Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Quality of negatives for scanning

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
kebuchan@yahoo.com - 30 Oct 2006 13:58 GMT
Hi all,

We wanted to get our 35mm film developed and scanned.  Our local photo
lab or Walmart type place can only produce scanned images good enough
to print a 4x6 at best, they're tiny (<100K) jpeg files.

I have just found that I have access to a negative scanner at work and
was thinking of trying that out.

Does anyone know if it would make a difference where the negatives are
produced?  ie. a walmart type place uses a seemingly standard
processing machine, they feed the roll in one side and a set of
negatives and pictures comes out the other (or atleast seems that way).
Would it make a different to me in scanning the negatives if I could
the film developed at a Walmart/Kroger or at Joe's Professional Film
Lab?   Or is it the type of film that would really make a difference
when scanning the negatives in?

Thanks,

Kevin
rafe b - 30 Oct 2006 16:59 GMT
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Lab?   Or is it the type of film that would really make a difference
> when scanning the negatives in?

Obvously the end-quality depends on the film itself and
your skills as a photographer.  C41 processing is
ubiquitious and takes no particular skill.

OTOH, there are a number of ways that film can be
screwed up in processing by carelessness, mis-handling,
old chemistry, etc. etc.

So it's mostly a matter of finding a lab that takes the
proper care.  I wish there were a more definitive
answer -- but that's been my experience over many
years.  Once you find a good lab, stick with it.

One more idea/suggestion: ask for "processing only" --
ie., no prints.  In my experience, a good deal of the
mis-handling wasn't in the processing per se, but in
the mis-handling during the printing stage.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Nicholas O. Lindan - 30 Oct 2006 18:19 GMT
> One more idea/suggestion: ask for "processing only" --
> ie., no prints.  In my experience, a good deal of the
> mis-handling wasn't in the processing per se, but in
> the mis-handling during the printing stage.

My Mileage Did Vary [MMDV?]: When I asked for 'negs only'
they took the whole 6' strip and rolled it back into the
little plastic can, sweeping the floor with the loose end
and then tightening the roll to get the film into the can
and the dirt into the emulsion.  Happened thrice at three
different establishments.  If I just let them do the same
old same old same old and make prints and put them in
sleeves they do it just fine.

Maybe it is a strategy to keep folks from ordering
'negs only'.

Signature

Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

William Graham - 30 Oct 2006 19:22 GMT
>> One more idea/suggestion: ask for "processing only" --
>> ie., no prints.  In my experience, a good deal of the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Maybe it is a strategy to keep folks from ordering
> 'negs only'.

Same experience here....They gave me the film back rolled up in the plastic
jar that normally holds the film canister.....When I unrolled it for
scanning, there were numerous scratches and dust spots on it.....More than I
would normally expect to find on film that I would get back cut into strips
for printing. As a matter of fact, the best quality printing of film I can
get is in slides.....For some reason, the people who handle slide film, and
mount it into slides, take about the best care of film I have been able to
get from anyone......Another reason why I pretty near always just shoot
slide film......But, in general, I think the only way to keep dust, dirt,
and scratches away from your pictures is to go 100% digital. This may be
sad, but it is true. I have several thousand dollars tied up in film
equipment....Cameras, scanners, and associated computer software.....If I
were ten years younger, I would sell it all and buy a good quality digital
camera that mounts my lens set, and be done with film forever......At least
then, I would have no one to blame for bad pictures but myself.
rafe b - 30 Oct 2006 19:57 GMT
> My Mileage Did Vary [MMDV?]

Absolutely.  I've been through *lots* of photo labs.

Some did OK for a while and then got sloppy.
Others were sloppy "sometimes" and I just put
up with the odds.  Some were "pro" labs that
were even worse than the local mini-lab.  There
was absolutlely no pattern to it.

The lab I'm using now is the closest to my
house.. just a small local shop.  The guy that
runs the place looks and dresses like he just
stepped off his Harley.

And yet they've done consistent, quality work
for me since day I started dealing with them,
about four years ago.  I can't figure it out
either, but for once, I'm not complaining.

FWIW, processing-only of C41 is $3.50.
Same price for 35mm or 120.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
jeremy - 30 Oct 2006 20:05 GMT
either, but for once, I'm not complaining.

> FWIW, processing-only of C41 is $3.50.
> Same price for 35mm or 120.

My local CVS Pharmacy has a Noritsu processor.  They develop my negatives
while I wait (about 15 minutes) for $2.50.

Their photo department is open 24/7.

I shot a roll yesterday morning, then dropped by the pharmacy and had the
negs developed.  I took the canister right out of my camera and handed it to
the operator.  I had my negs 15 minutes later.

Life is good!
Scott W - 01 Nov 2006 22:28 GMT
> > My Mileage Did Vary [MMDV?]
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> FWIW, processing-only of C41 is $3.50.
> Same price for 35mm or 120.
When we had a pro lab (they closed shop) I would drop off the film and
ask to have it cut and sleeved 6 frame per strip.  This was nice
because it matches the film holder for my scanner.   The lab was pretty
much a one man operation and so when you dropped off your film you were
talking to the guy who was going to process the film.

Scott
Rob Novak - 31 Oct 2006 14:44 GMT
>My Mileage Did Vary [MMDV?]: When I asked for 'negs only'
>they took the whole 6' strip and rolled it back into the
>little plastic can, sweeping the floor with the loose end
>and then tightening the roll to get the film into the can
>and the dirt into the emulsion.  Happened thrice at three

Then the people processing your film were jackasses.  ;-)

I looked for (and found) a lab that had "process-only" listed on their
price sheet, not as a special service.  I requested, and got,
processed film that was uncut, and they hand it over in continuous
sleeving.  Flawless, every time.

Now, a drugstore or discount outlet, I'd never try it.

Of course, these days I do all my own film.
Signature

Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net

Desdinova - 31 Oct 2006 15:59 GMT
> My Mileage Did Vary [MMDV?]: When I asked for 'negs only'
> they took the whole 6' strip and rolled it back into the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> old same old same old and make prints and put them in
> sleeves they do it just fine.

I always ask for develop and sleeve or write "dev and cut - no prints"
on the special instructions if there's no clerk there.  I haven't had a
trouble yet.
That's from the two "good" labs in my area but also at CVS (the good
labs aren't open on sundays.)

> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Take care,
James
bmoag - 30 Oct 2006 17:42 GMT
I think that one of the reasons that digital P&S destroyed film P&S shooting
so rapidly was because of how unspeakably lousy most commercial
photofinishing was and still is. In camera jpeg processing is far superior
to the corner walmart/drug store minilab. It shouldn't be, but it is.
I had no clue what was locked in my color negatives until I got my first
film scanner, the original HP photosmart, now many years ago.
Raphael Bustin - 31 Oct 2006 02:44 GMT
>I think that one of the reasons that digital P&S destroyed film P&S shooting
>so rapidly was because of how unspeakably lousy most commercial
>photofinishing was and still is. In camera jpeg processing is far superior
>to the corner walmart/drug store minilab. It shouldn't be, but it is.
>I had no clue what was locked in my color negatives until I got my first
>film scanner, the original HP photosmart, now many years ago.

Your experience is not uncommon, I'd wager.

I remember being amazed by my first film scanner,
and the prints I could make on my very first inkjet
printer, an Epson 600, in 1998 or so.  

Thing is, what with making big prints and seeing
all the detail in the film -- I also saw all the flaws --
the dust, scratches, spots, crinkles, chemical
stains, etc.  Not to mention artifacts induced
by the scanner.  Argh what a mess.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
William Graham - 31 Oct 2006 02:55 GMT
"Raphael Bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message >

Thing is, what with making big prints and seeing
> all the detail in the film -- I also saw all the flaws --
> the dust, scratches, spots, crinkles, chemical
> stains, etc.  Not to mention artifacts induced
> by the scanner.  Argh what a mess.

That's what Adobe Photoshop is for......You can clean all that stuff up
before you print it......
Raphael Bustin - 31 Oct 2006 03:40 GMT
>"Raphael Bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message >
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>That's what Adobe Photoshop is for......You can clean all that stuff up
>before you print it......

Oh, yeah, but what a massive time-killer.  
And all because of the *&%$#@  sloppy labs.

When I finally acquired a scanner with dICE
(in 2001) a lot of that aggravation went away.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
jeremy - 30 Oct 2006 18:12 GMT
> Does anyone know if it would make a difference where the negatives are
> produced?  ie. a walmart type place uses a seemingly standard
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the film developed at a Walmart/Kroger or at Joe's Professional Film
> Lab?

You will not be able to just feed a roll of negatives into a scanner and
have the prints come out.

Film scanners are separate from printers.  A film scanner creates a digital
image file, just as one would get from a standard digital camera.  You would
typically burn those image files to a CD, and then taken them home and edit
them in PhotoShop, Paint Shop Pro, or some other editing program, to adjust
things like brightness, contrast, color saturation, color balance,
sharpness, etc.  Once you've tweaked the file to be the way you want it, you
would print the images.  You could print them on a home inkjet, or take them
to a camera shop that does on-site printing of digital files, or you could
upload them to an online printer and they would mail the prints back to you.

Once you scan the film into digital image files, you have choices.  The
first step is to scan the film, and you need to know something about
technique.  Scanners can be set to a wide range of resolutions, and you
would want high-resolution scans for best results.  Also, the scanner will
give superior results if it has ICE3, as opposed to scanners that don't,
because it can correct scratches and dust spots in just a couple of minutes,
whereas it might take you hours to manually get every one if you had to do
the job yourself.

At this point, you should try to get someone to teach you how to use the
scanner that is available to you, and to create digital files.  Since you
have no prior experience with scanning, don't expect to be up to speed at
the very outset.  There is a learning curve involved.

The benefit is that once you learn how to extract the maximum information
from your film images, and then to use editing software to tweak them just
right, you will be able to produce prints that rival those of custom labs,
and you can get them done at cheap prices.  After all, you were the one that
did most of the work.

I recommend that you look at www.scantips.com to get a feel for some of the
factors involved.  Then try to produce good scans of your negs.  Only then
should you work on learning to edit them.
William Graham - 30 Oct 2006 19:29 GMT
>> Does anyone know if it would make a difference where the negatives are
>> produced?  ie. a walmart type place uses a seemingly standard
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> the factors involved.  Then try to produce good scans of your negs.  Only
> then should you work on learning to edit them.

Hear, hear! - But why not buy a good printer too, and cut the labs out of
the picture altogether? For the first time in history, photographers can
become totally independent, and do it all themselves. (Not counting the
fact, of course, that we have to buy this fancy equipment from the
manufacturers.)
Philip Homburg - 30 Oct 2006 20:29 GMT
>For the first time in history, photographers can
>become totally independent, and do it all themselves.

It seems to me that you still have to buy your paper and ink.

And you now depend on a lot of high-tech gizmos instead of just film,
paper, and some chemicals (and some other relatively low-tech stuff like
cameras and an enlarger)

Signature

That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

William Graham - 30 Oct 2006 21:00 GMT
>>For the first time in history, photographers can
>>become totally independent, and do it all themselves.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> paper, and some chemicals (and some other relatively low-tech stuff like
> cameras and an enlarger)

Yeah, but you never have to put your work in the hands of some teenager to
screw it up for you....From "snap" to hanging it on the wall.....You are the
only one you have to depend on.......Like it was back in the black & white
days with your own darkroom......You could develop the film yourself, and
print the pictures yourself, and never have to worry that some idiot would
screw them up. or some old biddy would throw them away because they showed
your girl friend in the nude or something......You had control of the whole
process. And, with digital, you can do the same thing today....And in color,
too!
Philip Homburg - 30 Oct 2006 22:08 GMT
>Yeah, but you never have to put your work in the hands of some teenager to
>screw it up for you....

I think the saying is that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

I never had that problem, but I guess I was lucky that there was always some
shop that was willing to provide good quality for a reasonable price.

>From "snap" to hanging it on the wall.....You are the
>only one you have to depend on.......

I don't know what printers cost these days that can do 50x75cm (20x30").
Do you own a large format printer, or does the decision to use your own
printer limit the size of your prints?

Signature

That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

William Graham - 30 Oct 2006 22:31 GMT
>>Yeah, but you never have to put your work in the hands of some teenager to
>>screw it up for you....
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Do you own a large format printer, or does the decision to use your own
> printer limit the size of your prints?

The latter would be the case, if I printed at all....Right now, the computer
screen is the limit of the size of my, "prints". I do enjoy seeing them on a
nice screen....I am considering buying a SONY high resolution screen (around
$500). I may get a decent Epson printer, but I am told that they are a pain
to keep the heads clean, and messing with a half dozen print cartridges and
all......Burning them to CD's gives me the option of eventually printing
them out when I get the right equipment......
rafe b - 30 Oct 2006 23:02 GMT
> I think the saying is that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Paying caviar doesn't guarantee clean processing.

> I never had that problem, but I guess I was lucky that there was always
> some
> shop that was willing to provide good quality for a reasonable price.

Yes, luck has a lot to do with it, in my experience.

> I don't know what printers cost these days that can do 50x75cm (20x30").
> Do you own a large format printer, or does the decision to use your own
> printer limit the size of your prints?

Epson's 3800 does 17" wide prints and lists for
around $1300, IIRC.  I use an ancient Epson 7000 --
prints 24" wide -- which I picked up on eBay for
around a grand, three years ago.

I'm not sure where the "20x30 inch" criteria
came from.  Printers that cover 13" width start
at around $300 or so.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Scott W - 30 Oct 2006 23:17 GMT
> I'm not sure where the "20x30 inch" criteria
> came from.  Printers that cover 13" width start
> at around $300 or so.

There are printers that print on 30 inch rolls of photographic paper,
the companies that use these offer pretty attractive prices on prints
that have one dimension 30".  As an example I get my 20" x 30" prints
for $10.  I don't do enough prints this size to justify a printer
that can handle that size, but I sure would like one.  I am not sure
what the ink cost are but figure maybe an average of $4 for a 20 x 30
print?  In which case the saving / print would be about $6.

I am still debating just what I want in a printer, for now my printing
gets done outside.

Scott
Philip Homburg - 30 Oct 2006 23:21 GMT
>I'm not sure where the "20x30 inch" criteria
>came from.  

That's the largest I can do without thinking. Just select the right
size of the image, upload it, select 50x75 prints, and that's it.
But my current favorite format is 40x60cm (16x24").

Signature

That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Raphael Bustin - 31 Oct 2006 02:34 GMT
>>I'm not sure where the "20x30 inch" criteria
>>came from.  
>
>That's the largest I can do without thinking. Just select the right
>size of the image, upload it, select 50x75 prints, and that's it.
>But my current favorite format is 40x60cm (16x24").

I can't say owning a large-format printer makes
sense for most people <G.>  I enjoy having the
ability to make big prints from time to time, but
most of these end up sitting in a heap on a table
and shown sporadically to unwitting guests.

A big print made from a LF scan (or MF in a pinch)
can be really stunning.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Philip Homburg - 31 Oct 2006 10:22 GMT
>I enjoy having the
>ability to make big prints from time to time, but
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>A big print made from a LF scan (or MF in a pinch)
>can be really stunning.

I have enough spots on walls where you can't easily get any closer than
say one meter. So large prints even from 35mm work very well.

Signature

That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

rafe b - 30 Oct 2006 21:25 GMT
> And you now depend on a lot of high-tech gizmos instead of just film,
> paper, and some chemicals (and some other relatively low-tech stuff like
> cameras and an enlarger)

It's no panacea but it works for me.
We're all dependent on hi-tech gizmos, whether
we like to admit it or not.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Philip Homburg - 30 Oct 2006 21:57 GMT
>> And you now depend on a lot of high-tech gizmos instead of just film,
>> paper, and some chemicals (and some other relatively low-tech stuff like
>> cameras and an enlarger)
>
>It's no panacea but it works for me.

It also works for me. But I also outsource the printing part (and
developing film).

Signature

That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Frank ess - 30 Oct 2006 22:10 GMT
>> And you now depend on a lot of high-tech gizmos instead of just
>> film,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> We're all dependent on hi-tech gizmos, whether
> we like to admit it or not.

I keep anticipating the day when it all comes screeching to a halt.
Someone will identify a basic assumption that is false, and like the
coyote who ran off the cliff, we'll look down, wake up, and plummet
...

Signature

Frank ess

William Graham - 30 Oct 2006 22:23 GMT
>>> And you now depend on a lot of high-tech gizmos instead of just film,
>>> paper, and some chemicals (and some other relatively low-tech stuff
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Someone will identify a basic assumption that is false, and like the
> coyote who ran off the cliff, we'll look down, wake up, and plummet ...

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy......"
Richard Polhill - 31 Oct 2006 01:17 GMT
>>> And you now depend on a lot of high-tech gizmos instead of just film,
>>> paper, and some chemicals (and some other relatively low-tech stuff
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Someone will identify a basic assumption that is false, and like the
> coyote who ran off the cliff, we'll look down, wake up, and plummet ...

Perhaps. Unfortunately the world is ruled by numbers and quality isn't
often measurable as such.

At the end of the day photography is about making good pictures using a
camera and that can be done no matter what electronic "assistance" you
have to fight with or whatever recording medium you use.

To give us all hope I have noticed that there are ore and more CDs
released that have only 12 songs on them instead of 18. Perhaps the
world is waking up to the idea that bigger numbers aren't the sum total
of live's ambition; that perhaps the LP was developed to hold about 12
songs BECAUSE THAT WAS THE RIGHT AMOUNT. And maybe that making pictures
using a camera is about understanding the constraints of the frame and
the limitations of recording light patterns in a world that contains
such contrast, etc.

I think it's great that photography as a hobby has such a high profile
at present. It is great that there are more and more people put there
making pictures and learning what a picture IS. In due course something
else will take over and all those D70s and EOS 350s will be put up in
the loft to make way for the next generation video camera or CB radio.
What will be left will be the cream of the crop and photography as an
art form can only gain from that.

As much as I stick to using a manual focus film camera, I know that
digital capture is the way forward. I will switch when the right
combination of: my film camera dying; there being no viable way of
processing film; digital capture using a manual focus camera becomes
affordable; the picture quality, particularly the quality of digital
noise, and dynamic range, of digital actually matches or surpasses good
film; I can afford to.

I think that is the only rational argument.
Signature

invalid = com

Scott W - 31 Oct 2006 02:05 GMT
> As much as I stick to using a manual focus film camera, I know that
> digital capture is the way forward. I will switch when the right
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I think that is the only rational argument.

Um....you do know that this thread is about scanning 35mm film and
printing from those scans and as such does not have anything to do with
digital cameras?

And for that matter it was just about scanning and them drifted to
printing.

Scott
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.