Walgreens, Round 3, it happened to *ME* this time ...

[sbug]

Ugh, what horror stories. I’m not looking forward to the day it happens to me. I have tried my local Wal-Mart and Walgreens. The Walgreens developing was iffy and the scans they did were awful. The Wal-Mart developing was ok and the scans were ok but a bit too pricy. I have not tried the local Target but I may. Currently I use a family owned shop that is on my commute to work and they do a nice job. Develop and scan to cd is $4.75 w/tax. The scans are usually ~1.2meg jpeg’s. They can do hi-res that are around 4.5meg jpeg’s but to develop a roll and scan at hi-res is $9. Much too rich for my blood. I go back and have them do hi-res on only the few frames I really like.

I’ve been wishing lately that I had a film scanner. Of course then I’d probably get the cold shoulder for a develop only order. Overall this is one are that I did not miss at all when I was shooting digital. I suppose it’s time for me to learn to develop at home but the time, cost and space issues are holding that up.

 

[raid]

I have been trying out this route since a few weeks (no prints; just negatives plus CD). At Sam's Club, this costs about $4 and at Ritz Camera about $5. The scans at Ritz seem to be larger files than those at Sam's Club. Both give very nice results. An index card is included by Ritz Camera.

 

[raid]

By the way, the Ritz Camera in Pensacola also does this service with MF film, which is super for my needs. The scans are great from MF film, as you may suspect.

 

[bmattock]

"Develop only" is ~$2 per roll. If you shoot a lot of film, you can recoup the cost of a dedicated scanner pretty quickly. I get 22mb scans, not 1.2mb. Big difference!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

I’ve been wishing lately that I had a film scanner. Of course then I’d probably get the cold shoulder for a develop only order. Overall this is one are that I did not miss at all when I was shooting digital. I suppose it’s time for me to learn to develop at home but the time, cost and space issues are holding that up.

You might find that the shop will charge the same for DO and DO/CD (some places just "throw in" the CD). The nice thing with a scanner is you can scan your images in RAW or TIFF (i.e. no compression) format for archival purposes (you'll be wanting to use DVDs and will need a DVD burner too) and you always have the JPEG option for smaller files such as to upload to the Gallery here or put on Flikr etc.

I do not think you'll regret "scanning" you own. But remember, it won't solve the scratch/dust problem. :bang:

 

[ch1]

The mini lab that I use charges the same ($3.00) for DO or DO+CD so you know which I take. I use the CD to quickly see which frames I want to scan for prints. The cleaner the negs, the better it is when scanning but digital ICE supplied with some dedicated film scanners goes a long way solving the dirty neg issue.

Bob

Bob's right - the Digital ICE mode will take care of a lot of the dust/scratch problems at the time of the scan. What I have noticed is that by scanning in RAW (NEF in my case) or TIFF there is no forgiveness. If something's there and ICE hasn't cleaned it - it will show up.

But that's why PS gives us the bandaid! 😉

 

[derevaun]

I usually get the DO/CD at Ritz/Kits/Wolf, because they hire college students with photo experience so I've never had a point to argue with them. That and I personally don't care for Walgreens' and Walmart's business practices. For develop only I go to the college, which has a C-41 machine for some reason. They even do cross processing.

FWIW, the tech at Target once told me they can't do Kodak 400UC. Company policy, she said, something about the chemistry. It didn't sound right to me, but I didn't argue about it, and she's friendly and polite when I bring in pinhole images that confuse their machine, e.g. Chances are the policy has changed, but there's no shortage of places that will process the UC.

 

[bmattock]

You might find that the shop will charge the same for DO and DO/CD (some places just "throw in" the CD).

I have not found that to be the case.

The nice thing with a scanner is you can scan your images in RAW or TIFF (i.e. no compression) format for archival purposes (you'll be wanting to use DVDs and will need a DVD burner too) and you always have the JPEG option for smaller files such as to upload to the Gallery here or put on Flikr etc.

Yes, I totally agree with the above.

I do not think you'll regret "scanning" you own. But remember, it won't solve the scratch/dust problem. :bang:

I feel that it goes a long way towards solving the scratch/dust problem when trying to scan film that has been previously scanned/enlarged by the shops. Pro or one-hour, I routinely got back horribly scratched and filthy negs when I had prints made or scans done. I feel strongly that it is due to the actual mechanics of scanning/printing - that is, the film path is doing the scratching and is horribly dirty, etc.

By having my one-hour lab just process, cut, and sleeve - no prints, no scans, I have cut down very much on the rate of problems I have to later try to fix with The Gimp. My scanner does not have ICE, so I have to rely on myself to get rid of scratches and dust/dirt.

The difference, for me, was so 'night and day' that I have repeatedly urged others to JUST TRY IT. Some have, some have not. Some have argued long and hard with me about how that could not possibly be true, but refuse to try it themselves, so how the heck would they know?

Just try it. Process only, no scan, no print. Cut and sleeve. Then scan it yourself. Sometimes I still have problems, but mostly, I get nice clean scans and very few scratches or dirt/dust problems. Really big visible difference.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[rpsawin]

FWIW...

It may be a bit much to expect service/information from a minimum wage counter person especially when you "challange" them with something out of the norm. Most of us don't do our own C-41 developing and have to use a service. Personally, I have found a pro service here in Seattle to develope only my C-41 film. Yes, I pay more....but I deal with photo pro's and they understand what I want and deliver it. And that is worth the premium to me. I also feel good about supporting a photo pro business.

Bob

 

[sbug]

"Develop only" is ~$2 per roll. If you shoot a lot of film, you can recoup the cost of a dedicated scanner pretty quickly. I get 22mb scans, not 1.2mb. Big difference!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

22mb? You must mean tiff files. If I save my hi-res jpg scans to tiff they are around 18-20mb.

So yeah, I need a dedicated scanner. I know there was a thread around these parts on flatbed vs film and I'll go research it but which do you use? What will a film scanner run me?

 

[sbug]

Bob's right - the Digital ICE mode will take care of a lot of the dust/scratch problems at the time of the scan. What I have noticed is that by scanning in RAW (NEF in my case) or TIFF there is no forgiveness. If something's there and ICE hasn't cleaned it - it will show up.

But that's why PS gives us the bandaid! 😉

Oh yeah, i'm an abuser of the clone stamp tool. 🙂

 

[JoeFriday]

Scott.. a Dual Scan IV can be found for roughly $200.. otherwise you're looking at about $400-600 (my Coolscan V was on the high end of that range)

you could also get a flatbed with film capabilities.. those range anywhere from $100 to $400 with many options.. the dedicated film scanner will give you visibly better scans, but the flatbeds will also scan MF or 4x5.. probably not something you have much need for, tho

I'm planning to buy a Canoscan 9950F in the next month or two to complement my Coolscan once I pick up a medium format camera.. the best of both worlds, ya know!

 

[brightsky]

Ditto, ditto, ditto. I found myself cringing and nodding affirmatively after reading most of these posts.

My local Walgreens development is spotty and their scanning is so poor I don't bother with CD's any longer. I may get only one or two usable files from an entire roll. The prints, some of which I've had enlarged, look just fine. The photo lab staff turnover seems high, which probably accounts for some of the problems.

One of the local "pro" labs charges $3 to develop only. (35mm) Burning a CD with hi-res JPGs is an additional $7, and the scans are generally not much better than those from Walgreens.

A second photo lab's pricing is similar, but they provide an extra service - spotting and scratching the negatives. :bang:

I have been very angry and upset about it for quite some time until I recently decided my New Years resolution would be purchasing a dedicated film scanner. Now I feel better. 😎

I figure I can easily reproduce the lousy results, but with a little education and practice, get just what I want and it will be less expensive since I have multiple formats.

 

[bmattock]

22mb? You must mean tiff files. If I save my hi-res jpg scans to tiff they are around 18-20mb.

So yeah, I need a dedicated scanner. I know there was a thread around these parts on flatbed vs film and I'll go research it but which do you use? What will a film scanner run me?

Yes, TIF files, sorry. I resize and save as JPG for the web, but edit as TIF or native GIMP XCF format if I want to save my layers, etc.

I have both a Minolta Scan Dual IV and an old Epson PHOTO Perfection 2400 with the optional 4x5 transparency adapter unit. I use the SD IV for 35mm, the flatbed for everything else. SD IV cost me just over $300, but now they're something like $200 and change. The flatbed is antique - much better available now and no need for an optional negative scanning adapter. Maybe another $200 to $300, depending on how fancy you want.

My 6x9 scans on my 2400 bpi Epson are something like 7700 pixels on the long edge. Kinda big. I can make REALLY LARGE prints, or crop like mad. The 35mm is something like 4400 on the long side, as I recall.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Austintatious]

FWIW, I just got an Epson Perfection 3170 flat bed from epson.com. Its a referb with a one year warranty. Cost $79.95 with free shipping ! Does slides, film and mf. Great reviews on it also.

Charles

 

[ch1]

I have not found that to be the case.



Yes, I totally agree with the above.



I feel that it goes a long way towards solving the scratch/dust problem when trying to scan film that has been previously scanned/enlarged by the shops. Pro or one-hour, I routinely got back horribly scratched and filthy negs when I had prints made or scans done. I feel strongly that it is due to the actual mechanics of scanning/printing - that is, the film path is doing the scratching and is horribly dirty, etc.

By having my one-hour lab just process, cut, and sleeve - no prints, no scans, I have cut down very much on the rate of problems I have to later try to fix with The Gimp. My scanner does not have ICE, so I have to rely on myself to get rid of scratches and dust/dirt.

The difference, for me, was so 'night and day' that I have repeatedly urged others to JUST TRY IT. Some have, some have not. Some have argued long and hard with me about how that could not possibly be true, but refuse to try it themselves, so how the heck would they know?

Just try it. Process only, no scan, no print. Cut and sleeve. Then scan it yourself. Sometimes I still have problems, but mostly, I get nice clean scans and very few scratches or dirt/dust problems. Really big visible difference.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill,

Good advice. I have tried the just develop no scan or even make an index sheet once. I'll need to do it a few times to get enough "data points" to determine with my lab whether it really does cut down on the scratches and dust.

From the responses here - this scratch/dirt problem seems to be a pretty wide spread problem. Not enough of a hassle (given ICE and PS) to get me to develop my own - but that option is getting a little more tempting.

BTW: What is GIMP?

George

 

[Nikki]

For those who remember the story, I had a friend who had Walgreens refuse to do develop-only/CD without prints. I wrote about that last September. I've had countless Walgreens do DO-CD over the past year or so and never had them refuse ...

... until this morning. Of all places, again, Las Vegas.

As a Vegas local, I apologize for the crappy service you got! Sheesh. Which Walgreens were you at?

Nikki

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

Good advice. I have tried the just develop no scan or even make an index sheet once. I'll need to do it a few times to get enough "data points" to determine with my lab whether it really does cut down on the scratches and dust.

From the responses here - this scratch/dirt problem seems to be a pretty wide spread problem. Not enough of a hassle (given ICE and PS) to get me to develop my own - but that option is getting a little more tempting.

BTW: What is GIMP?

George

I run Linux, not Windows or Mac. There is no Photoshop for me. I run GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), a free PS clone. Maybe a bit more powerful than the oldest PS Elements, less than full on PS. But good enough for my use.

http://www.gimp.org

I think the scratch problem is only becoming obvious since people starting doing high-end scans. For optical enlargements, most scratches/dust I've seen would not be a really big problem. But a scanner chokes on it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

I think the scratch problem is only becoming obvious since people starting doing high-end scans. For optical enlargements, most scratches/dust I've seen would not be a really big problem. But a scanner chokes on it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Yes, high-end scans are certainly part of the explanation. When I got my Nikonscan 5000 I "defaulted" to using RAW (actually Nikon's version which is NEF) or TIFF because that's the mode I shoot in my D-70 (yes, I also play on the darkest of dark sides! 😀 ).

I did this because my first purpose in getting the scanner was to digitize in archival quality some 30 years worth of mounted slides.

These slides are ICEd but anyway scan very clean. Not so with current B&W negs where I see many scratches and dirt. So I am guessing that the quality of processing today leaves much to be desired. By that, I mean the quality of the people doing the processing.

Now it is true that with my slides I almost exclusively used Kodak mailers for processing. And I'm guessing that at least way back when, the Kodak processors took some pride in their product and "handled with care". I don't think the minimum wage clerk a Walgreens, or some one-hour photo store really "gives a damn".

And they probably assume that if all I ask for are prints or a low-res JPEG CD I won't notice the scratches etc. Oh well, as some here noted, they get film processed for $2. Proves the old saying - you get what you pay for.

G'night,
George

 

[bmattock]

And they probably assume that if all I ask for are prints or a low-res JPEG CD I won't notice the scratches etc. Oh well, as some here noted, they get film processed for $2. Proves the old saying - you get what you pay for.

G'night,
George

George,

I would not bother with the $2 processing at a local 1-hour place, but I previously did a lot of traveling for a living, which gave me the opportunity to visit and use a lot of very famous pro labs from time to time. I had the exact same trouble with every single one of them. At Albuquerque color lab, I was friends with the owner, and she was quite upset that this was happening - I'd drop off 10 rolls of film and pay nearly $200 for prints and hi-rez scans (which of course were not so hi-rez compared to what I can do myself), and they'd be scratched to hell and gone, despite gloves, well-trained employees, and an owner who obviously cared.

I used to post messages on Usenet - desperate to fix the problem - and the old hands there would suggest one pet lab after another - try xyz lab, they'd say. They never let me down. I'd try them, and yes, scratches and dust like crazy, plus a very big bill.

I think a lot of the problem came down to perception. If all you do is shoot and have your film processed and printed at 4x6, with a cd that you maybe review online a bit, you might not be very critcal. It 'looks good' to you. So you think highly of your expensive pet pro lab and recommend it. But scan at 3200 bpi or higher, and try to crop and still be able to print at say 11x14, and suddenly what looked great printed 4x6 is not so hot anymore. Look at it 1:1 in PS or whatever, and shriek with dismay.

Maybe I'm a perfectionist. I didn't think so, but OK, whatever. I found through a LOT of trial and error (mostly error) that it did not matter what I paid, it did not matter what lab I used - if I got prints and scans, I got scratches - period - 100% of the time, always.

It was pure dumb luck that led me to ask if a one-hour place could just process, cut, and sleeve the negs. They did. I was shocked at home much less it cost, and even more shocked when I got the negs home and scanned them. What a difference.

I still have moments when I am thoroughly disgusted with my C41 negs even with processing only - the inattention to detail is obvious, with fingerprints, etc - the negs look like they were dragged through a mud puddle and then pulled behind a truck down a country road. It makes me furious. BUT - 90% or more of the time, my negs are nice and clean - so clean it makes scanning a joy instead of tedium.

My negs are cleanest when I DO THEM MYSELF - but I don't do my own C41, just my own B&W. This for me, confirms my belief - less handling equals less scratching. Having only processing done - no prints, no scanning - means less handling. One hour shop or pro lab does not seem to make a difference to my experience.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks