A processing question or two or three:

[Saxophool]

I had a roll developed at the local film and digital processor. Due to a brain error on my part (camera set at 400 for Fuji 200 film), all the shots were slightly underexposed. An example: http://tinyurl.com/3f5ajtPretty happy with the results in any case but I have a question about the file size. The shop processed the film and gave me a CD. All the files on the CD are in the 1-1.5 MP range. Looks like the file info says 96 dpi. When I shoot with my digital cameras, the files are in the 4-6 MP range. Both my other cameras are 8 mp cameras. So my questions are: Is this about standard? Do different shops process to different file sizes? Should I shop around?Thanks,
Tom

 

[Thardy]

Some places may scan at higher resolutions, but I've only seen pretty low rez scans from the local lab I've used to process c41.

I just now popped in the CD and the resolution is 1800 * 1215, 96dpi, 1.4 megabyte.

I do have a film scanner and save myself $5-6 by skipping the CD since it's not much good to me.

I did ask the clerk at the lab about higher resolution scans and he really didn't know if it could be done.

 

[monopix]

First of all, great shot.

One thing to keep in mind is that the file you've got from the processor is compressed (jpg) so the file size isn't directly related to the resolution as the amount of compression will vary. The image you have is 1354 x 1083 pixels which (assuming 8 bit colour depth) gives you a 4.4MB file. That's been compressed to 1.7MB.

The file contains 1.46M pixels so is the equivalent of what you would get from a 1.46Mp camera.

Most processors I know give you an option of what resolution you want the scans. Confusingly, these are usually referred to by the resultant file size (either before or after compression) which doesn't tell you what the resolution actually is. As a guide, an uncompressed image from a 8Mp camera will be 24MB which, with minimum compression would probably come out about 8MB but could be as low as 3 or 4MB. I would shop around for a lab that will scan at higher resolution but check what the reolution is or, if they quote a file size, check whether that's the compressed or uncompressed size.

 

[Saxophool]

Mono and Thardy, Thanks for the replies. I took the original negative in to the shop and the resulting 8X10 is noticeably nicer than the one from the digital file. I like this shop so I'm going to ask if they can scan at higher resolutions and if not, shop around. I was originally going to get this camera set up for and Ebay auction but I'm liking it so I got a little Domke bag and some filters on order from B&H. The Olympus E-500 might be on Ebay soon. Thanks again, Tom

 

[dmr]

All the files on the CD are in the 1-1.5 MP range. Looks like the file info says 96 dpi.

Many of the places that use Fuji minilab equipment use some kind of default setting which does indeed produce files in this size range at 96 dpi. I've asked the people working there about the 96 dpi on occasion, and they always seemed to look at me like I'm from another planet!

Remember that the dpi on a .jpg is a "suggestion" and not gospel. 🙂

 

[ederek]

A recent foray into RF's (with B&W processed & scanned at home) has brought me back to film (digital since early 2001).

Back in 2000/2001 I used Dale Labs in Hollywood Florida, and got film developed, one set of prints, and scanned onto Kodak Photo CD. This was higher quality and a bit more cost than the "Picture CD". I don't see this option on their order form now:
http://www.dalelabs.com/order35mm.html
...but you may wish to call and inquire if that service is still available.

Also, the Kodak Photo CD's hold more than one roll per disk. They are in a special format as well. (.pcd or something?)

Depending upon how many frames you want at a higher resolution, you may be well served to use the Picture CD youre getting now as a "proof" and basic low-res scan. Easy.

Consider a quality film scanner for those images you want at a higher resolution. This may depend upon your printing options. If you are going to a lab, then providing them the physical negative may be easier/cheaper (though you risk damage to the orig negative by lab technicians or loss if shipping in mail that are outside your control).

The cost 7 years ago for film, processing, prints and Kodak Photo CD averaged about $1 per Frame. I shot about 700 frames in 2000, and this was justification for the $1400 investment in digital at the time - it would pay for itself in 2 yrs. Well, with digital I shot far more and carried it more often. Probably shot 3K frames in the 1st 6 months. Never realized how much digital would change my behavior.

You might want to select just 1 or 2 of your favorite frames and have those negatives professionally drum-scanned. This would provide a baseline of max quality available from your film, and give you a good feel for how the various options you end up using measure up to max quality available. This may help with the cost/quality balance.

 

[ederek]

Forgot to mention one other benefit of scanning at home - you end up with a digital file that can be manipulated with Post Processing tools such as Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. etc.. You can make adjustments to the image prior to sending off for printing. When you send the negative itself, you get what is there and any processing done in the Lab's workflow, and that's that.