Printing Slides - Internegative or Digital?

[Andrew Solberg]

I have just had some slides printed 8X10. For the first time, the lab
owner talked me into trying their digital printing. I am not sure that
I like it. It does seem crisper in the details (compared to the
traditional way I have used in the past), but the grain seems a bit more
apparent. On one print (a seascape), the printing method seems not to
be able to handle the contrast between the land and the sky without
having this annoying outline that doesn't seem to be on the slide.
Maybe it's me.

Anyway, are there any comments on this method of printing slides vs. the
use of internegatives?

Best,
- Andy

--
Andrew L. Solberg E-Mail sol...@clark.net
A.L.S. Healthcare Consultant Services Voice: (410) 730-2664
5612 Thicket Lane Fax: (410) 997-2395
Columbia, Maryland 21044 Strategic Planning in Health Care

[Brent Hutto]

In article <3634D4...@clark.net>
Andrew Solberg <sol...@clark.net> wrote:

> I have just had some slides printed 8X10. For the first time, the lab
> owner talked me into trying their digital printing. I am not sure that
> I like it. It does seem crisper in the details (compared to the
> traditional way I have used in the past), but the grain seems a bit more
> apparent. On one print (a seascape), the printing method seems not to
> be able to handle the contrast between the land and the sky without
> having this annoying outline that doesn't seem to be on the slide.
> Maybe it's me.

Two questions. Have you compared the internegative approach to
Cibachrome/Ilfochrome? And how expensive is the "digital" print
versus the one using the internegative?

I just got my first slide-to-print back from a local lab. It is 11x14 and
cost $29 ($9 to make the interneg and $20 to make the 11x14 print).
Local pro labs charge anywhere from $12 to $40 just to do a "hi-res"
scan of a single slide, so I'm guessing the digital route would be a
good bit more expensive for me.

[Andrew Solberg]

Brent Hutto wrote:
>
> Two questions. Have you compared the internegative approach to
> Cibachrome/Ilfochrome? And how expensive is the "digital" print
> versus the one using the internegative?

The digital was about $12 and the the Internegative approach (no special
paper) is about the same, maybe a dollar less expensive.

Thanks,

[DALPHOTOPR]

Clearly you need to go into this with two questions answered:

(1) the price differences in the services (to include the hidden costs like
the scanning fees, or internegatives). You may find that the digital method
isn't that expensive,--sometimes some shops even run discounts on scans during
their low seasons.

(2) the quality of the finished print (which I interprete as the closest to
the original transparency)--unless you want to manipulate it,

With dye sublimation prints (up to about 8x10) I get really good original
replication,--the color correction is right on the mark,--and the sharpness is
right on.

With the conventional chemical process (in my case up to 11x14 on a poster
printer), I saw color REALLY right on, but lost a bit in the detail (the
crispness),--and that wasn't all from jumping up to 11x14 vice 8x10.

Both of these digital processes produce a finished product that puts the
internegative process to shame,--on top of that, with the dye sublimation, you
can walk out with the product in about 10 minutes. With the
internegative,--come back tomorrow.

I suggest you pick a couple of transparencies (pick some extremes) that you
really like, and then have them enlarged through the various methods available
to you. YOU be the judge. We certainly can't tell you which will come out the
best.

Unfortunately, this has to take a little investment monetarily, to get to that
decision point.

Dan
DAL Photo Productions