optique
Member
Hello!
Been enjoying my Bessa R lately. Been shooting fuji print film and having it developed at Walmart with a cd made too.
Looking at my cd scans in Photoshop Elements makes me think they are low resolution scans. They don't look good. Or Maybe my eyes are getting bad.
I am away from my Epson 4490. but is it reasonable to expect that I might get better negative scans from my Epson than I get from Walmart?
thanks in advance.
Steve.
Walmart cd scan attached.
Been enjoying my Bessa R lately. Been shooting fuji print film and having it developed at Walmart with a cd made too.
Looking at my cd scans in Photoshop Elements makes me think they are low resolution scans. They don't look good. Or Maybe my eyes are getting bad.
I am away from my Epson 4490. but is it reasonable to expect that I might get better negative scans from my Epson than I get from Walmart?
thanks in advance.
Steve.
Walmart cd scan attached.
Attachments
cmedin
Well-known
I have an Epson 4490 and I've gotten Walmart scans in the past when developing. Overall I find that their scans, whatever the default settings are, consistently destroy the highlights. Same for their prints. They do a decent enough job for the $, but I've scanned negs from prints I thought were goners only to find out they were properly exposed after all.
optique
Member
cmedin, I will watch for blown highlights. Thanks.
sitemistic, I believe the file size on the cd was about 1975k. (?) Maybe I should try a different Walmart!
Thanks to all.
Steve.
sitemistic, I believe the file size on the cd was about 1975k. (?) Maybe I should try a different Walmart!
Thanks to all.
Steve.
kshapero
South Florida Man
When shooting Fuji film, I find you will get best results from Fuji Frontier developer. My local Walgreens uses this machine (not all Walgreens use it). I am A- satisfied with the results.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I get all my C41 film processed at Walgreens, which is probably going to be comparable to Walmart.. and I find their CD scans to be useful only as a digital contact sheet.. they generally lose most detail and they crank up the contrast and saturation much the same way 'big box' electronics stores crank up the picture on flatscreen tvs to wow the ignorant
you should easily be able to blow away Walmart/Walgreens scans with your 4490 (speaking from experience, as I have one of those, too)
you should easily be able to blow away Walmart/Walgreens scans with your 4490 (speaking from experience, as I have one of those, too)
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have owned 3 different scanners (KM Dual scan, Pacific Image and some cheapo HP). Iwas never able to master it, whether it was using Vuescan or the software that came with the scanner. I guess I am stuck with Walgreens. If my house was bigger I would dig my darkroom stuff.
loslosbaby
Member
I get my stuff developed (C-41) at Walgreen's on the Fuji machine, and even they won't use a scan from their own CD for an 8x10, they always want the neg back.
"If you want something done really super right..."
G.
"If you want something done really super right..."
G.
aad
Not so new now.
Commercial scans on CDs tend to be suited to 4x6, and hit with heavy-handed auto corrections, including a whole lot of sharpening. They aren't always bad, and they make an OK contact sheet that's cheaper than having them make prints.
bmattock
Veteran
Walmart = crap
4490 = good, especially for MF.
ScanDual IV = excellent.
4490 = good, especially for MF.
ScanDual IV = excellent.
cmedin
Well-known
Since we have some 4490 users here, I'd love to see some of your best 35mm scans. Mine is killer for medium format but I have a hard time getting a sharp 35mm scan; they all come out a little soft/fuzzy. Wondering if I just need to mess with it (adjustable height holders or something) to get better results for the smaller format.
bmattock
Veteran
cmedin said:
I have very few 35mm scans with my 4490. I moved my DualScan IV up to my rented hovel some months ago and abandoned using the 4490 for 35mm at that point. I was disappointed with the quality of the holder. I even bought the Betterscanning anti-newton glass, but it was not heavy enough to hold down the bowed 35mm film - I ended up gaffer-taping it down on one end. Not worth the hassle. Scan quality is OK with 35mm, but too much work to get there - if film is not held flat, it's pretty average.
I'd post a MF scan from my 4490, but it appears Flickr is barfing up at the moment.
WHOOPS - it is back now:
Click to see the thing bigger, it was taken with a Yashica 12 (120 6x6) and scanned on the 4490 with vuescan processed in The GIMP.
Last edited:
wray
Well-known
I don't know about Walmart but I'm quite happy with the scans I get from my Epson 4490. Here are a couple ...
cmedin
Well-known
bmattock: Where is that bridge located? I almost thought it was the one in Stone Mountain (GA) but noticed it isn't quite identical...
wray: is that second shot from 35mm? If so, you're doing better than I am!
wray: is that second shot from 35mm? If so, you're doing better than I am!
bmattock
Veteran
The covered bridge is in Fallasburg, MI.
Tun
kiumjoon
I am very pleased with it when im scanning medium format negs. For 35mm, its still acceptable for me.
The only nitpick would be the long waiting time.
some medium format samples from my 4490.
The only nitpick would be the long waiting time.
some medium format samples from my 4490.
aad
Not so new now.
4490 in 35mm really does fall down on slides, but you can get reasonable results with B&W and C41. As B Mattocks says, the Scan Dual IV really gets the job done.
wray
Well-known
Yes, both are 35mmcmedin said:
Here are a couple more ...
25 year old slide ...
25 year old negative ...
dmr
Registered Abuser
JoeFriday said:
Around here, both Walmart and Walgreens use the same equipment, the Fuji Frontier, and about the same settings, which results in a 1 meg plus file size for a 35mm frame.
They do use auto-levels, which seem to clip the highlight detail more often than not. I'm not sure about them boosting saturation, but they do appear to do some sharpening and some ICE type grunge removal.
Yes, the Great Unwashed Masses want contrasty, punchy, sharp photos!
Some shops are worse on highlight clipping than others. There's one Walgreens around here I avoid because of this.
Even though I have my own scanner, I usually still order the CD with the DO job. Why? 'Cuz I use them for web, e-mail, prints where I can settle for OK quality, etc. When I want a nice print to show off, I'll re-scan and I can always blow away the mini-lab scan with the one I do myself.
Another botch, this weekend {grrrrrrr!} I took a number of night shots of a local fountain, lit with colored lights with a dark (transparent on the negative) background (http://omababe.blogspot.com/2007/09/bayliss-revisited.html) and the CD printer missed a few in framing, since there were no clean clear frame lines in several frames, and actually scanned parts of two negatives in one frame on a few of them. I had to re-scan those to post on the blog.
Fortunately whatever did the negative cutting (human? machine?) cut them correctly.
GeneW
Veteran
Brett, my experience matches yours. Every place I've had a CD scan done, the results are way too contrasty and oversaturated, losing both the highlights and the shadow detail. I still get them because they're handy for quick postings and emails -- but they take a lot of salvage work in Photoshop to restore some of the goodness. You'd never guess that C-41 film has a lot of dynamic range when you look at the CD scans.JoeFriday said:
When I scan my own negatives the difference is astonishing. It's as if the image came from a different source.
Gene
Thardy
Veteran
i can't wait for my 4490 to arrive (later today) . Judging by the scans here my MF film could have new life.