What do you do?

[ICU]

Not sure if this is the correct place for my question, so my apologies. For those of you who don't develop your own film, do you scan your pictures or have the processors put them on a CD? Other than the expense of buying a scanner is one method better than the other?

 

[shadowfox]

Yes, I used to tell my minilab to scan them for me (no prints, straight from neg to CD), but later I figure out that a good film scanner is a good investment that will pay itself within a year or so at the rate I'm shooting (2-3 rolls a week at $2.50 per scan).

Another thing, my minilab scans at a mere 4 Mpixel equivalent while the default setting of my scanner produces the same resolution images as my Olympus E-300 at 8 Mpixel.

But now... I'm very intrigued at the possibility of developing my own bw films 😉

 

[Xmas]

ICU

Well I dont dev my own colour any more the tempering bath was too difficult. I have a projector for slides, or I scan then with a cheap flatbed.

I scan B&W or use an enlarger.

But I tend to have to spend more time repairing cameras/lenses, than I spend dev or print/scanning.

Even a cheap scanner will be a big investement, relative to the dev tank, therm, vessels etc are all pretty cheap, especially when 2nd hand in photo shop bargin cardboard box or charity store, but stay away from the charity clothing/shoes...

Noel

 

[arbib]

Not sure if this is the correct place for my question, so my apologies. For those of you who don't develop your own film, do you scan your pictures or have the processors put them on a CD? Other than the expense of buying a scanner is one method better than the other?

I have my lab scan the Negatives. But I asked around until I found a lab that would do high resolution (2437x3633 or close). The lab I use is a Pro/Am Camera store. Mostly Amateur (for the masses) / Pro

They say it scanned at 600dpi (not PPI) But the File dimensions are that of a 8.6mp sensor density (APS-C Size).. look at my RFF gallery. all those where scanned like that. I have larger images at Pbase Gallery/Rangefinder. ($10.50 per roll, Dev+CD only)

I have found the 100-200 ISO films scan best (I like Portra 160 at ISO 160 best,, or Fuji 160nc at ISO 160... the Kodak HD 400 has too much Salt and Pepper noise after scanning... Easily removed, but requires OVER SHARPENING to compensate for the Filtering. The end result is OK, but I think it could be better.

I am testing Fuji 400 now at ISO 360. for a 400 Color Film.

 

[biomed]

I opted for develop only with the mini lab. All frames are checked on a light table. I then scan the ones I like using a Canon FS4000US. I mostly shoot XP2Super. I have'nt had any scans done by a processor for many years. I wasn't happy with the results. Maybe the quality has improved since I last had scans made.

 

[OldNick]

I have found that a 1-Hour Lab can develop and print to CD very economically. The quality is fine for posting on-line and for full-frame prints up to 8x10. I just don't make enough photos to justify a scanner, and my computer desk has no room for one.

Jim N.

 

[jky]

Scanner - Coolscan V (Nikon). After dev+scan costs, I'd have paid for the scanner already in only a few months. Regarding which is better, in my experience it would be at-home scanning. This way, I have control over the quality of the scanning & I know that I've pulled as much detail from the neg as one can...
Cheers.

 

[Nostalgie]

I get a HI RES CD made, and if anythings not to liking, Ill scan my own

 

[fishtek]

I take my C-41 film to a local CVS for a run through their machine. I ask them to just develop the film, then use my flatbed scanner for further work.

Regards!
Don

 

[dmr]

Not sure if this is the correct place for my question, so my apologies. For those of you who don't develop your own film, do you scan your pictures or have the processors put them on a CD? Other than the expense of buying a scanner is one method better than the other?

I shoot mostly C41 negative film, and 90% of the time I'll just take it to Walgreens for a develop-only with CD. The two Walgreens I use seem to do a very consistent job developing and a very "OK" job on the CDs.

I do have a scanner, but I use that for when I want a higher res scan or when I want a better scan than from the mini-lab. I'll also use it for slides and older negatives I don't have scanned already.

I can get a much better scan doing it myself, but it's time consuming. I've found it's worth paying a few $ to get that CD when I have the negatives done.

 

[Avotius]

I shoot c41 bw film because I dont have the time or space to do my own black and whites, for colors I try to shoot slide as much as possible. I just let the semi pro lab in the city I live in develop, 6 inch prints and low rez scans (1 something mb) then if I want high rez scans I just go back next time and do it. Yes after about 50 rolls of film doing it like there I could buy a epson 4990 or something like that but its easier on me to spred the cost over the long term, plus I just cant come up with the time to scan negs myself anymore....

 

[rbiemer]

I'm shooting C-41--both BW and color--almost exclusively now, and I just get a CD with the 1 hour processing. If I need a bigger file, a buddy of mine will scan a frame or three for me as long as I buy the CD to put it on and a beer or two after. For posting on-line the low res scans are good enough. For big prints, I have enlargements made from the negs at an almost local lab.
At some point I am going to b get a scanner so I can re-scan particular frames--the mini lab CDs will serve as contact sheets for me still.
Rob

 

[Xmas]

ICU

The thing I forgot to say For B&W I use bulk loads in a daylight loader, the bulk loads cans when time expired are given away, the process your own is cheap and easy, if you have a wash room to yourself, I use reloadable cassettes - without felt.

The only problem is I take a lot of landscape in slides >$.

Noel

 

[pvdhaar]

To get film results into the digital realm, I use a DSLR plus a 90mm 1:1 macro lens.. Certainly beats the quality of drugstore CD scans which invariably have loads of white spots, which I assume are caused by dust..

 

[arbib]

To get film results into the digital realm, I use a DSLR plus a 90mm 1:1 macro lens.. Certainly beats the quality of drugstore CD scans which invariably have loads of white spots, which I assume are caused by dust..

Not sure the spots are all dust.

With Porta 160nc, I get no (or Very few) spots from my lab scans,
But with HD 400 Kodak, Lots of spots, every time, I think the type of grain (Tmax type Grain, for example, or not) of the film has a play in this too.

Just my observation.

 

[ErnestoJL]

I develop myself all B&W neg film and send it to the lab for scanning. All C41 film is done at the lab, straight to CD.
Next step is to buy a good film scanner for 35 to 6x9 and a good printer. Meanwhile I´ll still do my own prints.

Ernesto