Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That had better be a hell of a scanner on the C-41 mini-lab with a careful technician. The advantage of having a CD made is quick review - but I've never seen a scan back from a mini-lab that was as good as even a first approximation of what I do on my Nikon CS4000. Why put all the attention to making a good image and then at the crutial analog/digital stage let it be done by automation? I don't get this. Geesh - I'm cranky today - darn cold. Adam On 12/6/06, Bob Shaw <rsphotoimages@comcast.net> wrote: > Frank: > > Although it really depends on the lab and their equipment, I am > generally dissatisfied with C-41 print quality. To offset this, I have > all C-41 developed at Costco and scanned to a high resolution gold disc > at Costco. I also have my Kodachrome slides scanned at Costco. The > Costco warehouse store I go to is across the street from their HQ in > Issaquah, WA and employs the latest Fuji Frontier systems. > > I review the disc at home using iPhoto and Photoshop Elements 4.0, then > print the "survivors" on a Canon i860. Images that have merit I have > printed from the negative at a local pro lab. They give me the choice > of laser or giclee (inkjet) prints. > > Not an elegant solution, but a solution I can live with for now. I > think the real solution is the best affordable ink jet printer at home > and best affordable paper. > > Bob in Seattle > > > On Dec 6, 2006, at 9:06, Frank Filippone wrote: > > Funny you should bring up C41...... > > I took some pictures of our new grandson with my 50 Summilux and M6. > C41 ( I think it was ASA 100 Fuji, but could have been ASA > 200). > > The resultant prints ( done at my favorite Target C41 "lab" around the > corner from the house) showed terrible noise in the black > areas of otherwise daytime prints. I am sure the "Little Darling" > looked adorable, and the picture of him was just fine, but the > noise I saw was really pretty bad. Keep in mind these are full frame > 4x6 prints from full frame ( no Leica 72 out here.....) C41 > negatives. Not giant blow ups. > > Since all printing is now done digitally, ( or at least all consumer > level printing using the automated devices and run by high > school kids) it makes me wonder.... if this is the "standard" of what I > will get in the future, what should I do to provide good > images for my family.... or do they care that the blacks show high > noise? > > I am disappointed, my family seems content with Junior's cute little > face..... > > Guess I do nothing...... C41 + B+W forever..... ! > > > Steve > I think the advantages of the Canon 24/1.4 and the Canon 5D are pretty > good over the 2 stop slower Elmarit 21 and M8. But comparing > a 24 or 21 to a 50 is not fair, nor is comparing a lens optimized for > F1 to be compared to an F2.8. You just do not get results > that are apples to apples... The lenses are designed with different > objectives in mind. > > The comparison of the 50/1.4 Canon to the Noctilux,,,, you are only > getting one more stop of light... not too much of an > improvement. I guess you could find one of those 50 F1 Canon lenses > that were ( are?) made s few years ago and get an apples to > apples comparison. > > > > Frank Filippone > red735i@earthlink.net > > > > > now, how do images out of the M8 with Noctilux at f1 and ISO 400 and > 800 look compared to C41 bw film, same setup ? > > > Steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >