Devloping 35mm film into digital pics: SnapFish vs Ofoto vs Shutterfly

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Dan Irwin - 20 Sep 2004 01:06 GMT

Hi

This summer I went to California for a few weeks with my digital
camera. After a few days I managed to lose my battery charger and was
thus forced to use disposable cameras for the rest of the trip. When I
got home I started looking around for a best way to get the pictures
on the disposable cameras onto my computer in the highest quality.
After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.

Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
quality digital pics?

Thanks for the help,

Dan

p.s.

I don't care about getting actual prints, just getting the highest
quality computer pics possible

Reply to this Message

Mark Sieving - 20 Sep 2004 05:47 GMT

>After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
>using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
>
>Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
>experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
>quality digital pics?

I don't know about Snapfish and Shutterfly, but Ofoto will NOT
give you high resolution digital images. They will develop your
film, send you the negatives, and post low resolution images on
their website so that you can choose which pictures you want
printed.

Mark Sieving

Reply to this Message

Todd H. - 20 Sep 2004 06:20 GMT

> >After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
> >using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> their website so that you can choose which pictures you want
> printed.

Shutterfly is the same way. I've been quite happy with their print
quality for my purposes, however.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Reply to this Message

Dan Irwin - 20 Sep 2004 17:53 GMT

so i guess that makes Snapfish the winner?

> > >After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
> > >using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Shutterfly is the same way. I've been quite happy with their print
> quality for my purposes, however.

Reply to this Message

starlord - 23 Sep 2004 05:46 GMT

I've got over 500 photos online at snapfish and can get hi-rez copys on cd's
from them for a extra fee. But I've been happy with them for 5 years now.

Topcon Super D user

--

"And for the second time in four million years, the monolith awoke."
Arthur C.Clarke 2062:odyssey three

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.netfirms.com/

> so i guess that makes Snapfish the winner?
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> > Shutterfly is the same way. I've been quite happy with their print
> > quality for my purposes, however.

Reply to this Message

Udie Lafing - 23 Sep 2004 12:41 GMT

Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?

> I've got over 500 photos online at snapfish and can get hi-rez copys on cd's
> from them for a extra fee. But I've been happy with them for 5 years now.
>
> Topcon Super D user
>

Signature

?
?
?
?
LOL

Reply to this Message

Frank ess - 23 Sep 2004 16:51 GMT

> Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
> in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>> Topcon Super D user

Reply to this Message

Dan Irwin - 23 Sep 2004 21:20 GMT

because at one point 35mm film does have to be devloped in a DARKROOM.

> Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
> in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> > Topcon Super D user

Reply to this Message

Udie Lafing - 23 Sep 2004 21:26 GMT

Assuming he uses film.

> because at one point 35mm film does have to be devloped in a DARKROOM.
>
> > Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
> > in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?

Signature

?
?
?
?
LOL

Reply to this Message

starlord - 29 Sep 2004 01:53 GMT

If he doesn't know that a 1968 ( bought in PX while in Vietnam ) Topcon
Super D uses FILM, then he sure doesn't know his cameras very well.

--

"And for the second time in four million years, the monolith awoke."
Arthur C.Clarke 2062:odyssey three

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.netfirms.com/

> Assuming he uses film.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> ?
> LOL

Reply to this Message

Joe Pucillo - 21 Sep 2004 05:29 GMT

Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...

> After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
> using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.

Where are you located? Many times, you'll be able to find a
local shop which can produce what you need without having to send
you film through the mail.

I've used three such labs here in my area that can develop the
film and produce high quality 6Mp scans for less than $10 per
roll. If you post your location, you might be able to find a
better option.

Incidentally, I have not been impressed with the work done by any
of the three online houses you mentioned, but I do use
printroom.com for some of my digital printing needs.

Signature

Joe Pucillo
Baltimore, Maryland USA

To reply by email, please remove the .xx

Reply to this Message

Dan Irwin - 22 Sep 2004 01:48 GMT

I live in north NJ. The techs at my local supermarket photo dpt are
not that smart so I doubt they would even know the answer to these
questions. Furthermore most places by me do not make photo cds without
prints, thus jacking the price up to 11+ dollars per roll (2/3s of
that price being for prints I don't want) and since I have about 20-30
cameras and that price can get pretty high (and its all out of my
pocket, my parents blaming me for losing the charger).

> Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...
> > After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> of the three online houses you mentioned, but I do use
> printroom.com for some of my digital printing needs.

Reply to this Message

Joe Pucillo - 22 Sep 2004 16:05 GMT

Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...

> Joe Pucillo wrote...
> > Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...

> > > After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
> > > using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.

> > Where are you located? Many times, you'll be able to find a
> > local shop which can produce what you need without having to send
> > you film through the mail.

> I live in north NJ. The techs at my local supermarket photo dpt are
> not that smart so I doubt they would even know the answer to these
> questions. Furthermore most places by me do not make photo cds without
> prints, thus jacking the price up to 11+ dollars per roll [...]

Develop and scan in a dust-free shop is going to run you about
that much in most places for hi-rez images. But, you might want
to check with Adorama in Manhattan (www.adorama.com) They have a
digital lab that might be able to help you.

Also, you might want to check with some of the mid-level camera
stores in your area (stay away from the mall stores like Ritz, et
al...) who would probably be able to either do your work or steer
you in the right direction.

While I wouldn't personally recommend them, I was once so
stressed for time that I walked into a local CVS drug store and
asked for a develop and lo-rez scan (no prints) and they charged
me $8.95 (three for develop and 5.95 for the CD.)

Maybe someone in the group from your area can help with more
specific info on other providers. Good luck!

Signature

Joe Pucillo
Baltimore, Maryland USA

To reply by email, please remove the .xx

Reply to this Message