Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
.. what resolutions are you getting?
I've recently tried two local minilabs for XP2 Super processing only and scans (no prints):
Costco - 2048 x 3088, but indifferent processing (this was their high res offering)
Target - 1037 x 1565, decent processing (no high res available)
I'm going to keep looking.
I've recently tried two local minilabs for XP2 Super processing only and scans (no prints):
Costco - 2048 x 3088, but indifferent processing (this was their high res offering)
Target - 1037 x 1565, decent processing (no high res available)
I'm going to keep looking.
VinceC
Veteran
I get 1.5 meg files (1000 x 1500) from a pharmacy and the grocery store. I use them because they're cheap. The CVS pharmacy uses very good Kokak processing with a two-day turnaround. The grocery store uses indifferent processing but is a lot cheaper. I've been doing the grocery story route and tweaking in PhotoShop.
Damian
Yes. Have some.
I had my film developed and scanned at Target once. The scans were rotten. Blurry, streaky, BAD. I even took them back and had them do it again. The results really weren't any better. Here's an example. That photo is actually very sharp, saturated and contrasty. YMMV of course. I gave up spending money on scans and just do it at home.
chenick
Nick's my name!
Labs with Fuji Frontier machines can be very good, normal res in any of the Fuji labs I use is 1840 x 1232 (2.3 megapixel), but they also do hi-res of 3360 x 2240 pixels which is 7.5 megapixels.
My local lab is Agfa, so I get often get their hires scans which are 3.8 megapixles 2400 x 1600)
I prefer the Fujis.
I have used Kodak machines before, no complaints apart from the rather low res 1544x1024.
Nick
My local lab is Agfa, so I get often get their hires scans which are 3.8 megapixles 2400 x 1600)
I prefer the Fujis.
I have used Kodak machines before, no complaints apart from the rather low res 1544x1024.
Nick
CraigK
Established
A local lab here has a Konica machine that will do MF as well as 35 mm. They can crank the scanner up to deliver a whopping 100 mb file from 35mm. The scans from 6x7 negs and trans are very, very nice.
C
ch1
Guest
This kind of thread seems to pop up about every six weeks or so.
I shoot film and scan into RAW (or TIFF) winding up with 65mb or so files. Anything in JPEG is already interpolated down to a lower quality image from that. Particularly if you go down to around 1.5mb.
To me this brings up a more interesting question.
Besides the immediate LCD image, the other advantage cited by digi shooters is faster workflow compare to developing and scanning film.
But to the Joe Average shooter - is there really any advantage to taking a JPEG digishot and then having it printed (either at a self-serve kiosk or by the photo store)? He winds up with a mediocre print at best and a CD full of mediocre images.
Since today I saw a tourist happily taking a picture of the a famous NYC skyscraper with here digicam - perhaps pciture quality matters less to casual shooters now than it ever did before?
I shoot film and scan into RAW (or TIFF) winding up with 65mb or so files. Anything in JPEG is already interpolated down to a lower quality image from that. Particularly if you go down to around 1.5mb.
To me this brings up a more interesting question.
Besides the immediate LCD image, the other advantage cited by digi shooters is faster workflow compare to developing and scanning film.
But to the Joe Average shooter - is there really any advantage to taking a JPEG digishot and then having it printed (either at a self-serve kiosk or by the photo store)? He winds up with a mediocre print at best and a CD full of mediocre images.
Since today I saw a tourist happily taking a picture of the a famous NYC skyscraper with here digicam - perhaps pciture quality matters less to casual shooters now than it ever did before?
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Nick - great info about the various machines. Thanks!
George - I was asking out of curiosity since I don't currently have a film scanner. I'm beginning to think I should just invest in one and get it over with. My problem is that I shoot Minox through 4x5, and would prefer a scanner that can handle it all. (Maybe not the Minox - I should sell the little gem.)
George - I was asking out of curiosity since I don't currently have a film scanner. I'm beginning to think I should just invest in one and get it over with. My problem is that I shoot Minox through 4x5, and would prefer a scanner that can handle it all. (Maybe not the Minox - I should sell the little gem.)
keithslater
Established
Its kinda funny this thread popped up. I get my film developed and scanned at Wal-mart. This evening I was asking the girl what they scan at, she swore 4mp. I told here I seem to be getting between 1.2 and 1.6mp off their cd's. She said she was not sure, but it had to be 4mp. I just checked the cd, I find 3 files with the same pics in them, they are all around 1.3mp.
w3rk5
Well-known
At ShoppersDrugMart they scan it at 1544x1024.
raid
Dad Photographer
I get higher resulution with Ritz Camera. They claim that all scans are at 6MP, but I only see 2 MP. No clue where the problem is.
My local lab's Pro service scans 35mm at 2000x2992 pixels on Agfa machinery. Oddly, the bigger the neg, the lower the res: 2000x2696 from 645 and 2000x2504 from 6x7...
T
tedwhite
Guest
I gave up on scans from Walmart, Target, etc., and bought a 35mm film scanner. I send all my C41 color film to PhotoWorks in Seattle. As that's all they do, the negs are processed well and the prints are perfectly OK. I use the prints to decide which neg I'm going to stick into the film scanner. As for Black and White film, I develop it at home, then scan the negs to see which one (if any) is worth printing.
