour oddly saturated.
And the last thing I want to do is muck about with all this stuff at home, thanks. I'm into the actual taking of the picture, pure and simple, and I like somebody else to deal with all the rest.
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2964
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
.......... But I completely disagree with what you say about this process being of a higher standard. I use film because I like the texture of a print made from a negative. What's more I prefer the colours. Digital imaging can often appear brutally sharp and colour oddly saturated.
And the last thing I want to do is muck about with all this stuff at home, thanks. I'm into the actual taking of the picture, pure and simple, and I like somebody else to deal with all the rest.
With respect James, that is not quite what I said:
Quote:
I think you'll find that most commercial processers have scanned negs dgitally for about ten years now.
Commercially it makes a lot of sense as it is much easier to adjust exposure, colour balance and sharpness digitally rather than in wet processing. It is also easier to recover lost shadow and highlight details this way, as there are very few labs who will 'dodge and burn' as we used to. Added to which, most labs are now set up primarily to print from digital files rather than from negs.
In fairness most labs do a reasonable job, but some are appalling. But assuming that your negs have been exposed and processed properly you should be able to get them scanned again. Better still, get yourself a decent film scanner and do it yourself!
I would agree that a skilled darkroom worker can produce stunning prints direct from negatives using the wet process. Cibachrome (from transparencies) is even better!
Sadly, such people are very few and far between these days, and few of us could afford to employ them on a regular basis.
Equally, digital scanning can, and does produce stunning results. But equally again, heavy handed sharpening or automated colour balancing can destroy a good image. But what do you expect for ten pence a print?
I gave up printing onto Cibachroms years ago, as I probably wasted ten sheets of [very expensive] paper for every print that I was happy with. I now scan my medium format films using a Nikon film scanner, and I can honestly say that the quality is superb. I also waste evry little paper these days!
I have pasted a few images below, all of which I scanned from Velvia roll film. Velvia does of course give very saturated colours; but do any of these show lurid colours or brutal sharpening? I don't think think so myself, but then we all have different tastes.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4493
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Velvia does of course give very saturated colours; but do any of these show lurid colours or brutal sharpening? I don't think think so myself, but then we all have different tastes.
Lurid, brutal? IMO, no. I honestly think the train picture is too saturated but the high saturation really suits the winter landscape (though a monochrome conversion might be worth trying?) And, given that light, the seascape would have been hopelessly "flat" on Astia, even if the representation it gives would be more accurate.
I guess what it boils down to is that when film is loaded, especially colour transparency film, it needs to be matched to the subject and the light. Digital image capture frees the photographer from that restriction. Printing processes, wet, digital or hybrid, can of course foul up the photographer's intention ... if you want control then you have to wrest it from commercial processors.
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 2964
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Velvia does of course give very saturated colours; but do any of these show lurid colours or brutal sharpening? I don't think think so myself, but then we all have different tastes.
Lurid, brutal? IMO, no. I honestly think the train picture is too saturated but the high saturation really suits the winter landscape (though a monochrome conversion might be worth trying?) And, given that light, the seascape would have been hopelessly "flat" on Astia, even if the representation it gives would be more accurate.
I guess what it boils down to is that when film is loaded, especially colour transparency film, it needs to be matched to the subject and the light. Digital image capture frees the photographer from that restriction. Printing processes, wet, digital or hybrid, can of course foul up the photographer's intention ... if you want control then you have to wrest it from commercial processors.
I would agree with you on all points BJB. The point I was trying to make is that 'digital scanning does not neccessarily result in brutal sharpening or lurid colours' (although it may do if we are careless).
The train photograph is a bit over saturated, but that has everything to do with my choice of Velvia, and little to do with the digital scanning. The 'blood and custard' colour scheme (as described by Dorset Mike) probably adds to this impression. But I daresay the results would have been very similar had it been printed directly onto Cibachrome.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
apochromatic
newbie
Reged: 06/04/2008
Posts: 8
Loc: UK
|
|
I used to work in the laboratory business and must make a couple of points if I may?
Commercial film/digital scanning is like any other tool in the photographic industry, which relies on two factors
1.That the machine and all its software is properly set up by the manufacturer. As with any PC driven machine there are hundreds of software permutations, including saturation, 'sharpening', the size of operator adjustment increments.. the list is huge and it is a time consuming business to set up.
2.The operator of the machine must know what they are doing. All machines have an automatic setting that can scan a whole film in about ten seconds, and some firms use this. Others use pre-judged print settings where the operator makes adjustments to each print from an initial suggestion the machine provides. If the operator is a numpty it might be better to let the machine run on auto!
The bulk photographic processors (and we know who they are) are forced by their own price-sensitive tactics to print everything as fast as possible. If 10% of the work is rubbish, too bad - they haven't got time to go back and fix these. The profit margins on these operations is incredibly fine - I once heard a Kodak rep say that a high volume processor makes its profit entirely from the silver recovered from the film and paper.
It is seldom the machines fault if prints turn out badly. Overall, the quality of machines now, including the scanning , is extra-ordinary. No, it is the human element that lets things down, just as it always has...aren't cameras in the same category?!!! My best advice is to ignore how the film or prints are produced but find out what the company is like: How? Phone them up - if they don't have time to talk to you and be courteous then can you expect them to treat your precious films any better?
If you want reliably good prints then be prepared to pay a little more for them - don't end up being the "10% too bad".
Anyway - There are some beautiful clouds in the sky and I'm off out before any more of this snow melts!!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
