schow
Well-known
Howdy folks.
Haven't posted in a while, but here goes. A few months ago, my girlfriend and I attend a speakeasy/ 1920s party. The costumes and ambient low lighting were great. I brought my XA loaded with Fuji Superia 800. It was my first time with that particular film.
So, I shot the entire roll, got it developed and prints from walgreens. Well, the results were terrible. At first, I thought it was me and the film. Then I bought a Dimage Scan Dual IV, and finally got around to scanning those negatives. These 2 pics aren't great, but that's not the point. The point is in the huge disparity of quality between walgreens and my scans. These are representative of my scanning and the prints from walgreens.
Walgreens print:
My scan:
Walgreens print:
My scan:
My point? When in doubt, blame Walgreens. I didn't even spend much time on the scanner settings and no time in photoshop with my scans. All I did was chage the lighting dropbox in Vuescan from auto to manual setting.
Sherm
Haven't posted in a while, but here goes. A few months ago, my girlfriend and I attend a speakeasy/ 1920s party. The costumes and ambient low lighting were great. I brought my XA loaded with Fuji Superia 800. It was my first time with that particular film.
So, I shot the entire roll, got it developed and prints from walgreens. Well, the results were terrible. At first, I thought it was me and the film. Then I bought a Dimage Scan Dual IV, and finally got around to scanning those negatives. These 2 pics aren't great, but that's not the point. The point is in the huge disparity of quality between walgreens and my scans. These are representative of my scanning and the prints from walgreens.
Walgreens print:
My scan:
Walgreens print:
My scan:
My point? When in doubt, blame Walgreens. I didn't even spend much time on the scanner settings and no time in photoshop with my scans. All I did was chage the lighting dropbox in Vuescan from auto to manual setting.
Sherm
venchka
Veteran
Aye! It took two rolls to be fair, but I abandoned Walgreens in favor of the Wolf Camera store next door (for critical work) or the slightly farther away Wal-Mart.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Surprise!!! Or maybe not.
Walgreen-type stores are optiomized for getting cheap and acceptable-quality prints from average holiday themes. Like, kids around the Lincoln statue. Kids on the beach.
Not high contrast scenes with pitch black backgrounds and blown-out lightbulbs.
Actually, if you tweak it a bit, you can also restore the colours somewhat on the red scans.
Walgreen-type stores are optiomized for getting cheap and acceptable-quality prints from average holiday themes. Like, kids around the Lincoln statue. Kids on the beach.
Not high contrast scenes with pitch black backgrounds and blown-out lightbulbs.
Actually, if you tweak it a bit, you can also restore the colours somewhat on the red scans.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
By the way, the scratch on the second frame, that's another thing to blame on Walgreens. And it's not something you can easily "solve" by scanning.
Finally, looking at these prints, I understand why it's called WalGREENs.
Finally, looking at these prints, I understand why it's called WalGREENs.
schow
Well-known
You forget them prints, Pherdinand?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
schow said:
Sorry?? don't understand the q...
schow
Well-known
Sorry, I misread. I thought you were going to attach some prints of yours that were developed from Walgreens. Heh heh. My fault.
ampguy
Veteran
wow, very interesting, good to know that at least the negatives are good. Did you add exposure in addition to the other tweaks in the above examples?
schow
Well-known
Nope, I just played with the color balance setting on Vuescan. If you select auto levels on the color balance, the scans look almost exactly like the walgreens prints.
ampguy
Veteran
very interesting
very interesting
I've had a few photos like your Walgreens "before" ones, and often thought they needed more exposure.
Would you say the corrections applied would work with any scanner with the Vuescan color balance settings and/or PS work, or that the specific scanner you are using is playing a big part?
very interesting
I've had a few photos like your Walgreens "before" ones, and often thought they needed more exposure.
Would you say the corrections applied would work with any scanner with the Vuescan color balance settings and/or PS work, or that the specific scanner you are using is playing a big part?
schow said:
dmr
Registered Abuser
I use Walgreens for most of my color negative processing. I'll usually order a DO/CD job.
I also use a K-M SD IV.
I do shoot mostly with Fuji films, including, yes, the Superia 800 in available light conditions.
A few various thoughts ...
Having the negative scanner really shows how totally mediocre, and sometimes downright nasty, the consumer grade scans and prints can be. I have yet to see a frame where the McScan or the McPrint looks better than the AnnieScan<tm>.
Hey, their processing is really intended for Joe Consumer, not Joe (or Jo) Photogeek!
Having said that, Walgreens usually does a very visually pleasing job on "normal" photos, those which are outdoor (but not high contrast) or those indoors with flash or with a very average illumination. Anything high contrast will have clipped highlights, both on the scans and prints. For available darkness shots, you see the results above. Really, any mass-produced photo lab will give you more or less the same non-results on things like that.
The Walgreens negative processing is always very good, in my experience. They use the Fuji Frontier machines in most of the stores around here, and in one I sometimes go to for a DO (this one can't do CD) they use an older Kodak machine of some time. Hey, it's so idiot-proof that even a trained gerbil with clean hands could do it.
On low-light and high contrast shots, their scans are usually much better than their prints. Depending on who is operating the machine, they will re-print anything you don't like, lighter, darker, etc., at no charge and they will not charge you for prints that you don't like, if you tell them not to.
I don't use the K-M to replace the scan at the lab. I do a re-scan of those I want a nice print of. It's time-consuming and there's a lot of mechanical futzing around with the negatives. That $3.95 or so is well-spent. For smaller casual prints, web, etc., the lab scans are usually just fine.
That's my take on a few things anyway ...
I also use a K-M SD IV.
I do shoot mostly with Fuji films, including, yes, the Superia 800 in available light conditions.
A few various thoughts ...
Having the negative scanner really shows how totally mediocre, and sometimes downright nasty, the consumer grade scans and prints can be. I have yet to see a frame where the McScan or the McPrint looks better than the AnnieScan<tm>.
Hey, their processing is really intended for Joe Consumer, not Joe (or Jo) Photogeek! Having said that, Walgreens usually does a very visually pleasing job on "normal" photos, those which are outdoor (but not high contrast) or those indoors with flash or with a very average illumination. Anything high contrast will have clipped highlights, both on the scans and prints. For available darkness shots, you see the results above. Really, any mass-produced photo lab will give you more or less the same non-results on things like that.
The Walgreens negative processing is always very good, in my experience. They use the Fuji Frontier machines in most of the stores around here, and in one I sometimes go to for a DO (this one can't do CD) they use an older Kodak machine of some time. Hey, it's so idiot-proof that even a trained gerbil with clean hands could do it.
On low-light and high contrast shots, their scans are usually much better than their prints. Depending on who is operating the machine, they will re-print anything you don't like, lighter, darker, etc., at no charge and they will not charge you for prints that you don't like, if you tell them not to.
I don't use the K-M to replace the scan at the lab. I do a re-scan of those I want a nice print of. It's time-consuming and there's a lot of mechanical futzing around with the negatives. That $3.95 or so is well-spent.
For smaller casual prints, web, etc., the lab scans are usually just fine.That's my take on a few things anyway ...
S
Scarpia
Guest
And you can't get Preparation H out of a Dual Scan.
Kurt M.
Kurt M.
ampguy
Veteran
Hey Annie
Hey Annie
Would you like to make some easy money??
Hey Annie
Would you like to make some easy money??
dmr said:I use Walgreens for most of my color negative processing. I'll usually order a DO/CD job.
I also use a K-M SD IV.
I do shoot mostly with Fuji films, including, yes, the Superia 800 in available light conditions.
A few various thoughts ...
Having the negative scanner really shows how totally mediocre, and sometimes downright nasty, the consumer grade scans and prints can be. I have yet to see a frame where the McScan or the McPrint looks better than the AnnieScan<tm>.
Having said that, Walgreens usually does a very visually pleasing job on "normal" photos, those which are outdoor (but not high contrast) or those indoors with flash or with a very average illumination. Anything high contrast will have clipped highlights, both on the scans and prints. For available darkness shots, you see the results above. Really, any mass-produced photo lab will give you more or less the same non-results on things like that.
The Walgreens negative processing is always very good, in my experience. They use the Fuji Frontier machines in most of the stores around here, and in one I sometimes go to for a DO (this one can't do CD) they use an older Kodak machine of some time. Hey, it's so idiot-proof that even a trained gerbil with clean hands could do it.
On low-light and high contrast shots, their scans are usually much better than their prints. Depending on who is operating the machine, they will re-print anything you don't like, lighter, darker, etc., at no charge and they will not charge you for prints that you don't like, if you tell them not to.
I don't use the K-M to replace the scan at the lab. I do a re-scan of those I want a nice print of. It's time-consuming and there's a lot of mechanical futzing around with the negatives. That $3.95 or so is well-spent.
That's my take on a few things anyway ...
dmr
Registered Abuser
ampguy said:
Uh, say what?
steve garza
Well-known
do any dual scan IV user have any problems with a black/white line running across scanned images? this problem appeared recently with my scanner. Seems like something that a good cleaning would solve. Anyone know offhand the warranty period?
schow
Well-known
ampguy said:
ampguy, I have no idea. This is my first scanner. I've never used one before it. And, as I understand it, the scan dual IV is pretty low on the totem pole, I'd have to hope that Vuescan on any scanner would get basically the same results.
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
thanks, very good info in this thread. I don't have a scanner yet, but probably will soon.
ok
thanks, very good info in this thread. I don't have a scanner yet, but probably will soon.
schow said:
derevaun
focus free
I've had the same issues with Walgreens scans, and a few rolls with misregistered scans that split the negative frames--one roll had that for every frame. That was with DO/CD; I doubt it would get past even an inattentive operator if prints were being made. To be fair, I got a couple frames like that on a Walmart CD. I get much better scans, and better prices, from York/Clark mail-away processing. Alas, I get more scratches from them too.
aad
Not so new now.
You can use them to print your own scans. Those look good.