File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
which do you guys subjectively feel to look better: film prints or film scans? im contemplating taking an actual film photography class, but idk how well im going to like printing

also crit/commentary if you please
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpi
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
For real life film prints are always the best for viewing. For viewing on the computer, always scan the film directly.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpi
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>289253
lets say you print a tif of a scan on a dye-sublimation printer or something similar, and print the same negative/slide on paper with an enlarger, would there really be a discernable difference though?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpi
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>289257
It really depends on fine detail, size of the print, and size of the film. When you shrink or resize an image on the computer for printing, you average pixels, removing information. When you move an enlarger up and down in the dark room, you are simply making the information smaller. That is not to say that there isn't a limit for the photo paper, but it will come out better in the darkroom if you have ability to print well in there.
>> Anonymous
Printing in the darkroom is one of the most peaceful yet exciting thing you can do in photography. There's something to be said about watching a print develop right in front of you. No matter how often I do it I love it.

Take a class. Nothing to lose other than time and money.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
Analog to analog is usually better than analog to digital to analog since quantization has finite definition. Unless of course you're using a really crappy enlarger and photo paper but really awesome scanner and printer and paper.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>289357
hah, i never knew you got to see the print actually develop, that sounds damn cool.
also: /p/ haet pictures

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpi
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
bampu for c&c pls ;-;

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpi
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpi