Will 35mm film quality suffer if my lab scans negatives before printing?
Asked 8/25/2010
3 views
2 answers
0
I found an older 35mm SLR and would like to shoot film, but I’ve been told most minilabs now develop the film, scan it, and then make prints digitally. My local options are places like Walmart, Target, and grocery stores, so I assume they use basic equipment.
If I don’t develop and print film myself, does that make using a film SLR effectively obsolete? More specifically, will 35mm film prints necessarily be lower quality than photos from my DSLR because of the way labs print them today?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
16y ago
2 Answers
14
You asked two slightly different questions.
Is it true that analog SLR’s are obsolete unless you develop your own photos?
No, that is not true. Film may have been supplanted by digital, but it is in no way obsolete.
Is it true that because of current printing methods for 35mm, shooting in this format will be necessarily of lower quality than my DSLR?
It's true, for places like Walmart and their ilk that use cheapo film scanners, however, I wouldn't necessarily say that Walmart, Target and your local grocer are photo-labs. They can develop prints, but like you said, they're going to use the most cost effective method (read: cheap) method they can get away with.
If you are serious about getting good quality prints from your film images, there are still a number of pro labs that develop film and most of them offer mail-in services. Many can be found on the web, and offer a range of service from your standard dip-and-dunk, to more specialized processing.
Also, check with local camera retailers (instead of the big chain ones), as they will often have an attached photo-lab.
Originally by user170. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user170
16y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
No. A film SLR is not obsolete just because you don’t process and print it yourself.
What matters is the lab and what you want from the images. Many consumer labs do develop film, scan it, and print digitally. Cheap minilabs may use lower-quality scanners and automated corrections, so results can look average or overly saturated. But that doesn’t mean 35mm film is inherently worse than your DSLR.
For standard prints, film scans printed at a lab can look very similar to straight-from-camera digital prints because they’re often made on similar machines with similar automatic corrections. If you want higher quality, better color, or larger prints, a good custom/pro lab will usually do a much better job than big-box stores.
Darkroom printing yourself is one route, especially for black-and-white, but it is not required to get worthwhile results from film.
So: film is still usable and relevant, but the final quality depends heavily on the film, camera, scan/print workflow, and the lab you choose—not simply on the fact that the lab scans before printing.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI16y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why do my 35mm film prints look low-resolution and noisy, and is this a lab issue?
How were consumer photo prints made from negatives in the 1980s and 1990s, and how do those machines differ from today's printers?
How can I make prints from 35mm positive film (slides)?
Where can I get 35mm film developed and scanned inexpensively?
Which budget 35mm film SLR system still makes sense to buy?