6x4 Prints from 4MP olympus poor compared to 35mm scans.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pomodorojimmy, Sep 2, 2004.

  1. 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, Sep 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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:...
    > 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?
     
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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:...
    > > 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, Sep 3, 2004
    #3
  4. pomodorojimmy

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    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 |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 3, 2004
    #4
  5. pomodorojimmy

    PETERWOJ Guest

    >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.
     
    PETERWOJ, Sep 3, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob

    4MP photos = 4x6 35mm?

    Rob, Nov 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    1,301
    Flycaster
    Dec 4, 2003
  2. Tilman Kolk

    regarding lens distortions on a DSLR compared to 35mm

    Tilman Kolk, May 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    379
    Ken Burns
    May 14, 2004
  3. Petekk

    Cheapest UK internet to prints 45 6x4

    Petekk, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    286
  4. Rusky

    printing on 6x4 paper prints smaller images

    Rusky, Mar 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    468
    Stewy
    Mar 3, 2005
  5. Hoshisato

    View angle on Pentax *ist DS compared to a 35mm camera

    Hoshisato, Apr 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    308
    Hoshisato
    May 5, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page