Photo Labs?

[Plekto]

I'm not sure whether this belongs here or in processing, but here goes.

I've been contemplating getting a new camera - something that uses film.  For various reasons, digital just won't accomplish what I want it to do.  So that said, I need to decide between 35mm and some sort of medium format.

Here's where it gets tricky.  There are no labs near me that process film the old fashioned way, at least not without a silly wait and insane proices.  They all use digital processing for color.  Well, they develop it the same, but not for printing.  As such, the best that I have found actually scans the negative at 2000*3000 resolution internally and then prints it out at 400dpi, effectively covering a 5*7 print(slight bit of bleed).  Bigger than that, it actually is rapidly losing resolution.

The problem is that this is fine for 35mm, but it doesn't seem like there's ANY ability to gain a bit of resolution from medium format from these machines, since that resolution is already a fraction of what 35mm has.

So I'm stumped.  What should I do?  I like medium format, but I can't really set up my own color lab in my house.  I could use slide film, but that still leaves the question of how do I manage to get decent prints made?

[Geoff Wittig]

So I'm stumped.  What should I do?  I like medium format, but I can't really set up my own color lab in my house.  I could use slide film, but that still leaves the question of how do I manage to get decent prints made?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You basically have to go digital on the printing side, unless you want to start from scratch and build your own darkroom. You can do it yourself. Any decent flatbed photo scanner will do a perfectly acceptable job with medium format film, at least up to print sizes in the 12x18 or 14x17" range. There are a couple of dedicated film scanners capable of accepting medium format for even better results, but they're pretty expensive.

[Plekto]

You basically have to go digital on the printing side, unless you want to start from scratch and build your own darkroom. You can do it yourself. Any decent flatbed photo scanner will do a perfectly acceptable job with medium format film, at least up to print sizes in the 12x18 or 14x17" range. There are a couple of dedicated film scanners capable of accepting medium format for even better results, but they're pretty expensive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The scanner isn't a problem, really, down the line.  Or I can find a lab with a dedicated scanner, probably.  The trick is obviously the printing.  Is there any way to get better than 400DPI?  My calculations for a 6*6 piece of film net me about 3600dpi on a typical scanner, give or take.  That's just over 72MP(actual full pixels, too) of raw data.  It seems useless, though, unless I'm printing about 8*8 inches or larger to have that extra data, since the printer is limited to 400DPI.  

This seems to be the weak link in the process.  Once it hits the printer, it's like it is being enlarged through coke bottle.  1 inch is 25.4 MM, so essentially it's printing at  16 lines/mm, which looks like it is okay, but maybe it's how the dye-sub printing itself works.  I can plainly see the difference between 300 and 400DPI dye-sub prints.  And they both look grainy and gritty compared to paper. 300 looks nasty, actually, even at arm's length.

How do I get around this limitation?  Also, what's the breakpoint?  How high would dye-sub have to get to be as smooth as optical prints as far as edges and moires and such(which of course would have to be small enough to not be visible).  Is this a problem with it being a bad technology or is it a matter of the stupid thing just doing a poor job with the pre-processing internally(ie - bad printer/lab)?

Oh - I'm in L.A. are there any places that still process and print film the old fashioned way that don't cost a fortune?  Or maybe a place that uses a 500+DPI machine if it exists?