Marsopa
Well-known
I use to get my rolls developped and scanned in a so called "professional" store... just developped and scanned. Today I've re-scanned some pics in a flat bed scanner at the faculty (epson photo perfectionXXX) and the result is many times better than the shop scanning!!!... 
:bang:
I'll try to ask if it's possible they fine tune the scanning process or, more surely, to buy a scanner...
:bang: I'll try to ask if it's possible they fine tune the scanning process or, more surely, to buy a scanner...
dmr
Registered Abuser
Since I got the negative scanner, I've found the same thing, that the scans I do are always better overall than the lab scans.
I usually do the lab scans anyway, since it is time-consuming to do it and I do want an image so I can see what's there. If I want a nice print I will re-scan myself and print.
I usually do the lab scans anyway, since it is time-consuming to do it and I do want an image so I can see what's there. If I want a nice print I will re-scan myself and print.
bmattock
Veteran
I have told people many times that lab scanning is awful compared to doing it yourself. Some folks agree, some say that their lab is wonderful. But I've tried some of the labs they've recommended, and they stink. I suspect some folks have low standards. DIY scanning is the best - but some complain that it takes too long. If time is an issue for you, you're stuck. Otherwise, get a scanner and DIY, and you'll be happier for it.
I also find that having the lab process, print, and scan my film scratches it. If I shoot non B&W film these days (not often), I just pay to have processing done, nothing else. Then I scan it myself. If I want prints, I upload the images I've scanned to Mpix.com and they do a great job.
I also find that having the lab process, print, and scan my film scratches it. If I shoot non B&W film these days (not often), I just pay to have processing done, nothing else. Then I scan it myself. If I want prints, I upload the images I've scanned to Mpix.com and they do a great job.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
Are the minilab scanners really scanners, or are they more like a digital camera ccd that takes a photo of the negative, all at once?
Not all minilabs are equal- old frontier machines make very small files i've noticed, while agfa files are huge, and newer noritsu are pretty big.
Not all minilabs are equal- old frontier machines make very small files i've noticed, while agfa files are huge, and newer noritsu are pretty big.
mfogiel
Veteran
I am convinced, that the whole hassle of 35mm film photography is only justified if you have the capacity to produce a first rate scan, (or else if you have a darkroom).
If you invest some money in a good film scanner and a software like Vuescan with film profiles, ICE, etc, this will increase the quality of your prints more, than buying the most expensive lens on earth.
From other people's comments I know the most appreciated scanner is the Minolta 5400, which is apparently capable to produce first rate results even from silver halide emulsions.
I use the Nikon CS 9000, together with an Epson flatbed for contact prints. Scanning a well exposed XP2 I get 13x19 prints that are a pleasure to look at, and also let you appreciate the subtleties of the different lenses and technique.
Who knows for how much longer are the scanners going to be made... it's better to get a good one while they're still around...
If you invest some money in a good film scanner and a software like Vuescan with film profiles, ICE, etc, this will increase the quality of your prints more, than buying the most expensive lens on earth.
From other people's comments I know the most appreciated scanner is the Minolta 5400, which is apparently capable to produce first rate results even from silver halide emulsions.
I use the Nikon CS 9000, together with an Epson flatbed for contact prints. Scanning a well exposed XP2 I get 13x19 prints that are a pleasure to look at, and also let you appreciate the subtleties of the different lenses and technique.
Who knows for how much longer are the scanners going to be made... it's better to get a good one while they're still around...
gregg
Well-known
Not sure about Agfa but the Noritsu and Fuji Frontier are both real film CCD scanners. To my knowledge they all have scan resolution and output settings like any other scanner. The latest versions of these scanners are capable of a 4000-4600 ppi scan or around a maximum size 6mb JPG for 35mm. If your files are smaller your negs aren't being scanned at maximum resolution...
Most "operators" I've talked to just run the rolls through with no adjustment - trusting the auto everything settings to scan correctly which is usually not that great. There is one operator I know locally who will do "custom scanning" for me at no extra cost - basically he just previews each scan and adjusts exposure and white balance. Nothing fancy, but better than auto!
All that said, I've stopped using the lab scans and just run the "dev only, no cut" stips of six negatives through my Epson 2450 PHOTO at 600 DPI. I get a great preview image and a roll of 36 (three sets of 12 frames) takes about 1/2 hour in the background. Images I want to present/print are scanned at a higer resolution and downsampled.
Most "operators" I've talked to just run the rolls through with no adjustment - trusting the auto everything settings to scan correctly which is usually not that great. There is one operator I know locally who will do "custom scanning" for me at no extra cost - basically he just previews each scan and adjusts exposure and white balance. Nothing fancy, but better than auto!
All that said, I've stopped using the lab scans and just run the "dev only, no cut" stips of six negatives through my Epson 2450 PHOTO at 600 DPI. I get a great preview image and a roll of 36 (three sets of 12 frames) takes about 1/2 hour in the background. Images I want to present/print are scanned at a higer resolution and downsampled.
dmr
Registered Abuser
clintock said:
I was told that the Fuji Frontier, model 350, has a scanner "not unlike your Minolta or Coolscan" by somebody who used to operate one.
Apparently these things are capable of higher resolution scans than normally are done for the photo CD type of product.
Of course they do seem to have all kinds of auto level (over)correction and ICE type dust/scratch removal and sharpening and maybe even red-eye correction.
oscroft
Veteran
Same experience here - I've tried a few labs and they've invariably scored highly on the stink scale.
Marsopa
Well-known
I'm reviewing some files, size 1.2 Mb, smaller than desirable, I use a Mac with iPhoto so I've never looked at file size or so... the cd volume name is KONICAMINOLTA-CDR ...
Next step: perhaps I'll try a PLustek 7200...
Next step: perhaps I'll try a PLustek 7200...
bmattock
Veteran
I wouldn't want to tell you what kind of scanner to get, and I do not have any experience with the Plustek, but one thing you should know - on a scanner, DMAX is as important as optical resolution. That's the ability (as I understand it) for the scanner to pull detail out of dense negatives. Nikon and Konica-Minolta (no longer made, but some are still available here and there) scanners have a much higher DMAX than the Plustek. However, again, I have no direct experience with the Plustek. I have a K-M Scan Dual IV and an Epson 4490 flatbed. I like them both, but the dedicated Scan Dual is better with 35mm negs than the Epson 4490, which is 4000+ dpi, compared to the K-M's 2700 dpi. Just FYI.
Marsopa
Well-known
OK, thanks:
About dmax, if I'm not wrong it's something like a dinamic range, i.e. the greater it is the greater range of different grey levels the scan can differentiate, it is related with sensibility: the minimun difference between two grey levels that the scanner can differentiate... (in B/W)
I pretend to develop at home my B/W films so, again mybe I'm wrong, it's expected that contrast will be lower than lab. developped... so the dmax it's not going to be a limitating variable...
About dmax, if I'm not wrong it's something like a dinamic range, i.e. the greater it is the greater range of different grey levels the scan can differentiate, it is related with sensibility: the minimun difference between two grey levels that the scanner can differentiate... (in B/W)
I pretend to develop at home my B/W films so, again mybe I'm wrong, it's expected that contrast will be lower than lab. developped... so the dmax it's not going to be a limitating variable...
V
varjag
Guest
Plustek 7200 and Minolta Dual IV are fairly close when it comes to dynamic range. I own the former and used the latter. Now the more expensive Elite versions are another story. I believe it is on par with Nikon Coolscan V overall. The absolutely best scanner I ever put my negs through was Coolscan 9000.
Any of the above is better than Fuji Frontier's output though.
Any of the above is better than Fuji Frontier's output though.
Marsopa
Well-known
Just got two rolls I left yesterday, here an example (Bessa R, Jupiter 3, Kodak 400ASA):
What do you think?
What do you think?
xvvvz
Established
It appears there is quite a bit of noise/grain in the scan, especially in the darker areas of the image. If you have not manipulated the scan in any way after getting it from your lab, then I really think you should consider scanning yourself. You can get a much cleaner image than that.
Doug
Doug
lZr
L&M
Hi Marsopa,
About your first question: Labs like their job done fast as possible and they use fast scanners.
About your image: I think it is out of focus before scan (seems to me to be more to the point)
My subjective point of view: I like what I do, but sometimes others say that is is awfull....I like that too, because I can blame myself only. If you have path to blame others, it can't be constructive. After my 2 cents philosophy, what is left is to ask is: Can the lab do it better?
About your first question: Labs like their job done fast as possible and they use fast scanners.
About your image: I think it is out of focus before scan (seems to me to be more to the point)
My subjective point of view: I like what I do, but sometimes others say that is is awfull....I like that too, because I can blame myself only. If you have path to blame others, it can't be constructive. After my 2 cents philosophy, what is left is to ask is: Can the lab do it better?
Marsopa
Well-known
mackigator
Well-known
@Marsopa: Ok, a 400 grain kodak film shouldn't show that much grain. Not even close. Assuming that I'm right and the negative is clean, the scan is total crap. It looks like the scanner auto adjusted the brightness curve to bring up the light levels with no regard to the noise this can produce. I'm scanning my own with about 4 months of consistent use and still improving. You can do much, much better.
Here's a search of my Flickr stream for ISO 400 film scans made with a Nikon Coolscan 5000. It's a wonderful machine to own. Mostly Fuji films (400x, 400f, and 400h) but a few Kodak Max shots in there, I think:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=95742421%40N00&q=400+or+ISO400+and+film&m=text
I love the process of scanning, especially slides. It seems like magic to me.
Here's a search of my Flickr stream for ISO 400 film scans made with a Nikon Coolscan 5000. It's a wonderful machine to own. Mostly Fuji films (400x, 400f, and 400h) but a few Kodak Max shots in there, I think:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=95742421%40N00&q=400+or+ISO400+and+film&m=text
I love the process of scanning, especially slides. It seems like magic to me.
Last edited:
lZr
L&M
Marsopa,
If you look better at the top of the picture you can see big black path (Ya, you know about). I supose this is not your add, but the original scan. If so, the frame borders were not identified in scan time. The black shifts the color rendition of the image already during scan. You must software crop the black and adjust the colors. Now, the image is very bright on my screen and the dark areas (the red on the upper left side) shows grain. After investigating your image a little bit, I can say the grain is acceptable for ISO 400.
Also, I saw you focus target - it is on the crown
If you look better at the top of the picture you can see big black path (Ya, you know about). I supose this is not your add, but the original scan. If so, the frame borders were not identified in scan time. The black shifts the color rendition of the image already during scan. You must software crop the black and adjust the colors. Now, the image is very bright on my screen and the dark areas (the red on the upper left side) shows grain. After investigating your image a little bit, I can say the grain is acceptable for ISO 400.
Also, I saw you focus target - it is on the crown
Last edited:
Marsopa
Well-known
Thanks lZr, I'll try but I'm not still convinced, today I've talk to the shopman and, in his own words, "if customer doesn't tell explicitly we do a fast scan"...
lZr
L&M
One thing I forgot to add
Under or overexposures aplify the grain, even for 100 ASA film
Have a nice shootout
Under or overexposures aplify the grain, even for 100 ASA film
Have a nice shootout