Good Film Scanner a replacement for poor jobs by photo labs?
Indiana Jones
Having been frustrated with the lack of control I have over my 35mm negative
prints (completely at the whims of the kid wal-mart photo lab hired), I am
looking for alternative solutions. (for example, I just got back prints i
shot of my son in gorgeous sunset lighting on kodak royal gold film, only to
have the lab overexpose the prints, washing out the color and blowing the
highlights). Being in a small town, and in canada (no mailaway labs here) I
dont really have the option of using a "pro" photo lab (and nor could i
probably afford it either).
Having considered shooting slide film, I am ultimately failed by the lack of
ease of getting prints made from slide, and the expense of prosumer grade
slide films.
I have a decent amount of experience using Photoshop, and love the curves,
levels, and ability to dodge and burn etc.
Considering that many photo labs have prints made from digital files (for
digital camera users), I wondered if a decent (500-750CDN budget) negative
scanner would be my ultimate solution. I could have my 35mm negative film
processed only, and then scan and color correct my own files, having them
printed by the photo lab.
One of the biggest possible failures to my idea (as i see it) would be if
the photo lab will take my digital files, and then arbitrarily adjust the
levels again before printing. If thats the case, I dont want to bother. What
i want is the ability to control my exposures, and to do corrections, not
leaving it to the whim of the photo lab. Can i get them to print it the way
i have it look on my monitor (or even close)?
The issue also made me wonder what serious digital SLR users do... are all
of your prints at the whim of the photo lab?
I have a Pentax Z-1 , and while I intend on getting the *ist-D in a few
years when its affordable, I am looking for more immediate solution to gain
more control over my prints withouth using slide film, or investing quite
yet in a digital slr.
What are your suggestions or experiences?
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Jeremy
StillMan
for the additional time it takes to do all of that scanning.
You should be able to have the printing done with no adjustments made by lab
personnel, just inform them that is how you want it done. If the lab has a
Fuji Aladdin hooked to their Frontier, it should print automatically without
adjustments from lab people.
I have printed many film scans this way, as well as many digital camera
files. The prints are wonderful as long as you are supplying good photos,
and the machine is properly maintained.
--
"Indiana Jones" <jar...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oFWVa.563493$3C2.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Chris Barnard
"Indiana Jones" <jar...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oFWVa.563493$3C2.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
negative
> prints (completely at the whims of the kid wal-mart photo lab hired), I am
> looking for alternative solutions. (for example, I just got back prints i
> shot of my son in gorgeous sunset lighting on kodak royal gold film, only
to
> have the lab overexpose the prints, washing out the color and blowing the
> highlights). Being in a small town, and in canada (no mailaway labs here)
I
> dont really have the option of using a "pro" photo lab (and nor could i
> probably afford it either).
Yeah, that sort of thing annoys me. It seems to be pretty common AFAIK.
> Considering that many photo labs have prints made from digital files (for
> digital camera users), I wondered if a decent (500-750CDN budget) negative
> scanner would be my ultimate solution. I could have my 35mm negative film
> processed only, and then scan and color correct my own files, having them
> printed by the photo lab.
You said you'd considered slide film. Why not use it if you're scanning?
> One of the biggest possible failures to my idea (as i see it) would be if
> the photo lab will take my digital files, and then arbitrarily adjust the
> levels again before printing. If thats the case, I dont want to bother.
What
> i want is the ability to control my exposures, and to do corrections, not
> leaving it to the whim of the photo lab. Can i get them to print it the
way
> i have it look on my monitor (or even close)?
Ask them. I don't see why not.
One of the things that would annoy me personally about this method is cost.
I tried to get some negs developed without getting prints, wanting to do a
similar thing. It didn't cost much more to get a set of 6x4 prints with the
developing and to get larger prints (like 5x7) wasn't much more than that. I
ended up getting the prints anyway, since to get reprints of individual negs
at a later date cost a stupid amount of money. Sorry, I can't remember the
exact prices now, but it kinda made me despair somewhat that I would have to
make at least two journeys to my photolab for one film, scanning and
colour-correcting in between (a time-consuming process) and having to pay
considerably more than just getting the prints in the first place.
I'm happy to pay more for good prints but it would seem to me like I'm doing
the work of the lab by scanning and colour-correcting myself. You'd be doing
the scan and colour-correction work for them! They should pay you!
I think I'd rather just try to find a good lab. I know that's difficult
because of your location, but aren't there any other labs you could try?
Maybe you could try speaking to them about the problems you're having with
the prints.
> I have a Pentax Z-1 , and while I intend on getting the *ist-D in a few
> years when its affordable, I am looking for more immediate solution to
gain
> more control over my prints withouth using slide film, or investing quite
> yet in a digital slr.
Do you know how much the *ist-D will cost in Canada yet? Last I heard, it's
not out yet and it will be quite low-cost in DSLR terms. I'm certain it
would still be more than a really good film scanner, but perhaps it won't be
as much as you might think.
Be aware, though, that the *ist-D is a 6.1 megapixel camera. I kinda wish it
was going to be an 11+ mp camera with a 35mm full-frame sensor. Pentax seem
to be falling behind in the digital race.
Chris.
Mxsmanic
> Considering that many photo labs have prints made from digital files (for
> digital camera users), I wondered if a decent (500-750CDN budget) negative
> scanner would be my ultimate solution. I could have my 35mm negative film
> processed only, and then scan and color correct my own files, having them
> printed by the photo lab.
That's how I do it, and it works great.
> One of the biggest possible failures to my idea (as i see it) would be if
> the photo lab will take my digital files, and then arbitrarily adjust the
> levels again before printing. If thats the case, I dont want to bother. What
> i want is the ability to control my exposures, and to do corrections, not
> leaving it to the whim of the photo lab. Can i get them to print it the way
> i have it look on my monitor (or even close)?
Tell them not to correct when they print. Most labs can at least
understand that much.
> What are your suggestions or experiences?
I shoot film, have a lab develop just the film (no prints), scan the
film, then take my digital files back to the lab for the prints. The
results I get on paper are practically identical to what I see on the
screen. You need a lab using digital equipment (like a Fuji Frontier)
to get this kind of result, though.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> If the lab has a Fuji Aladdin hooked to their Frontier ...
What is a Fuji Aladdin?
DL
I posted a rant after getting back another poor set of prints here:
http://home.houston.rr.com/dtlocke/clouds-thru-scope.htm
It shows the print scan vs. a negative scan.
I generally shoot slides now, scan the good ones, and print them on my photo
printer. If you need to make a lot of prints of a lot of frames, you'll want to
consider alternatives as others have suggested.
Minolta makes a good, inexpensive film scanner if money is tight.
-DL
>Hi
>
>Having been frustrated with the lack of control I have over my 35mm negative
>prints (completely at the whims of the kid wal-mart photo lab hired), I am
>looking for alternative solutions. (for example, I just got back prints i
>shot of my son in gorgeous sunset lighting on kodak royal gold film, only to
>have the lab overexpose the prints, washing out the color and blowing the
>highlights). Being in a small town, and in canada (no mailaway labs here) I
>dont really have the option of using a "pro" photo lab (and nor could i
>probably afford it either).
>
>Having considered shooting slide film, I am ultimately failed by the lack of
>ease of getting prints made from slide, and the expense of prosumer grade
>slide films.
...
McLeod
two very professional wedding/portrait labs that operate by
mail...Lifetouch/Winnipeg Photo which handles a lot of the school
portrait/Lifetouch portrait/supermarket envelope drops in Western Canada and
in Ontario I have used Sylvano, which has operated by mail for over 30 years
that I'm aware of and has a great reputation. In fact, most of the
professional portrait/wedding/professional labs operate by mail.
"Indiana Jones" <jar...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oFWVa.563493$3C2.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
McLeod
is what looks great on your monitor may just blow chunks on another. Unless
you are using some sort of colour management, or have standardized ICC
profiles to work with, you may also have problems with your print colours
when you take them to another printer. The Mac guys laugh at ICC profiles
but it's what allows Windows to use any monitor or printer and other devices
that use colour profiles.
"Indiana Jones" <jar...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oFWVa.563493$3C2.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Jim
this is an afforadable way to go. But, unless you're only scanning
and printing the few 'keepers' it can very quickly tunr into a time
black hole. Between preping the film/slides, scanning, PS tweaking,
saving and printing it can approch a half an hour per print.
Jim
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
* Check-out my web site at: http://SwensonStudio.com *
* landscape and travel photographs, featuring gorgeous sunsets *
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
"Indiana Jones" <jar...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<oFWVa.563493$3C2.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
StillMan
readers, and simple image editing for self-service access to the Frontier.
--
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pokgivs2a465g5ebb...@4ax.com...
William D. Tallman
> Hi
>
> Having been frustrated with the lack of control I have over my 35mm
> negative prints (completely at the whims of the kid wal-mart photo lab
> hired), I am looking for alternative solutions. (for example, I just got
<snip>
I believe that most prints from negatives are scanned and printed from those
files. Can you do this better than those guys? Yep, probably with one
hand tied behind your back.... <grin> All you need is your film developed
and returned to you for further processing; an index sheet is handy. I pay
$3US per roll of all sizes.
> Having considered shooting slide film, I am ultimately failed by the lack
> of ease of getting prints made from slide, and the expense of prosumer
> grade slide films.
Me too!! BHPhoto's got 135-36 Kodak Elite Chrome 100 for $2.65US. For me,
that's barely affordable at the rate I burn film, and nothing from Fuji
comes anywhere close. I pay well under $2US and buy in lots, as I suspect
many here do. Is the difference in the quality of prints between those
made from negs and those made from slides worth the extra expense? Not as
far as I'm concerned.
> I have a decent amount of experience using Photoshop, and love the curves,
> levels, and ability to dodge and burn etc.
>
> Considering that many photo labs have prints made from digital files (for
> digital camera users), I wondered if a decent (500-750CDN budget) negative
> scanner would be my ultimate solution. I could have my 35mm negative film
> processed only, and then scan and color correct my own files, having them
> printed by the photo lab.
Why have them printed elsewhere. Printers are relatively inexpensive up to
8x10 and even the top of the line (Epson 2200) is $700US. You've got the
computer and software, do the printing yourself.
> One of the biggest possible failures to my idea (as i see it) would be if
> the photo lab will take my digital files, and then arbitrarily adjust the
> levels again before printing. If thats the case, I dont want to bother.
> What i want is the ability to control my exposures, and to do corrections,
> not leaving it to the whim of the photo lab. Can i get them to print it
> the way i have it look on my monitor (or even close)?
You need full control of the process from the point where developed film is
returned to you. Hence: scanner and printer. End of pain and suffering
at the hands of ignorant gum-chewing teeny-bopper operators.
> The issue also made me wonder what serious digital SLR users do... are all
> of your prints at the whim of the photo lab?
I suspect almost all serious digital users have their own printers. (Guess
I've gotten the printer message across here.... LOL!!!!!)
> I have a Pentax Z-1 , and while I intend on getting the *ist-D in a few
> years when its affordable, I am looking for more immediate solution to
> gain more control over my prints withouth using slide film, or investing
> quite yet in a digital slr.
Wait on the digital body. It won't be that long before the bottleneck with
sensor array affordability is broken, and what one pays Canon $8KUS for at
present, will be much more widely and inexpensively available.
What connects the scanner and printer is the resolution of the print.
General agreement is that 300dpi on a good photoprinter will yield a print
almost indistinguishable from an optical print. For the 35mm negative, a
scan of 2400dpi (8 x 300) will yield enough information for an 8X10. For a
13 x 19 print, you'll need 3900dpi, available from a scanner that produces
4000dpi. Figure your prices from there. You'll find that the price point
for size is 8x10. You should be able to get both a dedicated film scanner
for 35mm and a decent photo printer for somewhere near your stated price
range. Larger than that gets several times more expensive.
Caveat: do not get a flatbed scanner if all you are using is 35mm. That
piece of glass that supports the film holders is between the film and
sensors, and it is most definitely *not* optical glass. I've heard
estimates of 1500 to 2000 dpi effective resolution as all one can expect
from the flatbed scanner. I've got one. I also shoot 4x5, which is served
quite nicely by 1200dpi scans.
Short story? Keep your camera and think seriously about how large you want
to print. Put your money there for the moment. Is your gear good enough
to produce acceptable 11x14? Do you consistently want to print that large?
Your decision probably hinges on this issue. I imagine it is common to
choose the 8x10 limitation, and then upgrade at some point down the line.
Larger prints, however, imply larger formats, at least for affordable
equipment, which suggests that 8x10 might be appropriate. You decide.
In any case, having both scanner and printer liberates you from the whim of
the gum-chewing teeny-bopper who cares only about quitting time and
paycheck. For me, even though my lab has really good people, doing it my
own way is important. How about you?
Good luck!
Bill Tallman
Alan Browne
Indiana Jones wrote:
> Hi
>
> Having been frustrated with the lack of control I have over my 35mm negative
> prints (completely at the whims of the kid wal-mart photo lab hired), I am
> looking for alternative solutions. (for example, I just got back prints i
> shot of my son in gorgeous sunset lighting on kodak royal gold film, only to
> have the lab overexpose the prints, washing out the color and blowing the
> highlights). Being in a small town, and in canada (no mailaway labs here) I
> dont really have the option of using a "pro" photo lab (and nor could i
> probably afford it either).
"pro" lab photo processing is done mainly on mini-labs these days and
hardly more expensive than a local store (with the exception of places
like Wal Mart).
>
> Having considered shooting slide film, I am ultimately failed by the lack of
> ease of getting prints made from slide, and the expense of prosumer grade
> slide films.
"prosumer"? It's either consumer or pro. And anyone can buy pro stock.
>
> I have a decent amount of experience using Photoshop, and love the curves,
> levels, and ability to dodge and burn etc.
>
> Considering that many photo labs have prints made from digital files (for
> digital camera users), I wondered if a decent (500-750CDN budget) negative
> scanner would be my ultimate solution. I could have my 35mm negative film
> processed only, and then scan and color correct my own files, having them
> printed by the photo lab.
Scanners handle most negatives well, occasionally you spend a lot of
time trying to get the curves right. Frustrating as hell.
You could consider also slides and a scanner. In this case, however,
get a scanner with a pretty good Dmax (14 or 16 bit). Slides scan very
well, except the dark portions are tough even with the best scanners.
With the slide on your light table you will know precisely what the
original captured image is...
>
> One of the biggest possible failures to my idea (as i see it) would be if
> the photo lab will take my digital files, and then arbitrarily adjust the
> levels again before printing. If thats the case, I dont want to bother. What
> i want is the ability to control my exposures, and to do corrections, not
> leaving it to the whim of the photo lab. Can i get them to print it the way
> i have it look on my monitor (or even close)?
Yes. Just instruct them. Also find out what their printer dpi is so
that you can match your photoshop work precisely to their printer.
>
> The issue also made me wonder what serious digital SLR users do... are all
> of your prints at the whim of the photo lab?
Yes and no. If I give no instructions, they do as they please. But
(where I go) the photo lab is run by a pro-photog and she trains her
techs (2 currently) one of whom is in photography as her college major.
When shooting tests I tell them "0 correction" and I get 0 corrected prints.
>
> I have a Pentax Z-1 , and while I intend on getting the *ist-D in a few
> years when its affordable, I am looking for more immediate solution to gain
> more control over my prints withouth using slide film, or investing quite
> yet in a digital slr.
Good idea. Some have leapt at digital (and done very well) and some are
waiting for another few years of evolution. Whatever you do, the future
will always have more bang/$.
>
> What are your suggestions or experiences?
Stop worrying.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
Jim wrote:
> With the lower cost of film and even lower cost of inkjet printers
> this is an afforadable way to go. But, unless you're only scanning
> and printing the few 'keepers' it can very quickly tunr into a time
> black hole. Between preping the film/slides, scanning, PS tweaking,
> saving and printing it can approch a half an hour per print.
>
> Jim
>
Exactly. I mentioned this at a club meeting and there were howls of
protest. "No way, 5 minutes, tops!" they said. Months later you could
hear one of the same fellows saying, "yeah, took half an hour to do that
right."
Cheers,
Alan
Philip Homburg
A quick and dirty scan that is more a reminder of what is on the
frame can be done in (on avarage) 5 minutes.
Work that is good enough to show to others takes longer. But in some sense
that is good, because it forces you to show just a couple of great pictures
instead of the entire set.
Philip Homburg