«

Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from
a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an
epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High
resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the
same time.

Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had
something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was
great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant
and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great.
Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room
with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken
with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine.

I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many
advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts
me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing
professionally printed prints?

Shooting digital is different from shooting film. Certainly not
inferior...but very different. When scanning the film did you set the
software to adjust for color tints? It might have been automatic...and did
you do the same with your digital camera? Have you found a way to do that
with a film camera? When you send your film off to be developed and printed
did you stand over the operators shoulder while he adjusted each photo? Or
did you just let the machine do what it thought best? If you don't like the
color you get back with film...too bad. If you don't like the color you get
with digital...then fix it! Its not the digital process....you haven't used
the digital process.

In a related vein....what is the point of those printers that print directly
from the chip? I am a professional with years of experience and I don't take
many perfect photos....why print them before fixing them?


"pomodorojimmy" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from
> a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an
> epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High
> resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the
> same time.
>
> Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had
> something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was
> great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant
> and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great.
> Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room
> with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken
> with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine.
>
> I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many
> advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts
> me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing
> professionally printed prints?

When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix
the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as
good as my film camera. I've been shooting for 15 years with an slr
but I'm no pro. 90% of my photos are great. I don't want to sit in
front of a computer correcting peoples pasty faces.
I can see others loving the editing and perfecting side to digital but
I just want film like colors out of a digital. I dont have the time to
sit and adjust 100s of photos a month!

Thanks for your replies.

"Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message news:<D5zZc.4032$P97.2657@trndny04>...
> Shooting digital is different from shooting film. Certainly not
> inferior...but very different. When scanning the film did you set the
> software to adjust for color tints? It might have been automatic...and did
> you do the same with your digital camera? Have you found a way to do that
> with a film camera? When you send your film off to be developed and printed
> did you stand over the operators shoulder while he adjusted each photo? Or
> did you just let the machine do what it thought best? If you don't like the
> color you get back with film...too bad. If you don't like the color you get
> with digital...then fix it! Its not the digital process....you haven't used
> the digital process.
>
> In a related vein....what is the point of those printers that print directly
> from the chip? I am a professional with years of experience and I don't take
> many perfect photos....why print them before fixing them?
>
>
> "pomodorojimmy" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > Hi all, I recently got printed professionally (agfa) some photos from
> > a 4M Pixel olympus and some I scanned from 35mm negatives using an
> > epson perfection 1670 document/film scanner at 300dpi. High
> > resolution was used for the camera. Prints were sent online at the
> > same time.
> >
> > Although on the monitor the camera shots look great, the prints had
> > something laking when compared to the 35mm scans. The sharpness was
> > great, but there was something lacking about the colors. Less vibrant
> > and more pasty. The prints from the scans look great.
> > Another problem occured when shots were taken in a peach colored room
> > with a flash. The print has mild overall peachey cast. Shots taken
> > with a 35mm SLR with flash in the same room look fine.
> >
> > I was thinking of buying a digital camera, since they do have many
> > advantages over conventional ones, but the quality of the prints puts
> > me off. Has anyone else noticed this inferiority when comparing
> > professionally printed prints?

pomodorojimmy <> wrote:

> When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix
> the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as
> good as my film camera.

If you shoot negatives and get prints, then every one of your pictures
has had the colors fixed in addition to other adjustments at the lab.
When you shoot digital, that isn't happening any more.

In addition, it's not just "digital" that you're shooting; with a film
camera you can get different looking results by choosing a different
kind of film. With digital, the "film" is part of the camera, and
can differ from one camera to another. There are also some settings
in most cameras that affect color rendition, contrast, and the like,
that you can play with to try to get it the way you want right out
of the camera (somewhat similar to choosing a type of film).

--
Jeremy |

>When you pay top dollar for a camera, I don't expect to have to fix
>the color myself. As far as I am concerned, the prints should be as
>good as my film camera. I've been shooting for 15 years with an slr
>but I'm no pro. 90% of my photos are great. I don't want to sit in
>front of a computer correcting peoples pasty faces.
>I can see others loving the editing and perfecting side to digital but
>I just want film like colors out of a digital. I dont have the time to
>sit and adjust 100s of photos a month!
>
>Thanks for your replies.


4MP digital camera wouldn't be top of the line cam for at least 1.5 years now.
Since most of the processing can be done in camera now instead of lab when
developing film, have you tried to read the manual and learn some of the new
functions non existing in SLR like sharpness, color balance etc? Some shoot the
pictures raw and process them on computer later, but you can set the camera to
process the pictures right at the time of shooting. I agree with you about
having better things to do than spending hours on the computer to get right
color balance etc. The good thing is: it doesn't cost a penny to experiment and
learn digital cam to find the right settings and you can see the results almost
instantly. I get as good or better results from 2 MP cam when printed 6x4 as
compared to SLR so you must be doing something wrong unless camera is
defective.