So today I had an interesting revelation about my local Ritz Camera, part of a chain of Fujifilm owned photoprocessors here in the US.

Apparently, the place I go to uses a hybrid digital/paper chemistry system: the negatives are processed and scanned, by which some minor manipulations can be made, such as density, dealing with red-eye, and even image sharpening. Then the image is projected and printed on regular photog paper, and processed- quickly!- in a regular, chemical, photographic process. It took less than 5 min. to do 5 prints (4 duplicates + another dupe). Of course, it’s not a custom print.

So- the original negative is not directly projected onto the print at all!

Anyhow, I had always wondered about this, b/c in past shots I saw what appeared to be pixelation on some of my 4x6 prints. And I wonder if an image is as sharp as it could be after all-- or, [shudder], sharper than it really is.

I wonder how people here do their processing- if they don’t to it at home. Do you go to a pro lab? the local 1-hr lab? slides only? slides + scan? scan at home?

I like the convenience and instant gratification of doing small prints at a 1-hr processor, but I fear it’s making me miss out on what my lenses can really do.

(Not to mention having people sharpen in addition to making decisions about density, and this by people who don’t know anything about photography: the young woman at the counter didn’t know what dodging and burning is, but did know enough to advise her equally youthful associate that no, Tri-X cannot be processed in color chemistry. Of course, the machinery has sufficiently de-skilled the process that all you need is someone who you think knows what a good snapshot [not a great image] looks like, more or less, and can push a few buttons...).

Slides are great- but hard to look at and share, and not very forgiving in terms of exposure latitude.

And scanning seems more and more attractive- at least for sharing on the net- tho’ I’m loathe to make that investment just yet, having just taken the Leica plunge...

Any thoughts?

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), September 30, 2001

Answers

You are only missing out on the performance of your lenses if you go to the typical cheap one hour processing place. I go to one which uses the same machines as everyone else, but they change their chemistry often, have trained operators who will immediately reprint a frame if something doesn't look right. Their prints are sharp.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 30, 2001.

I found my Darkroom much cheaper than a top-end scanner and software. A little more space, yes, and a little more time, yes, and I only do Black and White(a purer representation IMO), but It's like comparing LP's to CD's- LP's "Spaciality" is defintely there, and I've never seen digital B+W's equal the results I'm used to.

For color, OK, I believe that the desktop is the place to do it- but if I owned some M's, Monochrome would be the only option. I would hate to shoot some of the sharpest 35 lenses only to have pixels come in and muddy the purity of silver halide.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), September 30, 2001.

> only to have pixels come in and muddy the purity of silver halide

everything is discrete to some degree, even your halide molecules. what do you say when your pixels are smaller than silver grains and therefore contain greater 'purity'?

purity is relative.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 30, 2001.

Forgive me if I get the statistics wrong but last I read the consumer market makes up 90% of total films sold. We are talking about consumer type color print film processed in your neighborhood lab. These days when I travel to poorer places in Asia I can see about one photo store every other block so this is big business for Kodak, Fuji, etc. These people in the instant labs don't need to know anything about photography to do their jobs. If that was a requisite then you wouldn't have the volume we are seeing now. On the other hand the other type of films including MF, LF, B&W, chromes, etc make up the rest of the 10%. So more power to the minilabs if the profits generated by these types of sales sustains the less profitable market of do-it-at-home dodging and buring. These days I shoot CN400 and Reala and scan on my LS-4000 because I have little kids at home and they are very curious about chemicals under my sink!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), October 01, 2001.

Sounds like the Fuji Frontier system. There's an interesting thread about it on photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000rl6

I've only used it once, with an unfamiliar film and lens, so I can't really make a valid comparison with traditional minilab processing. But there was some very impressive colour rendition! If you're going to have machine prints done, I suspect this may be one of the better options. I'll certainly be trying it again.

-- Richard Williams (richardw@icr.ac.uk), October 01, 2001.

As I understand it, Frontier is a replacement for Ciba and is only for slide, but I suppose negatives can be scanned as effectively as slides. I have had some frontier done and the results are very impressive, even with difficult exposures. Better than Ciba, I think. I'm going to have my portfolio done this way.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 01, 2001.

If it is Fuji Frontier, which I suspect it is, I have the following observations...

1. The skill level/training of the operator is important. Some will oversharpen the images, leading to micro-pixellation, which can be annoying, if you look at your prints very critically. In particular, what suffers is the expressions on peoples faces, when those faces are very small on the finished print such as in 4x6s. Notwithstanding, the tonality and "clarity" of the prints will catch your eye right away.

2. The tonality and shadow control are nothing short of breathtaking, if done right.

3. The quality/cost ratio for prints from slides blows away anything else at all. If the operator has had any training at all, $1-2 will get you 5x7s from slides that are superb. This system allows you to consider shooting all slide, if you are an amateur.

4. My experience was all in a Fuji owned lab in Japan, where attention to quality was top-shelf. YMMV.

5. Prices should be no higher than for regular oldfashioned analog machine mini-lab prints.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 01, 2001.

The Frontier is definitely multi-purpose - Fuji makes a big deal about how the system can accept negatives, slides, or digital media. Here in the UK it's being sold as a 'premium' minilab service by shops like Jessops. I'd guess that it's primarily being used on colour negatives.

-- Richard Williams (richardw@icr.ac.uk), October 01, 2001.

The Frontier system is indeed multi-purpose. The lab here in Sacramento I've been using offeres any and all parts of the Frontier workflow: scans, prints from files, or the entire process. For a very reasonable cost I can get excellent 40mb scans (@24 bits/pixel) from the Frontier, clean the file up at home, and take the finished file back to the lab for printing on the Frontier. The only drawback to the system is the maximum print size of 10"x15".

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), October 01, 2001.

Sounds like the system that my favorite local pro photo store just purchased. I was buying some film & they had a very impressive sample photo sitting on the counter. I decided to give it a shot and bought some XP2 (just bought a new house and haven't built the new darkroom yet). I was extremely pleased. I even decided to try color print film and have been absolutely amazed with the results (I haven't used color print in 15 years). This machine, in the right hands, seems to provide results unlike any other minilab. The biggest problems are the expense and the fact that I can't get to the machine to control the results.

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), October 01, 2001.

>>>
The biggest problems are the expense and the fact that I can't get to the machine to control the results. <<<

That's why I take the scan home and clean it up before the lab prints it. I have LOTS more control that way.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), October 01, 2001.

One other drawback is the handling of your film. I rarely scratch my film when processing, if ever. Lately I've had T400CN processed and can't believe the amount of scratching and the general neg condition. If you have a good operator, great, if not......

I shudder to think of how I will re-touch half of these prints. Not a big deal if I'm re-touching in Photoshop, but real paper? I will never let another neg pass through others hands until I know they are capable of doing a good job. So far I have yet to find anyone in one of these smaller mini labs.

Regards

Wayne

-- Wayne Haag (wayne@wetafx.co.nz), October 02, 2001.