What is it about digital prints...

[Littleshmee]

What makes a digital print look different? Even prints from DSLRs on dye sublimation printers look... I can't figure it out. They just plain look different, less lively, less... I don't know. If anyone knows what I mean and can put it into words, it's been bothering me for a while now. :?

[Jason Dunn]

You'll probably get 100 different answers if you ask 100 different people, but in my opinion the reason it looks different is that digital offers more data than 35mm, and there's basically no grain. Images are crisper, almost eerily so...but after a while it becomes normal and now when I look at an average 35mm photo (non-professional) I think they look generally horrible.

[Jon Westfall]

Do they seem different to you if you don't know they are digital prints? Or can you pick them out if given digital and 35mm prints?

[Gary Sheynkman]

What will happen is that you will always be able to tell if it is a bad digital pic. Pixelation (noise) is a flaw that when a picture is not exposed well can become a dead give away of a digital photo.

On well exposed pics though, if you use your run-of-the-mill walgreens prints you wont tell the difference...now pro prints...different story

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Did you know that even with film nowadays, it's likely to be scanned first then printed?

[Gary Sheynkman]

So they digitize the image before they print it off???

I guess that even further supports my comment! :D

[Littleshmee]

Ha, well that just blows my theory out of the water :oops:
I don't know if I could tell the difference without knowing, I've never had the opportunity. What I'm noticing isn't usually something to do with pixelation, more of a general flatness/low contrastyness that is most likely my fault. And do they really scan then print?? That seems crazy.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Yes, they scan, and I'm not the only one who'll say that when properly done on a good machine (say a Fuji Frontier), it looks better than the traditional methods.

There is a difference between film and digital, but when printed out the difference isn't that big. In fact if it's a print of a slide vs a digital printout, it's hard to tell.

[Jon Westfall]

Yes, they scan, and I'm not the only one who'll say that when properly done on a good machine (say a Fuji Frontier), it looks better than the traditional methods.

There is a difference between film and digital, but when printed out the difference isn't that big. In fact if it's a print of a slide vs a digital printout, it's hard to tell.

I agree. Although anything done on a "good" (i.e. expensive) machine will almost always beat something done the old, more accepted, and lower-cost way.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, this is comparing old machines vs new machines in professional labs..