 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / October 2006film processing
Hey - question for the group - who's your favorite lab for developing and scanning 120 film? I'm not ready to buy my own scanner - I don't shoot very many rolls of film - so medium resolution scans (about 10MB) is important. I'm using a local guy now and am happy with their work but naturally curious who else is out there doing the same thing. That and trying to save a buck or five are my reasons for asking! Thanks, Scott > Hey - question for the group - who's your favorite lab for developing > and scanning 120 film? I'm not ready to buy my own scanner - I don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > curious who else is out there doing the same thing. That and trying to > save a buck or five are my reasons for asking! For medium resolution scanning, the 4800 ppi Epsons will do a reasonable job, so if you don't mind spending the time, you should be able to save some money (especially if you can justify the cost of the scanner for other purposes). The 4800 ppi scans will be quite soft, but if you scan at 4800 ppi, apply very light noise reduction (NeatImage or NoiseNinja), and downsample to 1600 ppi, you'll get nice 12MP images from 6x6. Developing is harder. For B&W, doing it yourself is not only reasonable, but the right thing, but I've always seen color processing as beyond what's reasonable. So either local labs or sending them out. In Tokyo, there are still lots of services, but that doesn't do anyone else any good... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Hey - question for the group - who's your favorite lab for developing >> and scanning 120 film? I'm not ready to buy my own scanner - I don't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 4800 ppi, apply very light noise reduction (NeatImage or NoiseNinja), and > downsample to 1600 ppi, you'll get nice 12MP images from 6x6. For those of less discerning taste, sure. All of your caveats aside, to me, and anyone else not willing to sell themselves short, for anything short of 4x5, the epson flatbeds are inadequate. -- www.mattclara.com > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > me, and anyone else not willing to sell themselves short, for anything > short of 4x5, the epson flatbeds are inadequate. The guy is getting 10MB scans from his lab. That's under 4MP. He'll get far better scans from an Epson than those scans. One can still get an Epson 4800 ppi scanner for a reasonable price (well under US$500) and learn how to scan on it, and determine if one wants to spend the time and effort to scan before spending serious money on a Nikon 9000 (or whatever). So an Epson may be bad advice for anal perfectionists with their heads up their arses, but for real people with no experience, it's a good place to start. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > The guy is getting 10MB scans from his lab. That's under 4MP. He'll get far > better scans from an Epson than those scans. I've never used a MF camera before let alone one that's fully manual so the name of my game is keeping the learning curve low cost. Even a $500 4800dpi flatbed scanner is equivalent to almost 70 rolls of film scanned by my local lab. The low res scans allow me to select only the very best for high res scans later on. Also, the photos are mostly for internet use so low res scans still work out pretty well. >> The guy is getting 10MB scans from his lab. That's under 4MP. He'll get >> far [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > scanned by my local lab. The low res scans allow me to select only the > very best for high res scans later on. If you don't mind not being able to do 4x5, the 4990 lists for US$199, so that's a lot more reasonable than the 449.99 for the 4990. If you can persuade yourself you need a document scanner, then the incremental cost is only US$100 or so. Be warned, though. Scanning takes a lot of time and has a steep learning curve. Also, there's a lot of variability in what comes out of the Epsons. Some people seem to get great results, others rather uninspired results. So if you plan on getting good 5x enlargements from it, you won't be disappointed. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > If you don't mind not being able to do 4x5, the 4990 lists for US$199, The 4490 (you typo'ed). My suspicions are that sample variety matters, but it will beat a mini-lab's scans. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5106172&size=lg I got it for the same reasons -- not sure I'll shoot that much film. Diafine makes developing painless. >> If you don't mind not being able to do 4x5, the 4990 lists for US$199, > > The 4490 (you typo'ed). Oops. > My suspicions are that sample variety matters, but it will beat a > mini-lab's scans. > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5106172&size=lg Lovely shot, lovely tonality. Wow. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5106172&size=lg Ooh what David just said, and: Taken with a Minolta Autocord! I just got one as my first medium format camera, and it seems to be in great working shape. So far the results with the Epson V700 have been promising, but I haven't had a chance to shoot anything worth seeing yet, given my other obligations and the typical bad Finnish weather we are experiencing at the time. Maybe I should practise using an electronic flash with it and get someone to pose for me, hmmm.. > If you don't mind not being able to do 4x5, the 4990 lists for US$199, so > that's a lot more reasonable than the 449.99 for the 4990. If you can > persuade yourself you need a document scanner, then the incremental cost is > only US$100 or so. The 4990 "does 4x5" > Be warned, though. Scanning takes a lot of time and has a steep learning > curve. Hey curves are part of the process :) > Also, there's a lot of variability in what comes out of the Epsons. Some > people seem to get great results, others rather uninspired results. So if > you plan on getting good 5x enlargements from it, you won't be disappointed. > > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan I think the biggest variable -the operator.  SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> If you don't mind not being able to do 4x5, the 4990 lists for US$199, so >> that's a lot more reasonable than the 449.99 for the 4990. If you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The 4990 "does 4x5" The first "4990" there is a typo for the cheaper model, the 4490. Which at first glance appears not to do 4x5. >> Be warned, though. Scanning takes a lot of time and has a steep learning >> curve. > > Hey curves are part of the process :) Hehe. Seriously, though. I think it is worth effort. >> Also, there's a lot of variability in what comes out of the Epsons. Some >> people seem to get great results, others rather uninspired results. So if >> you plan on getting good 5x enlargements from it, you won't be >> disappointed. > > I think the biggest variable -the operator. I've seen enormous variations in results from people who seem to deserve respect. And no one has ever produced as nice scans from an Epson as the site that reviews them<g>. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan [SNIP] > Also, there's a lot of variability in what comes out of the Epsons. > Some people seem to get great results, others rather uninspired > results. So if you plan on getting good 5x enlargements from it, > you won't be disappointed. I'm increasingly wondering iof this is down to focus - even though it's not supposed to be so critical in a flatbed. People who experiment and shim their film holders, or buy an aftermarket adjustable one, do seem to get more consistent results. Not That I've gone down that road yet (since I have a film scanner that will do my medium format, and only use my flatbed for 'less critical' scans of LF and pano.s, sending the rest out, it hasn't been my top priority.) Peter >Be warned, though. Scanning takes a lot of time and has a steep learning >curve. > >Also, there's a lot of variability in what comes out of the Epsons. Some >people seem to get great results, others rather uninspired results. So if >you plan on getting good 5x enlargements from it, you won't be disappointed. October 26, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, This is very true. I only use my scanner to produce catalog-grade scans of all my film frames. I have replaced contact prints with digital. But even though I go pretty fast, and take all kinds of liberties and short-cuts compared to someone who is planning to make a fine print from the digital file, I still spend quite a lot of time at the scanner. However, I find it vastly preferable to making contact-prints, and I particularly like the side-effect that when I go to the darkroom these days, it's always to make good prints of frames I've decided are worth the effort. That decision is made via the computer, by 'enlarging' and cropping in various ways on-screen. The computer is a excellent editing tool, especially since as I (and my eyes) age the contact print is less and less useful to me. In fact, the scanner can be a health benefit. Just make a rule for yourself: the scanner is fed only by standing up and going over to it. Thus, as one's body-weight increases from general sloth and eating too much, the exercise from standing up to feed the scanner goes up. Each stand-up means we lift a little bit more weight, so we derive a tad more benefit from each scan ... sort of like carrying the heifer around the corral once a day as it grows into a cow ... regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > > The guy is getting 10MB scans from his lab. That's under 4MP. He'll get far > > better scans from an Epson than those scans. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Also, the photos are mostly for internet use so low res scans still > work out pretty well. My experience (almost 25 years in photo-started to be serious at 18) is that I shot slides first off because thats what I heard pro's did. After time I found myself spending for prints as well, I wish I had the first twenty grand I spent on film processing between 1982 & 1988,- but then I wouldn't have that experience to fall back on :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:17:09 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: > I wish I had the >first twenty grand I spent on film processing between 1982 & 1988, October 26, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, I was so lucky ... In 1971 I landed a job at an importer. I produced 5x7 color prints of all their merchandise. The sales staff used them as they visited customers all over the country. The work was a bore (I photographed ashtrays for a living; let's start a debate - is this photography? Can a photograph of an ashtray be art?) However - it gave me access to this outfit's account at the color processing facility. They kindly recorded invoice numbers only on the bill, so I could slip in a few color 8x10s of my own work whenever I liked. So most of my first few years' worth of lab charges were picked up by someone else. They were paying me $85 a week, so I didn't feel I was hurting them; started at $80, got a big raise along the way! regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > their arses, but for real people with no experience, it's a good place to > start. That's rich coming from the guy who thinks _any_ grain is too much... And no one cares that you live in Tokyo. I was born there, but you don't here me bragging about it with every post! > That's rich coming from the guy who thinks _any_ grain is too much... > And no one cares that you live in Tokyo. I was born there, but you don't > here me bragging about it with every post! Whoa easy there, David offers a lot of good advice....and though I don't always agree I see no reason to be hostile.....bad day? SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> That's rich coming from the guy who thinks _any_ grain is too much... >> And no one cares that you live in Tokyo. I was born there, but you don't >> here me bragging about it with every post! > > Whoa easy there, David offers a lot of good advice....and though I don't > always agree I see no reason to be hostile.....bad day? No, this one was my fault. I was really really off the wall unreasonably rude in the part you clipped. To get back to the point, though, starting out scanning on a cheap Epson is what I did, and is a good idea, I think. Even though I was less than happy with the Epson 2450, it made surprisingly nice A4 prints from 645. The 4490 should do a lot better than the 2450, and is quite reasonably cheap. So it's minimal money for an environment where one can learn about scanning and get some quite usable results. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > The 4490 > should do a lot better than the 2450, and is quite reasonably cheap. So it's > minimal money for an environment where one can learn about scanning and get > some quite usable results. I looked at the specs on the higher end series and decided that if I really decide to shoot film and scan, I'll start looking for a used medium format film scanner. This one was cheap enough to start with. I got this from a Leica, Tri-X at 1600 ASA in Diafine: http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/0009629d So, I can see if the negative is reasonably sharp and send it off for a better scan if I want to make something bigger from it. This is a 100% crop of one of the scans. http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/0009ftz3 And more Minolta Autocord shots: http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/tags/Autocord/ The street black and white scans are more recent. The film with the crimp scars is from last winter and among the first things I scanned. [SNIP] > To get back to the point, though, starting out scanning on a cheap > Epson is what I did, and is a good idea, I think. Even though I was less > than happy with the Epson 2450, it made surprisingly nice A4 prints > from 645. The 4490 should do a lot better than the 2450, and is quite > reasonably cheap. So it's minimal money for an environment where one > can learn about scanning and get some quite usable results. I think that's a good way of looking at it. I started scanning with a transparency hood on my cheap office Epson, and used it for a long time, during which time my scans improved a lot. Then I got a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, but I still sometimes used the Epson if I was in a hurry and it was my only means of doing digital 'proofs' of 4x5 slides. It was pretty poor compared to the Minolta, but still a very useful tool - sufficiently so that not long ago I bought an Epson 4990. I use the 4990 for reference scans of 4x5 and anything bigger that won't fit the Minolta, and to make 'contact sheets' of 35mm strips. For the former it is useful to have these for reference or to email (I send out for my 'serious' scans from LF), and the latter is much faster than scanning individual frames, and again is a useful filing aid. The 4990 is more than good enough for this. Peter >>> That's rich coming from the guy who thinks _any_ grain is too much... >>> And no one cares that you live in Tokyo. I was born there, but you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, this one was my fault. I was really really off the wall unreasonably > rude in the part you clipped. Yes, you were, a bit, but Greg's right, I was looking to bite someone's head off. My apologies. > To get back to the point, though, starting out scanning on a cheap Epson > is what I did, and is a good idea, I think. Even though I was less than > happy with the Epson 2450, it made surprisingly nice A4 prints from 645. > The 4490 should do a lot better than the 2450, and is quite reasonably > cheap. So it's minimal money for an environment where one can learn about > scanning and get some quite usable results. I will admit the 4990 has been quite a helpful tool for reasons more than just photographic (wife's PhD work is putting it through it's paces, for one). I'm one of those people, though, who feels they've wasted money when they buy something only to realize they should have bought something else, usually more expensive, but better suited to their needs. The 8000ED is just about the best grand I've ever spent, photographically speaking, and the 4990 is miles behind in its results. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com (bragging about my website instead of where I was born... ;-) >I will admit the 4990 has been quite a helpful tool for reasons more than >just photographic (wife's PhD work is putting it through it's paces, for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >just about the best grand I've ever spent, photographically speaking, and >the 4990 is miles behind in its results. I was probably one of the first people to buy and own the LS-8000 in the USA. I got mine in June of 2001 and paid considerably more than you did. But I can honestly say it's one of the best -- if not the best -- piece of photo gear I own, and has been indispensible to my photo work in the 5 1/2 years that I've owned it. Knock wood. My only regret is that there's no equivalent unit from Nikon for scanning LF film. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > www.mattclara.com > (bragging about my website instead of where I was born... ;-) Not that there is anyuthing wrong with that! :-) Cool 3d modelling stuff, BTW. Progs you use for that in any way similar to pov-ray? >> www.mattclara.com >> (bragging about my website instead of where I was born... ;-) > > Not that there is anyuthing wrong with that! :-) > Cool 3d modelling stuff, BTW. Progs you use > for that in any way similar to pov-ray? When I got started in 3D about 10 years ago, Pov Ray was command line based, so people actually modelled and manipulated things by inputting numbers. I couldn't get into art of that nature, so I bought Bryce, which at the time cost $200. You can get it now for less than half that. Today I use Vue 5 Infinite, for it's cool ecosystem materials, and 3D Studio MAX for its modeling and rendering capabilities. Thanks for your comments. > >> www.mattclara.com > >> (bragging about my website instead of where I was born... ;-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Infinite, for it's cool ecosystem materials, and 3D Studio MAX for its > modeling and rendering capabilities. Thanks for your comments. Don't like Poser? SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> >> www.mattclara.com >> >> (bragging about my website instead of where I was born... ;-) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Don't like Poser? Just for the "peeps". Check out their newsgroup news://alt.binaries.3d.poser. It's almost nothing but portraits--I find it quite boring almost immediately, much more than real portraits. These images contain Poser characters which I export from Poser as obj files and then import into the 3D packages I use to create and render scenes: http://www.mattclara.com/moonsandaplanet.html bryce (old) http://www.mattclara.com/thbnyrd.html vue (new) http://www.mattclara.com/turningpoint.html bryce (old) http://www.mattclara.com/shiftingsands.html bryce (old) On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:24:04 -0400, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >I see no reason to be hostile October 26, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Personal invective, name-calling, emotional diatribes aimed at individuals, the list is too long, but all can be deleted. We should act like we're being invited into each others' homes. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:24:04 -0400, "Greg > \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > email: portrait@heylloyd.com > ________________________________ Any time you want to visit Baltimore let me know :-) Bring friends, I have rooms,.... preferably the 20-30 single female kind that like beer :) :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > .In Tokyo, there are > still lots of services, but that doesn't do anyone else any good... > > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Sure it does one would expect less film photography going on there (Japan) but what would say the ratio of Film used there actually is? SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> .In Tokyo, there are >> still lots of services, but that doesn't do anyone else any good... > > Sure it does one would expect less film photography going on there > (Japan) but what would say the ratio of Film used there actually is? My impression is that film is still hanging in there here. The "workflow" of handing an undeveloped roll of 35mm color negative film to a magazine is something I've seen in action, and the advertising poster industry (30x40" advertising posters in the train stations here (and there are a _lot_ of train stations here)) still seems to be LF powered. At least the detail holds up when one puts one nose on them a surprising percentage of the time. Still, I should follow this issue more closely. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > ems to be LF powered. At least the detail > holds up when one puts one nose on them a surprising percentage of the time. Now, that's something SOMEONE should take a shot of: David sticking his nose into a railway station ad! :-) Read somewhere recently that the "photo-brick" film-camera combo is still very popular in Japan? >> ems to be LF powered. At least the detail >> holds up when one puts one nose on them a surprising percentage of the >> time. > > Now, that's something SOMEONE should take a shot of: > David sticking his nose into a railway station ad! :-) If I'm ever out with our CEO and a camera, I'll have her take one. > Read somewhere recently that the "photo-brick" > film-camera combo is still very popular in Japan? That's not something I'm aware of at all, and a quick Google search didn't turn up anything. What is it??? David J. Littleboy davidjl@grain.sniffers.com Tokyo, Japan > > Read somewhere recently that the "photo-brick" > > film-camera combo is still very popular in Japan? > > That's not something I'm aware of at all, and a quick Google search didn't > turn up anything. What is it??? it was in one of the local photo mags recently. Some editorial on photography technique, IIRC. Here in eastern Massachusetts, I use Color Services in Needham and Dorian's in Arlington. They both also do scans but I do my own with a LeafScan. Jim > Hey - question for the group - who's your favorite lab for developing > and scanning 120 film? I'm not ready to buy my own scanner - I don't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Scott > Here in eastern Massachusetts, I use Color Services in Needham and > Dorian's in Arlington. They both also do scans but I do my own with a > LeafScan. Color Services has the most impressive price sheet - at 24 pages - I've ever seen! Looks like an interesting group. i use American Color Imaging 1-800-728-2722 Cedar Falls, IA THERE FAST AND THE PRICES ARE GOOD wayne mirror image photography milwaukee, wi you guys are off post as usual...the post was WHAT LAB DO YOU USE FOR PROCESSING 120 FILM ...I CAN' AFFORD A SCANNER RIGHT NOW....and all your doing is talking about scanners.the person don't care...give the poster help on what he asked for not what you want to dicuss ...david......look at all your posts about scanners...who cares...he wants labs,,,give him labs...the very first post after the original post was david talking about his scaner.....david , who cares.....give him the answer he wants not what you want to talk about over and over again...post after post....ok done venting......wayne Wayne Mirror Image Photography Milwaukee, WI USA > you guys are off post as usual...the post was > WHAT LAB DO YOU USE FOR PROCESSING 120 FILM ...I CAN' AFFORD A SCANNER [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cares.....give him the answer he wants not what you want to talk about > over and over again...post after post....ok done venting......wayne Anyone who can't afford a scanner can't afford a commercial lab for more than 20 rolls. I use local labs, not mail order, when I do color: CBOP/Cardinal, Philadelphia Photographic, and Quaker Photo. it's not that i can't afford to buy a scanner, but i use a commercial lab for more then 20 rolls....there are no local labs for me to use anymore for they all went digital, so i had to go out of state to keep my film needs done....it's not that i can't afford a scanner, it's easier for me to ship my film out to a good lab and let them do the work...... so i use the lab to make my job easier........ Wayne Mirrror Image Photography Milwaukee, WI USA > it's not that i can't afford to buy a scanner, but i use a commercial > lab for more then 20 rolls....there are no local labs for me to use > anymore for they all went digital, so i had to go out of state to keep > my film needs done....it's not that i can't afford a scanner, it's > easier for me to ship my film out to a good lab and let them do the > work...... so i use the lab to make my job easier........ Hey, you got answers. Cool it. > you guys are off post as usual Not me. My local camera store even in this rural part of the USA still does 120 color, so they do that for me. If I want high-quality prints, the negs go to GAMMA in Chicago. GAMMA is very good with B&W, too. I've known those chaps for over thirty years and they have always done excellent work. http://www.gammaimaging.com/services.html |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2008 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.