Got some scans back from the developer...

[thegman]

Hello all,
I just got back 5 CDs from my developer, I got these scanned onto CD, and did not bother with prints.

I think the results are atrocious, am I right? Should I be expecting better? I've listed 3 links, the two colour shots are from Velvia 50, the B&W is Delta 3200. I know Delta 3200 is grainy, but should it be *this* bad?

I also think the Velvia exhibits a lot of noise/grain in the shadows.

http://78.129.225.198/RFF/1.JPG
http://78.129.225.198/RFF/2.JPG
http://78.129.225.198/RFF/3.JPG

These are unchanged scans direct from the CD I got in the post.

I've got 3 films ready to send off, if everyone thinks the above results are bad, where should I be sending them?

Thanks

Garry

 

[Pickett Wilson]

They look about right for the film you are shooting to me. The first one is appears badly underexposed.

 

[Lilserenity]

The third one is underexposed too, Velvia (50, 100 or 100f) wouldn't be that grainy at all in my experience. That said, it's not the ideal film for what you were shooting. Velvia 50 does funny things with long exposure and is very very contrasty; depends what you like of course.

The first one is grossly underexposed too, Delta 3200 is grainy when taking a landscape shot like that in 35mm format; but not as bad as that in my experience.

 

[payasam]

Garry, you might try another lab: but before you do that, see about correct exposure.

 

[Particular]

I would rarely expect anything better from a develop and scan service. Those scanners tend to work best with color negs, they just don't handle contrasty images well. Also, since they scan to jpg, it leaves you very little room to adjust in PS. There is really only one way to get a good result and that is to scan yourself, or to let a pro lab do it.
It takes time or money to get it right. Think of these as previews, or contact prints.

 

[thegman]

I know that underexposure is an issue, they were shot in aperture priority, handheld, but obviously the lighting conditions were not ideal.

I will be trying another lab, I went with those guys as they can develop B&W, E6, C41 etc.

The Velvia 50 was the wrong film for the job, I loaded it thinking I'd be shooting in broad daylight, but one thing led to another, and it was getting dark before I started. Rather than unload the film, I just shot it. I'm probably happier with Velvia than the rest of my films, which were BW.

Anyone want to recommend a good, cheap lab in the UK?

Thanks

Garry

 

[thegman]

I almost forgot, the Velvia scans came in at around 500kb each, that seems incredibly small, I'd be expecting at least a few MB, maybe I'll look at getting a scanner myself.

 

[Matus]

The scans are poor indeed - but one should not expect too much from such automated scans. At least for the Velvia - at this low resolution that can't be any grain. Period. What you see is scanner noise and some automated post processing. Find a lab that uses the Coolscan 5000 or 9000 scanners and you will get incomparably better scans.

 

[js670]

http://www.peak-imaging.com/ in Sheffield. Not the cheapest (though not the worst, either), but they are very quick, and always very good.

Cheers

 

[Lilserenity]

There's also The Darkroom UK (http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/) -- very good E6 I find and generally good in general -- don't know much about their scanning but I used it once and it was fine, Colourstream in Brighton are also very good (they do mail order) - http://www.colourstream.net/minilab/film-processing.php and also I have had good C41 service from Genie Imaging - http://www.genieimaging.co.uk/index_red.htm -- but I have no idea on their scanning quality.

 

[hans voralberg]

I almost forgot, the Velvia scans came in at around 500kb each, that seems incredibly small, I'd be expecting at least a few MB, maybe I'll look at getting a scanner myself.

www.palmlabs.co.uk, again, not cheap, but very very good service, fast and reliable.

 

[ampguy]

I'd go to Costco. For that first one, photoshoppers would often just crank up the shadow slider a bit.

 

[thegman]

Thanks guys, I will try those labs, was getting a bit disheartened for a bit there.

I tried running a noise reduction effect on one shot, and I think it's a great improvement on the grain, at a cost of losing a little detail. This was Velvia 50 at night, so I'm lucky to have anything at all really.

 

[robbeiflex]

I've used www.ilfordlab.com for black and white's, their price is not cheap but it is reasonable, and the results are really excellent - who better to process you Ilford films? The prints come in nice boxes and they have a high quality scan option. They do other brands of B&W film but not colour, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[thegman]

I've used www.ilfordlab.com for black and white's, their price is not cheap but it is reasonable, and the results are really excellent - who better to process you Ilford films? The prints come in nice boxes and they have a high quality scan option. They do other brands of B&W film but not colour, to the best of my knowledge.

I've got 2 BW films to send off, one Ilford and one Fuji, I'd like to give Ilford a try with both, but I don't suppose you have an example hi-res scan of their's, so I can take a look? It's pricey, but I'll pay it for good results.

Thanks

Garry

 

[mfogiel]

Garry,
How much are you going to spend on labs this year? Just sit down and do the math...
You have 2 choices:
1 - get youself a digital camera and forget film
2- get youself a film scanner, a tank and a changing bag and start developing and scanning yourself

Since you showed both a B&W and a colour shot I am not sure what is better for you, in case you like colour more the option nr. 1, in case you are committed to B&W the option nr 2.

In any case, Delta 3200 has probably a true speed of ISO 1200.

Also, FYG, my 35mm 16bit TIFF scans in B&W at 4000dpi come out close to 24MB, colour ones in 48 bit, close to 70MB.

 

[thegman]

Indeed, the ongoing cost of this is indeed a problem for me, particularly as my brother, who shoots micro 4/3 is getting much better results than my scanned negs.

If I shoot Delta 3200 again, I'll definitely set my ZI to at least 1600, maybe even 800.

The first roll I ever shot in my ZI was XP2, and I loved the results, I got these 5 films back and basically there were no good photos in there, 95% my own fault, but the grain is incredibly intrusive so any good shots are instantly ruined.

I don't really want to develop myself, so if this does not work out, it's an RD-1 for me.

I do want to persevere with film though, it frustrates me though that once I've taken the photo, there are still moving parts in place like processing and scanning, whereas with digital, once the shot is taken, it's over and there are no more moving parts to get in the way.

I'm not sure if I prefer BW or colour yet, I think BW looks great for people but living in London, colours can be vivid and it would be a shame to miss out on that.

Looking again at my shots, my XP2 400 shots are generally over-exposed, is it worth rating that at ISO 200, or is that a step too far?

 

[hans voralberg]

Practice metering I would say. I've hardly ever over-exposed XP2 at 400. Best route to go is shoot C41, get Jessop to develop only. Cut, sleeve and scan yourself.

 

[kipkeston]

The scans are fine. It's really just the photographer. If you want more control, scan and print yourself or go digital.

 

[mfogiel]

Garry,
Stick to XP2 for the moment then. Expose at EI 200 ( if you underexpose, you lose the shadow detail immediately and the grain will snowball), use AE on your ZI, and if you are shoothing vertical frames, make sure you keep the right edge of your camera up. If you shoot wth wider angles and there is a lot of sky in the frame, aim the camera somewhat lower, press the AE lock, recompose and shoot.
Here are some examples of the ZI and XP2 @ EI200:

Just go out and take some photos...