Prints from Nikon 4MP vs film scanned at 6MP

I just came back from a great trip to Paris. It was my first "semi-digital" trip using a Nikon Coolpix 4300 and a Nikon 8008s with a couple of lenses. Having had some prints done on a Fuji Frontier minilab I can say that the 4x6 inch prints from the coolpix look much better than those from one of the rolls of film. The rest of my film (some Velia 100F, Superia 400 and NPZ800) were processed at a lab that uses dip-dunk processing and scanned at high res JPG. I cannot understand why the scans look well... grainy. The Velvia 100F under a loupe looked outstanding. This is a very reputable lab (Zona in Somerville, MA). Any opinions on printing? This trip may just make me ditch film altogether and splurge for a D70.

In my very biased opinion.....you won't be sorry

Karl

If the velvia 100F looked outstanding through a good loupe (I personally use one of these), I would wonder about the quality of the scanner/scan operator. Did you scan yourself, or were the scans done for you???

I know my Minolta scanner is capable of making a good slide look really poor if I'm not careful.

The loupe was a Rodenstock and the light table is daylight balanced. It must be the scanning. I'm going to have them look at the scans and make a few prints the old fashioned way. This lab still prints Ilfochrome enlargements. I love the super glossy polyester paper- this is how I've always had my undewater photos done.

As for the files from the Coolpix, I'm going to take them to another place and have them printed on Fuji's super glossy polyester paper. Cibachrome-type printing from a little digicam. I cannot believe how well the small prints from that little 4 megapixel camera came out.

The loupe was a Rodenstock and the light table is daylight balanced. It must be the scanning. I'm going to have them look at the scans and make a few prints the old fashioned way. This lab still prints Ilfochrome enlargements. I love the super glossy polyester paper- this is how I've always had my undewater photos done.

As for the files from the Coolpix, I'm going to take them to another place and have them printed on Fuji's super glossy polyester paper. Cibachrome-type printing from a little digicam. I cannot believe how well the small prints from that little 4 megapixel camera came out.

It does sound like a problem of with the scanning.

I am always amazed at the quality of digital files at 100% compared to scanned film at 100%. I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 - a pretty good scanner - but I have to say that a 55MB scan (8bit - approx 21ishMP) from that, does not look as good at 100% as a 49MB output (8bit - approx 16ishMP) from my D100 (interpolated from 6MP in ACR).

I just got some A3 prints back this am and the D100 shots are stunning at this size with not a sign of pixels/grain. Wow was my reaction when I openned them.

Alex

I've seen this scenario before. It's a bad scan. I don't know the exact cause, but it's not your film as you can tell. There was some type of scanner noise introduced.

Two years ago I was given the task of preparing some large prints mounted and laminated for a DEMA trade show booth. Five other top side shots were included. These were done by a professional photographer. Rather than send slide dupes, I received the scans. These scans were done on a Nikon 8000 scanner at 4000dpi. I don't know what software settings were used, but they were horrible. I photoshopped them to death, but they still looked grainy, with the look of severe posterization. I never saw the slides, but I seriously doubt the slides looked anything like the scans or they would have never been selected.

This was a rush project (aren't they all), but the lab called me because they refused to mount and laminate them until I went down there and personally approved the prints. They looked awful. It was the same grainy look.

If you can find a lab that still does Type R prints, try a couple. Or just try another lab to do the prints.

One complaint about small sensor digicams is the limited dynamic range. While a valid arguement, it's not like Velvia has a huge dynamic range either. At 4mp, the digicam can produce 4x6's comparable to any film camera and much more easily. Plus, if you shoot slide film, as you have witnessed, you now introduce another step that can screw up your prints, regardless of the original film resolution.

I just came back from the lab. It is the scans. In the meantime the negatives are uncut and will go through a non-digital minilab printer. Zona takes a couple of days but their prints are very good.

Some of the slides are going to be printed on Ilfochrome paper. They will look three dimensional. I love "Cibachrome" prints. There is one slide that is a little too contasty. That one will be drum scanned and I can have it printed on Fuji's polyester paper after the image has been processed.

Hello Everyone -

Im new to photography, underwater photography and printing. I've been reading everyone's comments on printing digital files on different media. I just had some prints come back from Pictopia and liked the quality. Can someone point me to a site that explains all the different paper types (pros and cons)? That would be great. I think Pictopia uses Fuji paper.

Thanks!

michael palasz (starbuck)

Fuji's Crystal Archive is probably the best paper for normal prints. There is a good chance that your photos are printed on that. Prints will last many years.

For enlargments I really like the Fuji super glossy polyester paper. It's the only thing that compares to, and sometimes exceeds Cibachome prints.

Can someone point me to a site that explains all the different paper types (pros and cons)? That would be great. I think Pictopia uses Fuji paper.

I wish there was, but I haven't found one yet. We threw out a bunch of terms just to confuse everyone. :shock: I'll try a short version, but will probable miss some key points and probably make some slight factual mistakes.

There are two types of processes, wet and dry. Wet is the old fashioned way (like several years ago) and most mini-labs now use a dry process. It scans the film or takes your digital files directly and laser prints them. The machines are optimized to work on certain papers. Fuji Frontier mini-labs will almost always use Fuji Crystal Archive paper, as do most or all Lightjet printers. Crystal Archive paper is available in matte, glossy and now a super glossy.

Kodak abandoned their mini-lab joint venture with HP, which used inkjet technology and has now teamed up with Noritsu in order to provide fast, dry, laser generated digital prints using Applied Science Fiction software.

Your Kodak/Noritsu mini-lab probably uses Kodak paper. Does it make a difference? I have no idea.

Going back in time, making prints from slides was done one of several ways. This included Type R prints, the mid range technique that provided larger prints at a fairly reasonable cost. Another process using a unique paper was introduced by Ciba-Geigy, later sold to Ilfa (hence the changing desciptions Cibachrome and Ilfachrome). Nothing you look at looks as good as a slide on a good light table under a good loupe. Problem is its pretty difficult to share slides this way or even carry a slide projector. Prints from slides never look as good. They can't. Slides are film and viewed with the light source behind. Prints are limited in many ways because it is ink on paper. The closest thing to the luminance of a true slide was the Ilfachrome.

Today there are many paper choices when it comes to inkjets. Your mini-labs and Pictopias aren't geared to handle special requests. As far as choices, that's a whole nuther topic. But, there some super high gloss polyesters that are as close to Ilfachrome as you can get today. I've tested some smaller sheets and have a package of big sheets at home that I have yet to use. It's kind of pricey. I've got to get everything working right before I had feed the big sheets through my printer.

I can no longer get typer R prints. Most labs have discontinued them. A couple of years ago, I asked the counter guy at the local professional lab if they did Ilfachrome. He didn't know what an Ilfachrome was. Man, it doesn't take long to become a dinosaur.

Cibachrome is becoming a lost art. They are difficult to print and can require lots of dodging and burning. In this aspect, it is more art. No two prints are exactly alike since an operator is doing each one differently. Price-wise they are expensive. An 8 x 10 inch Ilfochrome at Zona costs $38. If you want white borders instead of black the price goes up to around $55. The chemistry is incredibly stalble.

On the opposite end, another lab with a Fuji Frontier can do an amazing 8 x 10 inch print on Fuji's super glossy paper. Cost is $8, including Photoshopping if necessary. Each print is identical and you can do them from digital files, slides or negatives. I'm not sure about how dry the process actually is, but my undersanding is that the paper is regular old RA4 and does require a few baths. The advantage of the Frontier is that the chemicals come pre measured and mixed.

One process I have not tried is Luminage, using the LightJet enlarger.