Camera stores won't scan Tri-X?

tanel

Established
Local time
1:08 AM
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
88
Location
Estonia
Anyone ever had trouble scanning Tri-X on camera stores?

Had a "fun" little experience today. Needed some negatives scanned. So went to the camera store and handed them over. After some time the old lady said that the negatives can not be scanned. The problem was that it's hand developed.
Now, I should point out, before I go on, that I've worked in camera stores myself and have the basic know-how of those machines they use there. And I never had any problems scanning negatives - hand developed or C41 or any other process.

So my question to you - might the problem really be in my negatives (some scanners not reading information from hand developed negs?) or was the problem between the two ears of the shopkeeper?
 
Probably just self interest. If you develop them, they aren't getting the revenue. Likely have so few people wanting the service it's just not worth the effort to them.
 
Cut / Uncut might be more of an issue. Hand developed means nothing in terms of scanability.

Personally I found that the staff at photo shop/store thoroughly unknowledgeable about analog photography.

They prefer to stay on the safe side and not run anything through their machines that they have not handled themselves.
 
IR based automatic dust filtering (ICE and the like) must be turned off to scan silver based black and white film - many drug store and in-shop operators have had no training beyond "insert film here, CD there and push button", and are unable to do anything as complex as that...
 
Ask for a reprint. See what happens then. It sure isn't because they are cut, otherwise the store would never be able to sell reprints.

It might be because the worker tried to eliminate scratches using some form of ICE. If you ask that they not use any scratch-removing feature, it should work fine.

'Course, it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place, so who knows.
 
Not sure but I tried to have some scanned at Walgreens a couple of years back and the tech swore the machine just didn't see the negs. He had scanned, c-41, for me in the past and I think he knew what he was doing. It looks to me as though a negative is a negative??? I am sure he had a setting wrong or something.
 
Considering that the use of film has increased about 40% in last year (at least that's what they say) I wouldn't say that it's not worth for the stores. All shops still offer scanning.
Negs were cut into 5 pieces. I did this keeping in mind that anything less than 3 frames won't fit into the scanners I used to work with.
I would also assume that it doesn't matter how the negatives were developed. I would also assume that people in camera stores are educated enough to know what they are supposed to do. That's why I'm a bit surprised and confused about this.
 
"Considering that the use of film has increased about 40% in last year (at least that's what they say)"

Quick! Somebody tell Fuji and Kodak. 😉
 
"Considering that the use of film has increased about 40% in last year (at least that's what they say)"

Quick! Somebody tell Fuji and Kodak. 😉

I don't know much about the rest of the world but people here seems to use film a lot.
Even when the digital became really popular and I just started working in the camera store I was amazed how many people came in to get their films developed and scanned. Over half the pictures printed were from negs.
 
My local Costco will scan any BW film (well, they don't do 120) I bring them. And, they do a very good job. The only requirement, and this is non-negotiable, is that the film is uncut.

Cheers...

Rem
 
Between the shopkeepers ears. Point out that a bit of cash is better than none. It also might be a head ache because he/she must send film through a different run. If you have cut the negatives it's even more of a pain. Make a friend and talk with him about why and figure out a far price. If not, find another shopkeeper and make a friend there.

B2 (;->
 
Not sure but I tried to have some scanned at Walgreens a couple of years back and the tech swore the machine just didn't see the negs. He had scanned, c-41, for me in the past and I think he knew what he was doing. It looks to me as though a negative is a negative??? I am sure he had a setting wrong or something.

Probably the first thing that came to his mind when the ICE software showed artifacts. It's amazing the stories that some of the techs are taught to tell. I once had one keep insisting a bad batch of chemicals, causing stain, was a problem with my camera. Where do they get these stories anyway? Do people really believe that kind of thing?
 
I purchased a Pakon F135 (minilab scanner) last year in hopes of doing previews of rolls and strips of film quickly. It wouldn't scan traditional B&W film at all. It also relied on the coding on the bottom of the film for proper framing, etc.

I'm not saying their scanner won't do strips or trad B&W, but it's possible.
 
"Considering that the use of film has increased about 40% in last year (at least that's what they say)"

Quick! Somebody tell Fuji and Kodak. 😉

I just forwarded messages to both Fujifilm and Kodak "Hi, Pickett Wilson wanted let you know use of film has increased about 40% in last year" 🙂

As for OP's question, I'm taking side that unmotivated/untrained staff just don't want to step off beaten track.
 
Just to clarify this - that 40% I was talking about is a local thing. And it was a number some photographer had from a store owner. Don't make that big of a deal out of this. (-:

I will try my luck on another store tomorrow, let's see what happens then. But the store I visited today will miss out one of their clients, that's for sure.
 
Phew, so, visited another shop today and had no problem getting things done.
Here's a few shots that got scanned. All of them taken with Tri-X and canons 24mm FD (F1 and A1. Sorry, no rangefinders for me, yet)

U35625I1269953519.SEQ.0.jpg


U35625I1269953527.SEQ.0.jpg


U35625I1269953509.SEQ.0.jpg


U35625I1269953512.SEQ.0.jpg


U35625I1269953524.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom