Must process film before scanning?

Bill58

Bill58

Native Texan
Local time
3:30 AM
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
3,002
As my question shows I don't know "jack" about developing/ scanning, but am considering a scanner purchase. Right now I just take all my film to the local Kodak store and they process and put on a CDRW/ or DVD for me.

Before I lay out the cash for a scanner, I'd like to know whether processing is required first. If I gotta get it processed by someone else first, then it seems hardly worth it to then do the scanning myself. Am I right or wrong?

I do B/W and color both and I'll never be a professional.

Thanks in advance,

Bill
 
If you get b&w film: Get yourself the equipment to develop it yourself. It works out WAY cheaper if you shoot a lot of film. Once you develop the film, you can scan the negs at when you want, at the quality you want. Thats what I do.

Again with colour photo's, it can be cheaper to get a develop-only kind of option, then scan the ones you want at home, and you won't have loads of photo-cd's laying around.

I guess it depends how well they scan your negs, and how much it costs you at your lab.
 
Until the film is developed there is no actual image on it.
If you try to scan a non developed film, let's say you will end up overexposing it :D
 
The scans that they make for you at the photo processing place is nowhere near the quality that you will get doing your own scans - that is the point. Also, you can generally ask for no scans and save a bit of money. I always as for no print and no scans, and that brings the price for a roll of color film down to $2 from $6, which is the normal price. That's why scanning at home works for me.

Oh, and I process my own B&W film as well, saves even more.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I think you have your answer. There is no image unless the film is developed, and scanning it yourself will probably get you better images for printing or manipulation.

What part of Korea are you in? Do you travel much there, and photograph what you see? I don't know what it is like now. It used to be nice to travel to some of the out of the way temples. They were quiet, restful, and very photogenic. I guess now that everyone seems to have their own cars, it must be different.
 
if you don't develop the film, it's exactly the same as opening up the back of the camera immediately after taking the photo to see what the result is

like Bill Mattocks, I tell my lab to 'process only - no prints or cd'.. costs $2.25 for 36 exposure.. or $1.25 for 24 exposure.. the $4 savings per roll is pretty nice, but depending on the cost of the scanner you buy, it might take a while to break even.. however, you have complete control over the scan quality, which should be significantly better than a lab cd

the one other thing to consider is the time scanning takes.. most home scanners don't include a film roll feeder.. so you end up loading 4 to 6-shot strips and scanning individual frames.. it can take an hour or two to go through an entire roll, even if you scan just the best shots.. to cut down that time, I'd strongly suggest getting a lightbox and loupe so you can preview your frames to choose which to scan
 
I think a word about scanners is in order here.
I have an Epson flatbed that takes adapters for 35mm, 120, and 2X2 slides. The best scans I can do are OK for small prints, but nowhere as good as the ones on the CD I get from Photoworks.
A dedicated film scanner would be much better, and more expensive. If one wants good scans though, that is what is needed. If one does a lot of film, I guess it would make sense to spend the $750 and up for one. Additionally, for the B&W I do at home, it would be more convient.
Now you've got me thinking - hmmmm - can I justify one? :cool:
 
Last edited:
Bill58 said:
As my question shows I don't know "jack" about developing/ scanning, but am considering a scanner purchase. Right now I just take all my film to the local Kodak store and they process and put on a CDRW/ or DVD for me.

Before I lay out the cash for a scanner, I'd like to know whether processing is required first. If I gotta get it processed by someone else first, then it seems hardly worth it to then do the scanning myself. Am I right or wrong?

I do B/W and color both and I'll never be a professional.

Thanks in advance,

Bill
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused by your terminology.

You have to get your film "developed" first. So if that is what you mean by "processed" then the answer is: YES.

You do not have nor do you want the developing lab to make you a CD. That is the scanning "process" that you are going to do instead.

The reason why you should prefer "roll your own" scanning (as opposed to the lab's CD is that you can scan in RAW format - something the lab will not do.

Most labs scan in high-level JPEG - which is a compressed (i.e. compromised) digital image. They do this because it creates readily readable files in just about any computer and the "quality to file size ratio" is acceptable for decent quality images.

However, if you scan in RAW mode you are making the best quality digital image possible. It is not compressed (i.e. not "compromised"). This is the quality of image you want so as to begin to work with it in Photoshop. Consider it your digital negative (your "archival image").

The downside to RAW is that it results in very large files. That's the reason the lab won't do it. Also, depending on your scanner you may need a "plug-in" piece of software in order for PS to "see it". (This is no big deal).

Hope this all helps.
 
Working on the costs people are saying, I think if you get a film scanner it'll take about 100 rolls of film before you see the savings. I'm lucky enough the Epson printer/scanner/negscanner I have is quite acceptible quality so it does the job.

EDIT: by savings I mean paying off the scanner with the money you've saved from not getting the prints/CD's from the lab.
 
I cannot understand why commercial scanning by labs is almost invariable in low resolution. If they scan in a central lab they could do hundreds to thousands of rolls a day- making the investment in a professional high-res scanner pay its way.
 
jaapv said:
I cannot understand why commercial scanning by labs is almost invariable in low resolution. If they scan in a central lab they could do hundreds to thousands of rolls a day- making the investment in a professional high-res scanner pay its way.
Click to expand...

I think it is primarily driven by the "compatibility" requirement. The lab doesn't want to know what kind of computer or imaging software you are using and knows that just about any combination thereof can open a JPEG.

Also there is the file size factor. TIFF is almost as "univeral" as JPEG but the file sizes are much larger. A scan of 36 exposures in TIFF will:

1) take much longer - time is $
2) may not all fit on a single CD (again $ considerations plus customer convenience factor)

And, because of varying formats, RAW is unacceptable to labs both because of compatiblity and file size factors.

There is a clear analogy with film developing. Because I rely on the labs to do my B&W I get negatives with scratches and flaws (most fixable in PS). If I did my own developing (something on the agenda for the 25th hour of each day) presumably I'd take better care in the developing.

In both cases, developing or scanning, you're better off to "roll your own" if you have the time to do so.
 
George,

Raw files are unacceptable to labs, because they are unprocessed data. A lab would have no idea how you would want the image to look like. Labs , pro labs, usually ask what kind of file scan you need. The best scan to get is a high res tiff. You can always convert to a jpeg if you need.

Cheers,
 
I have my film developed, images burned to CD and a thumnail print of all images made at the local Wally World for a bit over $4. No prints. Since my scanner only does one neg at a time, I can use the photo CD to select those I want to work on and rescan at a high resolution. The CD images and thumbnail print are also referenced to the frame number which saves a lot of time in searching later for the neg and for filing purposes. (I know I could go for developing only and save $2 per roll towards a better scanner!)
 
Processing is not a "must" but strongly recommended before scanning.
 
Last edited:
kbg32 said:
George,

Raw files are unacceptable to labs, because they are unprocessed data. A lab would have no idea how you would want the image to look like. Labs , pro labs, usually ask what kind of file scan you need. The best scan to get is a high res tiff. You can always convert to a jpeg if you need.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Keith,

Yes, agreed as to prints. But presumably a lab could scan in RAW to give you a CD/DVD. But that's where the compatibility problem arises.

Now this problem could be eliminated if everyone moved to DNG format. But the camera manufacturer's are resistant since they consider their varying proprietary RAW formats to provide a competitive advantage.

As an example, consider this point. I am taking a Photoshop course at the New School - brand-new top of the line Macs in the lab etc.

I can directly upload into PS my NEF (Nikon RAW) files taken with my D-100 and D-70. I cannot similarly upload NEF files created by my Nikon 5000D scanner - I get a file incompatibility notice.

This was a bit of a head scratcher last night since I know I can upload these files into PS at home. After investigating further the light bulb went off. The PS on my home computer has a Nikon RAW plug-in (which it loaded automatically when I first installed the software of both my scanner and PS). The PS at the school does not have this plug-in. [One of their computers IS connected to a Nikon scanner - so I'm wondering if that particular machine has the plug-in?]

But the real connundrum is, there is a difference b/w NEF taken by the camera and the NEF generated by the scanner. And you can certainly see the difference in file size - the former is about 9.5mb the latter are 65.5mb!

Given just this one example of just one camera maker - imagine how impossible it would be for a lab to "tailor" RAW scans for each customer.
 
George,
The file size has nothing to do with the difference in the NEF formats. For instance, a D50 NEF should be the same size as one from a D70, yet you need CS2 to load the former while CS will load D70 NEFs just fine.

A NEF has descriptors in it that are associated with the camera. The RAW plugin has to be able to understand those descriptors. Of course, Nikon scanners are older than, say, the D50, but they probably aren't in the target area for those developing the ACR plugin at Adobe.
allan
 
kaiyen said:
George,
The file size has nothing to do with the difference in the NEF formats. For instance, a D50 NEF should be the same size as one from a D70, yet you need CS2 to load the former while CS will load D70 NEFs just fine.

A NEF has descriptors in it that are associated with the camera. The RAW plugin has to be able to understand those descriptors. Of course, Nikon scanners are older than, say, the D50, but they probably aren't in the target area for those developing the ACR plugin at Adobe.
allan
Click to expand...

Allan,

I think you misunderstood. There is a plug-in for the scanner on my home-based version of CS (reminds me I need to get the upgrade to CS2) so I have no compatibility problems there.

And the CS2 at the school will see the D-70 NEFs (don't know about the D-50, although I thought I saw an update for such on the Adobe website last night).

But actually, my only real point was because of all these variables labs would be crazy to offer scans in RAW - they'd have folks lined up to outside the door complaining and asking how to solve "problems".

Keith did mention scanning in TIFFs. This would "work" and the only excuse I think the labs would make is that the time factor would make it more costly and trying to explain two-tier pricing for scans to the average consumer would be a headache too many.*

*If you want to feel good about how much you know about scanning, digiprocessing, digital cameras etc. take a Continuing Ed course in PS. There are a lot very educated folks out there who are totally clueless when it comes to this kind of "techhie" stuff!
 
I typically have my color film processed locally...no prints/no scans as well.

I use my Epson flatbed to scan the strips en masse as a contact print of sorts which I keep as an index for the roll. I can then review on screen which frames I want to run through my SprintScan for printing. I can also mark the index printout for which frames I want to come back to when time permits.
 
Last edited:
berci said:
Processing is not a "must" but strongly recommended before scanning.
Click to expand...
I'd even recommend it if you just want to have a peek at the negs..

This is about days long gone by, and best forgotten. I still hadn't put two and two together in the film/light department. I had taken a complete roll of 36 pictures at the local zoo. Mind you, these were the days that a roll of film typically lasted a month, and each picture was taken with tons of contemplation as the most important ingredient..

However, at the end of the day, I decided to have a look at the negs. Just to see whether the pictures were done well. Imagine my surprise when there was nothing to be seen on film..

Hold on, it gets worse..

Then a thought occured to me.. 'They weren't developed jet', so I rewound the film and dropped it off to have it processed. Duh..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom