Standard lab scan vs. Coolscan V

[djhurley92]

Hey, thought I'd do a comparison of Genie imaging's standard lab scanning against a Coolscan V I'm borrowing. The Genie scans are their basic develop-and-scan thing from an Agfa d-lab. The Coolscan is 4000dpi and the Agfa lab scans are only 3000x2000, so I'm comparing 100% lab shots with the coolscans' scans at 50%.

Shot on Velvia 50 slide film with a IIIf and coated Summitar 50mm (and a CV Heliar 15 for the wide shot of a ruin and pathway).

Genie scans above, Coolscan V below.

100% lab / 50% coolscan crop:

The pile of clothes to the right shows a wider range of colours in the coolscan scan, I think.

-----

100/50% crop:

-----

100/50% crop:

(The hides were being dyed a very bright yellow, the coolscan colour is probably more accurate)

-----

100/50% crop:

-----

Overall I knew the genie imaging scans were going to be lower resolution (which is why I compared the coolscan at 50%) but I did find the colour response a little disappointing, especially from a film as colourful as the Velvia. The lab scans also seem quite noisy in the dark sections, which I probably would have thought was film grain if I hadn't used the Coolscan. The amount of detail I got from the coolscan was really impressive, especially for a lens from 1947! It will certainly be upsetting when I have to give the coolscan back.....

 

[citizen99]

I can't contribute any thoughts based on experience with the scanners that you are comparing. However, FWIW ...

These days I mostly use colour negative film,

which I have lab-scanned, usually with the NORITSU KOKI QSS-3203, for MF or if I want to go for 'quality' 135,

or Boots 'High Street' processing* for 135 snapshots or testing 'charity shop' camera finds,
* The exif data shows that the machine used for my Boots developed photos is the FUJI SP-3000, Software FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-014

or my modest Canoscan 8800F for full control of the frame crop or for pre-digital age negatives (whether using CanoScan, VueScan or Silverfast software).

My experience here is that the professional scan services' colour rendition is almost always truer to how I perceived the original scene.

 

[djhurley92]

My experience here is that the professional scan services' colour rendition is almost always truer to how I perceived the original scene.

Yeah, as Velvia is such a vibrant slide film I was expecting more colour than what I got from the lab in this case. Perhaps their machine is more calibrated for colour negative film, and it's more realistic in that case. The lab images have a kind of green cast to them, and to me it looks like a much narrower range of hues.

 

[philipus]

The Coolscan V is a tremendous scanner. I've been consistently pleased with mine. Colour is a very difficult thing to judge, but it seems (on my screen I should add) that the lab scan didn't do to well, esp with the last two images. Only the Nikon images make it look like Velvia to me. Also, it is quite clear the Nikon pulls more detail from the frames.

Interestingly, because my local lab messed up my latest order and printed all images and gave me a CD-ROM (rather than just developing the film) I've been thinking of doing a similar test.

 

[Aristophanes]

I've liked both the Noritsu and Frontier scans. Not sure about the Agfa.

Noritsu:

Fuji Frontier:

 

[djhurley92]

I guess the lab scanners that can do 900 scans / prints an hour will never be the same quality as a dedicated 35mm scanner. But it does take me about an hour to scan one film with the coolscan...

 

[Takkun]

I've never had such luck with colors on velvia scans, be they lab or on my own. Where the advantage for self scanning comes in is just affordability; I used to go to a lab that charged $10/roll for "JPEG resolution" and double that for "TIFF resolution" (ha! And to think I used to work at that lab...) The former was unusable tonality-wise , and I didn't want to shell that out for the more expensive options.
It's frustrating that too many labs have these incredibly expensive machines that I know are capable of quality, but just arent calibrated properly or offered to customers in a useful way.

 

[djhurley92]

I've never had such luck with colors on velvia scans, be they lab or on my own. Where the advantage for self scanning comes in is just affordability; I used to go to a lab that charged $10/roll for "JPEG resolution" and double that for "TIFF resolution" (ha! And to think I used to work at that lab...) The former was unusable tonality-wise , and I didn't want to shell that out for the more expensive options.
It's frustrating that too many labs have these incredibly expensive machines that I know are capable of quality, but just arent calibrated properly or offered to customers in a useful way.

That's pretty unfortunate when the CD you get given with jpegs on it only uses 1/10th of the space! I'm guessing tiff shouldn't increase scan time. I've never found a great option for lab scanning here in the UK. Nor anywhere actually that scans at more than 2000x3000, unless you want to pay per negative. Which is a shame because you should be able to get more detail from a negative than a modern digital camera, not so much less...

 

[Takkun]

It really was a shame--they were the same resolution, just one compressed and one uncompressed! Thankfully we have a few pro labs left here, because I have no means of scanning 120, which is the bulk of my color work.