Quality of negatives for scanning

Hi all,
We wanted to get our 35mm film developed and scanned. Our local photo
lab or Walmart type place can only produce scanned images good enough
to print a 4x6 at best, they're tiny (<100K) jpeg files.
I have just found that I have access to a negative scanner at work and
was thinking of trying that out.
Does anyone know if it would make a difference where the negatives are
produced? ie. a walmart type place uses a seemingly standard
processing machine, they feed the roll in one side and a set of
negatives and pictures comes out the other (or atleast seems that way).
Would it make a different to me in scanning the negatives if I could
the film developed at a Walmart/Kroger or at Joe's Professional Film
Lab? Or is it the type of film that would really make a difference
when scanning the negatives in?
Thanks,
Kevin

Kebuchan@yahoo.com

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

When we had a pro lab (they closed shop) I would drop off the film and
ask to have it cut and sleeved 6 frame per strip. This was nice
because it matches the film holder for my scanner. The lab was pretty
much a one man operation and so when you dropped off your film you were
talking to the guy who was going to process the film.
Scott


Scott W

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

I always ask for develop and sleeve or write "dev and cut - no prints"
on the special instructions if there's no clerk there. I haven't had a
trouble yet.
That's from the two "good" labs in my area but also at CVS (the good
labs aren't open on sundays.)
Take care,
James


Desdinova

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:19:48 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:
Then the people processing your film were jackasses. ;-)
I looked for (and found) a lab that had "process-only" listed on their
price sheet, not as a special service. I requested, and got,
processed film that was uncut, and they hand it over in continuous
sleeving. Flawless, every time.
Now, a drugstore or discount outlet, I'd never try it.
Of course, these days I do all my own film.
--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net


Rob Novak

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

In article <8s9dk29r15q7i5llcnvjud8nmt3pjkia3e@4ax.com>,
I have enough spots on walls where you can't easily get any closer than
say one meter. So large prints even from 35mm work very well.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


Philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:55:47 -0800, "William Graham"
Oh, yeah, but what a massive time-killer.
And all because of the *&%$#@ sloppy labs.
When I finally acquired a scanner with dICE
(in 2001) a lot of that aggravation went away.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


Raphael Bustin

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

Thing is, what with making big prints and seeing
That's what Adobe Photoshop is for......You can clean all that stuff up
before you print it......


William Graham

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

Your experience is not uncommon, I'd wager.
I remember being amazed by my first film scanner,
and the prints I could make on my very first inkjet
printer, an Epson 600, in 1998 or so.
Thing is, what with making big prints and seeing
all the detail in the film -- I also saw all the flaws --
the dust, scratches, spots, crinkles, chemical
stains, etc. Not to mention artifacts induced
by the scanner. Argh what a mess.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


Raphael Bustin

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:21:30 +0100, philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)
wrote:
I can't say owning a large-format printer makes
sense for most people <G.> I enjoy having the
ability to make big prints from time to time, but
most of these end up sitting in a heap on a table
and shown sporadically to unwitting guests.
A big print made from a LF scan (or MF in a pinch)
can be really stunning.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


Raphael Bustin

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

Um....you do know that this thread is about scanning 35mm film and
printing from those scans and as such does not have anything to do with
digital cameras?
And for that matter it was just about scanning and them drifted to
printing.
Scott


Scott W

Re: Quality of negatives for scanning

On 2006-10-30 21:10:52 +0000, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> said:
Perhaps. Unfortunately the world is ruled by numbers and quality isn't
often measurable as such.
At the end of the day photography is about making good pictures using a
camera and that can be done no matter what electronic "assistance" you
have to fight with or whatever recording medium you use.
To give us all hope I have noticed that there are ore and more CDs
released that have only 12 songs on them instead of 18. Perhaps the
world is waking up to the idea that bigger numbers aren't the sum total
of live's ambition; that perhaps the LP was developed to hold about 12
songs BECAUSE THAT WAS THE RIGHT AMOUNT. And maybe that making pictures
using a camera is about understanding the constraints of the frame and
the limitations of recording light patterns in a world that contains
such contrast, etc.
I think it's great that photography as a hobby has such a high profile
at present. It is great that there are more and more people put there
making pictures and learning what a picture IS. In due course something
else will take over and all those D70s and EOS 350s will be put up in
the loft to make way for the next generation video camera or CB radio.
What will be left will be the cream of the crop and photography as an
art form can only gain from that.
As much as I stick to using a manual focus film camera, I know that
digital capture is the way forward. I will switch when the right
combination of: my film camera dying; there being no viable way of
processing film; digital capture using a manual focus camera becomes
affordable; the picture quality, particularly the quality of digital
noise, and dynamic range, of digital actually matches or surpasses good
film; I can afford to.
I think that is the only rational argument.
--
invalid = com


Richard Polhill

Content - Quality of negatives for scanning
Found 29 post(s). Page 1 of 3
| 1 | 2 | 3 |










 
Av Cart With Wheels - Tae Kwon Do Sparring Gear - Uterum - Makeityourring Diamond Engagement Rings - Hundefutter
Photoshop questions