Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2006
Quality of negatives for scanning
|
|
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
|
|
|