Topic: Photo processors

[DaveO]

     I am about to send my Ektar 100 film out for processing. I have narrowed it down to NCPS ( $ 31 ), The Photo Place ( $ 23 ), and Dwaynes ( $ 15 ). Since this is my first roll through my new to me Rollei 35S with 40mm Sonnar lens, is it worth spending twice as much at NCPS ( with the middle grade scan ) for better results. The scan at The Photo Place is the middle grade also, Dwaynes only list the one grade for $ 2.99. The NCPS mid grade scan is 3339x5035 pixels ( 48 mb ) for $ 11.99 and the Photo Place mid
scan just says 7x10 @ 300 dpi ( does that end up 2100x3000? ) for $ 8.00. What should I do?

DaveO

[original_ann]

Dave, I don't have a lab scan but sounds like it can get pricey.  Have you thought about opting for low end scans just for review and then resubmitting for high end scans only those images that you think you'd actually need?

[DaveO]

     I could save about $ 6.50 by going with the low end scan. I don't seem to be able to enlarge the scans I have on the computer. I tried CNTRL +, but that doesn't seem to work. Do you know if there is a way to enlarge the image. If there is no way, I don't need the mid sized scan. The low end scans I have are around 4mb.

DaveO

[DaveO]

     I found the way to enlarge the scans to see more detail and where it falls apart. You bring up the image and right click on the mouse and select edit and it enlarges it somewhat, then on the bottom right side there is a slide button where you can enlarge it a lot. Maybe the mid range scan would be worth it one time to see what this camera can do. I think the mid scan is 45mb which is 10x as many pixels as the low scan.

DaveO

[DaveO]

Dave, I don't have a lab scan but sounds like it can get pricey.  Have you thought about opting for low end scans just for review and then resubmitting for high end scans only those images that you think you'd actually need?

     If I did no scan at all and returned the cut negatives to NCPS, I believe each negative scan is $ 2.50, which adds up fast.  I went ahead and sent the film to NCPS and ordered the mid scan, since this is the first roll through this camera. I had a slide film scan done awhile ago and the low end was around 4mb +-  I believe the low end scan is listed as 15mb, but that is now what my computer says, unless they are re-sized when downloaded. I will probably not go with this expensive route the next time, just the first.

DaveO

[seekingfocus]

I had a slide film scan done awhile ago and the low end was around 4mb +-  I believe the low end scan is listed as 15mb, but that is now what my computer says, unless they are re-sized when downloaded.

That's probably 15mb uncompressed. When they are saved as JPGs, they are compressed (lossy) which reduces the file size for transfer and storage. When you open the file in photoshop, in the lower left corner you should see the uncompressed size, which will be much larger than the actual size on disk. If you re-save the file as a TIF (just for sake of an example) the file size would be more or less the same as the uncompressed size in photoshop.

Scanning 35mm, I usually shoot for an uncompressed size of around 36-48mb, as that seems to be a good balance of file size, and capturing all the details possible from the negs (depending on correct exposure and film grain, etc.) so your 45mb scans should be a good place to start!

-Jason

[Late Developer]

Let's face it, film isn't cheap these days and processing (although not megabucks) can be variable to say the least. As I can neither make film not process it (just yet) I have no option other than to pay for these privileges. However, my experience of having a lab scan my negs was not a happy one.

The better labs quote prices way higher than I'm prepared to pay to scan individual negs to an acceptable size and in TIFF format. "High Street" labs tend to offer batch scans at low / medium resolution and in JPEG format. The latter is, IMO, false economy as they lose a lot of detail, tend to over sharpen images and set contrast too high.

If you use a lot of film on a regular basis, it is worth considering buying a decent scanner. There are a number of good 35mm scanners out there or, if you use MF / LF film, an Epson V700 / V750 can make a good purchase. I have the V750 and it's more than paid for itself given the amount of film I use (waste) and I get to scan and re-scan until I get the end result I'm after.

[Francois]

Scanning 35mm, I usually shoot for an uncompressed size of around 36-48mb, as that seems to be a good balance of file size, and capturing all the details possible from the negs (depending on correct exposure and film grain, etc.) so your 45mb scans should be a good place to start!

You mean I've been overdoing it with my 145mb 16 bit uncompressed files? 

[seekingfocus]

You mean I've been overdoing it with my 145mb 16 bit uncompressed files? 

145mb at 16 bit is only 72.5mb at 8 bit.

I'd say it's just a tad overboard (for 35mm) but really it's simply a matter of preference. Once they are scanned they can always be sized down, but can't be sized up (at least not well). So if you have the space to store them, and feel like you are getting details that you don't get with a smaller size, then by all means continue! Also, some people don't need to make large prints in which case smaller sizes are more than acceptable. A 24mb file is roughly equivalent to 8x10 @ 300dpi.

My general workflow is to scan at 16-bit, touch up and spot in photoshop, size down as appropriate for sharpness, then save as 8-bit TIF. You won't lose anything saving as 8-bit, so there's no reason to keep the bulky 16-bit files around.

-Jason

[Francois]

Well, I sometimes wonder if "wall sized resolution" is a tad overkill