kshapero
South Florida Man
I shoot mostly Kodak UC 400ASA. I have been sending it to Walgreens for negs and CD's. I could sent it to a Prolab for 2 1/2 times the price and wait a week.
here is the problem:
1. Walgreens gives me a 1 meg Jpeg which is grainy at 8 by 10. I throw the CD into photoshop elements 5.0 and resize which increases file size to 2.3 megs. Still grainy at 8 by 10.
2. Prolab sents me a 2.6 meg file. Prints perfectly at 8 by 10.
3. I have a scanner and vuescan. I have tried and tried and I can't get good results.
I hate paying $12.50 for a roll on CD from the Prolab and waiting a week to get it back.
Help. I do not want to give this up. How can I make this work?
:bang:
here is the problem:
1. Walgreens gives me a 1 meg Jpeg which is grainy at 8 by 10. I throw the CD into photoshop elements 5.0 and resize which increases file size to 2.3 megs. Still grainy at 8 by 10.
2. Prolab sents me a 2.6 meg file. Prints perfectly at 8 by 10.
3. I have a scanner and vuescan. I have tried and tried and I can't get good results.
I hate paying $12.50 for a roll on CD from the Prolab and waiting a week to get it back.
Help. I do not want to give this up. How can I make this work?
:bang:
dmr
Registered Abuser
kshapero said:
Ok, I admit the Walgreens scans are not the best, but, I have found that I can get a very "ok" 8x10 most of the time by upsizing to 8x10 at 300dpi and then cleaning up the roughness (I would call it general roughness or digital garbage, not grain) with the Neat Image plug-in.
Hint: Convert to 16 bit before upsizing and such. Then convert back to 8.
If it's a true negative scanner, you should easily get scans that put Walgreens to shame. I have a KM SD IV, nothing fancy, and I get excellent scans from C41 negatives. Just a little attention to detail seems to be the secret.
Diggin99
Established
Hi! I am not sure what model scanner you are using but you may want to think about investing in a really good model for scanning yourself. Over the long term self scaning on a better model may be the way to go. What did you scan, the negative or a print? Maybe some examples of what the walgreens scans look like might help us see what's going on. I would personally get the negatives developed at the pro lab and then try to work on the self scaning. Don't give up though! Good luck!
BTW Ken Rockwell (love him or hate him!) has a review of scanner types and prices:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanrex.htm
Nancy
BTW Ken Rockwell (love him or hate him!) has a review of scanner types and prices:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanrex.htm
Nancy
ZeissFan
Veteran
At a certain point, it might make more sense to scan your own. That gives you greater control over the entire process. Then you only have to pay for process and print (or just process + index print).
Athena
Well-known
Spend your money on a top-end scanner such as the Nikon 5000D and quit wasting it on store-bought JPEGs.kshapero said:
With a high-end scanner you can scan in RAW (NEF in nikon world) and you'll get a 64mb file of data. Use a DVD-burner and at 8gb a pop you can burn about 50 or so images onto each disk.
For things like posting here you then use PS (or similar) to reduce the image size and convert to a JPEG.
Starting with JPEG is a fool's gamble. Always try to preserve your negs at the RAW level first. Because after that, every subsequent manipultation is a compromise and then another compromise etc.
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
Upsizing is trying to get something (more information), from nothing. Information theory predicts this sort of exercise can only yield very limited improvements. This is why you are disappointed.
Software solutions that model the missing data (pixels) rely on (reasonable) assumptions about your data. Unfortunately these models are not perfect and at some point the model can not represent the true, but unknown, parameters for the pixels that weren't scanned. Further software manipulations rely upon averaging/filtering which distorts the real data in the image. Of course upsized and filtered images can look better than the original. However what you can't see is how poorly they compare to a hi-res (4800ppi/48 bits) scan of the same negative.
As mentioned above, tif files have more information content than jpegs and 16 bit pixels have more information than 8 bit pixels. This is why the last step in post-processing should always be conversion to jpeg.
There is no substitute for data (pixels). If you want prints that faithfully represent what your lenses, skill and film record, you must collect more data. Scanning negatives is tough. Try the following: pick a well-exposed negative with subjects where you know a lot about the correct color (it will help to have a pure white color someplace in the picture). Set Vuescan to make minimum modifications to the image (no curves, levels, white balance etc). Scan at the actual negative sixe (36mmX24mm) at 2400 ppi, 48 bit in tif file format. In you image editing software (PS?) convert to B&W and see if the detail/resolution is good. Convert back to color and set the white balance at part of the image that should be white. This should give you a reasonable start.
I agree using a scanner is better than paying a premium for medium-res scans. I think 2.6 MP is borderline for 8X10 prints. Of course, subject matter, film speed and printer quality are important variables. I usually have send 400-500 ppi files for 8X10s. I know the lab printer only prints at 300ppi. However I also know that more data averages better than less, so the printer driver should produce a better result with from an over-sized file.
The Walgreens scans make useful proofs, web images and 4X6 prints, so you only need to manually scan the best images from each roll or the occasional frame that is poorly represented by the auto-color cast and contrast manipulations of the Walgreen's (Fuji?) scanner.
willie
Software solutions that model the missing data (pixels) rely on (reasonable) assumptions about your data. Unfortunately these models are not perfect and at some point the model can not represent the true, but unknown, parameters for the pixels that weren't scanned. Further software manipulations rely upon averaging/filtering which distorts the real data in the image. Of course upsized and filtered images can look better than the original. However what you can't see is how poorly they compare to a hi-res (4800ppi/48 bits) scan of the same negative.
As mentioned above, tif files have more information content than jpegs and 16 bit pixels have more information than 8 bit pixels. This is why the last step in post-processing should always be conversion to jpeg.
There is no substitute for data (pixels). If you want prints that faithfully represent what your lenses, skill and film record, you must collect more data. Scanning negatives is tough. Try the following: pick a well-exposed negative with subjects where you know a lot about the correct color (it will help to have a pure white color someplace in the picture). Set Vuescan to make minimum modifications to the image (no curves, levels, white balance etc). Scan at the actual negative sixe (36mmX24mm) at 2400 ppi, 48 bit in tif file format. In you image editing software (PS?) convert to B&W and see if the detail/resolution is good. Convert back to color and set the white balance at part of the image that should be white. This should give you a reasonable start.
I agree using a scanner is better than paying a premium for medium-res scans. I think 2.6 MP is borderline for 8X10 prints. Of course, subject matter, film speed and printer quality are important variables. I usually have send 400-500 ppi files for 8X10s. I know the lab printer only prints at 300ppi. However I also know that more data averages better than less, so the printer driver should produce a better result with from an over-sized file.
The Walgreens scans make useful proofs, web images and 4X6 prints, so you only need to manually scan the best images from each roll or the occasional frame that is poorly represented by the auto-color cast and contrast manipulations of the Walgreen's (Fuji?) scanner.
willie
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I get all my stuff done at a Canadian equivalent to Walgreens. So here is what I do when I want a good 8x10 or even larger.. I take the negative of the single (or as many as I want) into the store and have them do a print from the neg.
Alternatively there are shops that have high end scanners, I go there do the scan and PS and then send for printing.. this is expensive usually $50 an hour so you have to know what you are doing. Still it is the best level of scanning possible. Drum scans of up to 20 mb+ blows the doors off a digital camera by a long shot in my personal opinion.
I’m currently like DMR.. using a KM DS IV dedicated 35mm scanner. I am now considering a flat bed for my MF stuff.
Lots of possibilities for you , try a couple and see what works best.
Good luck!
Alternatively there are shops that have high end scanners, I go there do the scan and PS and then send for printing.. this is expensive usually $50 an hour so you have to know what you are doing. Still it is the best level of scanning possible. Drum scans of up to 20 mb+ blows the doors off a digital camera by a long shot in my personal opinion.
I’m currently like DMR.. using a KM DS IV dedicated 35mm scanner. I am now considering a flat bed for my MF stuff.
Lots of possibilities for you , try a couple and see what works best.
Good luck!
kshapero
South Florida Man
Thank you for the good suggestions. my scanner is an HP 3210, nothing fancy. I scan the negs. I have my eye on the Nikon 5000. I did not know that it can scan into RAW. That would really help. At this point I think that that is the direction I want to go. But still open to all ideas, since I do not yet have the money.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I currently use a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 though am looking to get a Nikon 5000D. The Nikon 4000D can be had for around £350 ( sterling ) which you will soon save in scanning costs.
I've also just bought some dev tanks and measuring cylinders etc. I'm so fed up with the lack of decent labs for b/w processing that I've decided to go back to processing my own. It also give me the best of both worlds - complete control over the entire photographic process and saves me money.
As many have said, its at the scanning stage that you need to make the correct decision, which is to get as much information from your neg as possible, store on disc and then you can crop/convert or whatever you need to do.
Hope you find the answer
I've also just bought some dev tanks and measuring cylinders etc. I'm so fed up with the lack of decent labs for b/w processing that I've decided to go back to processing my own. It also give me the best of both worlds - complete control over the entire photographic process and saves me money.
As many have said, its at the scanning stage that you need to make the correct decision, which is to get as much information from your neg as possible, store on disc and then you can crop/convert or whatever you need to do.
Hope you find the answer
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I get 3MB files of 3360x2240 from my local minilab with Fuji Frontier.
It may be worth looking around and discussing your requirements. In my case I don't get 30 minute turnaround because the hires scanning takes longer than lowres or midres so they schedule it for lunch time when they're closed. But they don't charge any extra.
It may be worth looking around and discussing your requirements. In my case I don't get 30 minute turnaround because the hires scanning takes longer than lowres or midres so they schedule it for lunch time when they're closed. But they don't charge any extra.
iml
Well-known
Cheaper scanners are getting better, but my recent experience learning about film scanning through practice suggests there is a learning curve involved. It took me a couple of days of fairly intense experimentation to find a scanning workflow I was happy with. My scanner is definitely entry-level, so now I'm thinking I need to upgrade it in the near-ish future. So, I'd agree with those who are suggesting it's worth investing in a reasonable quality scanner. It's then worth spending time experimenting.
Ian
Ian
dmr
Registered Abuser
willie_901 said:
I think you're misunderstanding why I and some of the others are "upsizing", which is actually a misnomer in this context.
The reason I do it is to feed my older printer the diet it prefers, which is files at exactly 300dpi at the exact size it wants to print. It is a very picky eater. I can get a very presentable 8x10 from the old hand-me-down HP 720 doing this, even from the Walgreens scans.
The scans that come from Walgreens, at least the one I usually use, are 1800x1200 pixels. The file says these are about 12x18" at 96 dpi. Yes, I know these dimensions are arbitrary. If I feed the printer these files and let it (and whatever software voodoo is in there) resize them to 8x10, the results are a total waste of paper and ink.
I came across this trick a couple years ago on another system when I was mentioning that I thought I needed a better printer for true photo quality. One of the guys on the other system sent me a test image for a Fuji Frontier and told me to print it exactly as he sent it on glossy photo paper and the image was astounding, much better than I ever got before.
My reason for going to 16 bit when upsizing is again from a thread on another system, but it does seem to give a smoother print in some cases.
I do have to admit that the absolute best results is by doing a max resolution scan of the negative at 16 bits (this makes like a 70 megabyte .tif file) then downsizing as needed, and sending that to the printer.
Now my new printer is far more liberal as far as giving a nice print from a file of some odd size, but I'm still upbound on the learning curve with that, and I haven't dared try any larger prints on it yet.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
It's been said here, but if you have the neg, a print from a scan of the neg makes little sense to me.
That said, I have my C41 developed/only and scanned to high res TIFF at a local stand-alone lab. A roll of 24 with ~18MB scans (can't remember the exact resolution) costs me ~$10USD. The key with drugstore/grocery store/know-nothing mini-labs is to ask them "How big a print can you make?" Then have them scan for that size, but of course you are not actually ordering those prints at the time, so make sure they understand that. "Scan only, NO prints"; make sure it's in big block letters on the order envelope.
That said, I have my C41 developed/only and scanned to high res TIFF at a local stand-alone lab. A roll of 24 with ~18MB scans (can't remember the exact resolution) costs me ~$10USD. The key with drugstore/grocery store/know-nothing mini-labs is to ask them "How big a print can you make?" Then have them scan for that size, but of course you are not actually ordering those prints at the time, so make sure they understand that. "Scan only, NO prints"; make sure it's in big block letters on the order envelope.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
The Noritsu rigs at the one-hour labs in the Costco stores around here put a pretty big file size out- about 4.5 Mb per frame onto the CD.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Costco scans for negatives and slides here in CA are around 3.0Mb jpeg. But I got this from someone on this forum, and it works for me. I really like this method. He wrote: use some software (like neatimage) to do a GENTLE grain reduction, sharpen carefully, then downsize the image to around 50% the original pixel dimensions. Thank you, whoever you are.
nk.
Member
Mind that the RAW (or NEF) that is generally output by the scanner is nothing like the one that you can get from a camera. This is especially true with Nikon. The NEF from the CoolScan series of scanners is not compatible with the regular NEF plugin for photoshop and you won't have the same level of control over the exposure, etc. I wouldn't waste time scanning images in in NEF format or in Multi-Pass mode for web distribution or cataloging; I would only do this for prints that really mattered.
I've never been able to get decent quality scans from any lab, nor have I had a decent scan from a flatbed style scanner. Remember that you should under no circumstances try to use ICE or GEM or some sort of automated post-processing filter when scanning using a film scanner; it will mess up your images. You have to fix imperfections that these would fix by hand.
You might be able to find someone with a dedicated film scanner that will give you access. I managed to get access at two local universities.
Good luck!
I've never been able to get decent quality scans from any lab, nor have I had a decent scan from a flatbed style scanner. Remember that you should under no circumstances try to use ICE or GEM or some sort of automated post-processing filter when scanning using a film scanner; it will mess up your images. You have to fix imperfections that these would fix by hand.
You might be able to find someone with a dedicated film scanner that will give you access. I managed to get access at two local universities.
Good luck!
kshapero
South Florida Man
very excellent. I have gotten vuescan to scan into tiff files at about 24megs. Easy to work with in PSE 5.0. Convert to a nice size jpeg.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Akiva,
So what did you do that suddenly made Vuescan work for you? Just curious.
allan
So what did you do that suddenly made Vuescan work for you? Just curious.
allan
kshapero
South Florida Man
Set Vuescan to make minimum modifications to the image (no curves, levels, white balance etc). Preveiw at the actual negative sixe (36mmX24mm) at 2400 ppi, 48 bit in tif file format. Then right click in each image on a neutral color to adjust white balance and scan away.kaiyen said:
Background here really is a yellow wall.
the off white wall took a little coaxing in Vuescan.
Last edited: